"Evil"

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Psychologist Albert Ellis makes a similar claim, in his school of psychology called Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy or REBT. He says the root of anger, and the desire to harm someone, is almost always one of these beliefs:

1. That they should/shouldn't have done certain things
2. That someone is an awful/bad/horrible person for doing what they did
3. That they deserve to be punished for what they did

Marshall Rosenberg

He links the concept of evil to our judicial system, which seeks to create justice via punishment — "punitive justice" — punishing acts that are seen as bad or wrong. He contrasts this approach with what he found in cultures where the idea of evil was non-existent. In such cultures, when someone harms another person, they are believed to be out of harmony with themselves and their community, they are seen as sick or ill and measures are taken to restore them to a sense of harmonious relations with themselves and others, as opposed to punishing them.





What do you think?

Is vengeance evil, then? What is evil?

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Psychologist Albert Ellis makes a similar claim, in his school of psychology called Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy or REBT. He says the root of anger, and the desire to harm someone, is almost always one of these beliefs:

1. That they should/shouldn't have done certain things
2. That someone is an awful/bad/horrible person for doing what they did
3. That they deserve to be punished for what they did

Marshall Rosenberg

He links the concept of evil to our judicial system, which seeks to create justice via punishment — "punitive justice" — punishing acts that are seen as bad or wrong. He contrasts this approach with what he found in cultures where the idea of evil was non-existent. In such cultures, when someone harms another person, they are believed to be out of harmony with themselves and their community, they are seen as sick or ill and measures are taken to restore them to a sense of harmonious relations with themselves and others, as opposed to punishing them.





What do you think?

Is vengeance evil, then? What is evil?

I think that "evil" is indeed a cultural artifact but I'm skeptical of the assertion that there are cultures without it. I know of several where the notion of "evil" isn't anywhere near so prevalent or powerful as it is in ours but it's a distinction of degree, not kind.

Speaking only for myself, I was raised with the idea that vengeance is always evil. It may be understandable but it is never just. I still believe that.

The author got it right, I think: it's really all about anger and how we deal with it. The more angry a perceived wrong makes us the more likely we are to label it "evil."

 

[evince]

Vengence is just a waste of time in my mind.

Its funny in a christian society where "vengence is mine sayth the lord" is a big part of their religion that so many cant figure it out.

I wish we could have a little more insight in this coutry but Im affraid that time is not coming any time soon.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I think that "evil" is indeed a cultural artifact but I'm skeptical of the assertion that there are cultures without it. I know of several where the notion of "evil" isn't anywhere near so prevalent or powerful as it is in ours but it's a distinction of degree, not kind.

Speaking only for myself, I was raised with the idea that vengeance is always evil. It may be understandable but it is never just. I still believe that.

The author got it right, I think: it's really all about anger and how we deal with it. The more angry a perceived wrong makes us the more likely we are to label it "evil."

Maybe those "evil" acts were also done as a response to something that person considered "evil"?

It's a big cycle.

 

[uscitizen]

I think it shows that most psychologists need psychologists.

 

[Thorn]

I think that the author's perspective, if it is limited to what you posted, is far too simplistic. It appears to be describing vengeance, not evil.

Evil is not necessarily (or at all?) an essentially reactive state, in response to something someone else has done. What I perceive as "evil" exists more as a total self interest, entirely manipulative and with utter disregard for the consequences to anyone or anything else. In professional terms these people are called psychopaths. The origin is not identified or understood and there is no effective treatment.

The three criteria mentioned are all reactive and appear to deal with some punitive action, rationalized as the appropriate response to an already performed action by a third party. That would constitute an attempt at justification for vengeance, but would not in itself be evil.

 

[TheDanold]

I think that "evil" is indeed a cultural artifact but I'm skeptical of the assertion that there are cultures without it. I know of several where the notion of "evil" isn't anywhere near so prevalent or powerful as it is in ours but it's a distinction of degree, not kind.

Speaking only for myself, I was raised with the idea that vengeance is always evil. It may be understandable but it is never just. I still believe that.

The author got it right, I think: it's really all about anger and how we deal with it. The more angry a perceived wrong makes us the more likely we are to label it "evil."

Vengeance is always evil?
So by those warped values, a guy who goes after the guy who raped his daughter is evil? It is understandable, it is good and it is just. It is only not just in the context of "society" having the collective responsibility of punishment.

I understand the view that if everyone did that, then order would decay but to call that evil? You are one fucked up SOB.

I would say that the closest thing to evil is when you use force to make one citizen benefit at the expense of another and if you really do believe what you wrote about vengeance and reprisals you should at least agree with that part.

"See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals." – Frédéric Bastiat

 

[Timshel]

Our legal system should be primarily focused on restoration or compensation of the victim. Not punishment or restoration of the criminal.

Rosenbergs's claims sound like bunch of horseshit. He is simply replacing the word evil with some nonsense about a lack of harmony.

 

[Battleborne]

OMG such elitist BS...case in example if a person broke into your home,raped and pillaged your family would you be satisfied with government compensation or justice by execution of the person or persons who caused you pain...Psych 101...in the college sense... is pure unadulerated BS! Get real folks enough of this 'Kumbia' crap!

 

[Timshel]

OMG such elitist BS...case in example if a person broke into your home,raped and pillaged your family would you be satisfied with government compensation or justice by execution of the person or persons who caused you pain...Psych 101...in the college sense... is pure unadulerated BS! Get real folks enough of this 'Kumbia' crap!

I am not sure you understand the point very well, since you mention "government compensation." I am not arguing that the state should finance the compensation of victims. Of course, there are certain crimes for which the victim cannot be restored and often the criminal has little ability to compensate the victim. These problems, while not completely unsolvable, is why I qualified with the word "primary."

Our current system pretends that the state is the victim and therefore just in exacting compensation and vengeance for itself.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Vengeance is always evil?
So by those warped values, a guy who goes after the guy who raped his daughter is evil? It is understandable, it is good and it is just. It is only not just in the context of "society" having the collective responsibility of punishment.

I understand the view that if everyone did that, then order would decay but to call that evil? You are one fucked up SOB.

I would say that the closest thing to evil is when you use force to make one citizen benefit at the expense of another and if you really do believe what you wrote about vengeance and reprisals you should at least agree with that part.

"See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals." – Frédéric Bastiat

No, Weedstumbler, the guy who goes after his daughter's alleged rapist is not necessarily evil. If he shoots the alleged rapist he has done an evil thing, however. He will have to face legal justice.

Good people do bad things all the time. And vice verse, of course. That's the trouble with dimwit cons who insist on dividing the world into good people and bad people. It's a childish sort of conception.

The only really valid use for a correctional justice system is rehabilitation.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Our legal system should be primarily focused on restoration or compensation of the victim. Not punishment or restoration of the criminal.

Rosenbergs's claims sound like bunch of horseshit. He is simply replacing the word evil with some nonsense about a lack of harmony.

There are random acts of violence, there is vengeance. There isn't really "Evil". By Dano's definition, Osama Bin Ladin is the holiest person in the world, because he believed what he was doing was vengeance for his people.

Most societies practiced resotorative, between individual punishment early on. I think it was around the 10th century that fascists took over and crime was viewed as a crime against the state, rather than against the individual it was performed against.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Vengeance is always evil?

Yes.

So by those warped values, a guy who goes after the guy who raped his daughter is evil?

No one has a personal right to "go after" someone. Society may have special laws set out to discourage certain actions, that's OK.

It is understandable, it is good and it is just.

It's understandable.

It certainly is good. It's never good to kill a harmless person whenever other alternatives would do.

It is only not just in the context of "society" having the collective responsibility of punishment.

The crime was not against the father. I could understand restorative justice towards the daughter.

I understand the view that if everyone did that, then order would decay but to call that evil? You are one fucked up SOB.

Socarates once said the only evil is ignorance, Dano.

I would say that the closest thing to evil is when you use force to make one citizen benefit at the expense of another and if you really do believe what you wrote about vengeance and reprisals you should at least agree with that part.

Everything the government does makes one citizen benefit at the expense of another. It is impossible to run a government otherwise. Hell, even a criminal justice system does that, Dano.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

No, Weedstumbler, the guy who goes after his daughter's alleged rapist is not necessarily evil. If he shoots the alleged rapist he has done an evil thing, however. He will have to face legal justice.

Good people do bad things all the time. And vice verse, of course. That's the trouble with dimwit cons who insist on dividing the world into good people and bad people. It's a childish sort of conception.

The only really valid use for a correctional justice system is rehabilitation.

The word "evil" is not useful and distorts things in just about any context, IMHO.

 

[Battleborne]

I am not sure you understand the point very well, since you mention "government compensation." I am not arguing that the state should finance the compensation of victims. Of course, there are certain crimes for which the victim cannot be restored and often the criminal has little ability to compensate the victim. These problems, while not completely unsolvable, is why I qualified with the word "primary."

Our current system pretends that the state is the victim and therefore just in exacting compensation and vengeance for itself.

And so it should be...the state does not pretend to be the victim...it is also 'the victim'...we elect people to represent us as a whole...we form local,state and federal governments to enact laws and enforce such laws!

I understand exactly what it is you are saying you want the government to compensate and focus on the individual victim rather than the society as a whole...we do not live in a 'utopia' world where individuals act on and help their neighbor one on one...we need government intervention on our behalf in order to function as a society!
As for the comment about more focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment I say ba humbug...most repeat criminals prefer the prison system to the outer world as they are fed,entertained get great medical benefits,education etc...when released they get bored and hungry and committ crimes again so they can go home again...I say make it miserable so they do not want to go back and stop committing crimes...imho!

 

[Cancel5]

Sad fact isn't it. The way we are at present, not all people can be trusted to do the right thing.

Our prison system has way too many people in there that should be fulfilling their time to society in other ways. I think work farms or something similar aren't a bad thing, as long as they are treated like the hired help and not like slaves.
I do think that when they are in prison that they should be taught to read.
I think most Americans would be shocked to find how many can't.

 

[Timshel]

There are random acts of violence, there is vengeance. There isn't really "Evil". By Dano's definition, Osama Bin Ladin is the holiest person in the world, because he believed what he was doing was vengeance for his people.

Most societies practiced resotorative, between individual punishment early on. I think it was around the 10th century that fascists took over and crime was viewed as a crime against the state, rather than against the individual it was performed against.

Exactly, (though I think it may have been a little later than that) and this is the problem with state justice systems. Crime are committed against individuals, not the state.

 

[Timshel]

[/B]

And so it should be...the state does not pretend to be the victim...it is also 'the victim'...

No, it assumes the role as victim. Criminal cases are the state against the defnedant. In many cases a victim can not choose to not to prosecute. That is because crime is viewed as a crime against the state.

I understand exactly what it is you are saying you want the government to compensate and focus on the individual victim rather than the society as a whole...

No, I clearly stated that the criminal (not the state) should compensate the victim.

we do not live in a 'utopia' world where individuals act on and help their neighbor one on one...we need government intervention on our behalf in order to function as a society!

We do not live in a utopia, where people are infallible. So how does that justify a state, comprised of the fallible?

As for the comment about more focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment I say ba humbug...most repeat criminals prefer the prison system to the outer world as they are fed,entertained get great medical benefits,education etc...when released they get bored and hungry and committ crimes again so they can go home again...I say make it miserable so they do not want to go back and stop committing crimes...imho!

I did not say anything supportive of rehabilitation for the criminal. Previously, I explicitly it should not be the focus of the justice system.

However, jail/prison sucks. Some people are better able to cope there, not because it is a paradise, but because they have not learned to cope on the outside. If you gave a damn, you'd commit yourself to helping them learn life skills (I am not advocating that the state fill this role). Locking them away in a dungeon will not make them better able to cope on the outside.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Sad fact isn't it. The way we are at present, not all people can be trusted to do the right thing.

Our prison system has way too many people in there that should be fulfilling their time to society in other ways. I think work farms or something similar aren't a bad thing, as long as they are treated like the hired help and not like slaves.
I do think that when they are in prison that they should be taught to read.
I think most Americans would be shocked to find how many can't.

Teach them to read and people like BB will complain about how you're being SO very good to them.

 

[Battleborne]

Oh give me a break.........

Teach them to read and all will be better...Good Lord you are the same people bragging about Liberal education being so great...Did they fall thru your proverbial cracks?And I really do not buy into your stating that all or most in prison are there because they could not read...a very weak argument!


What about the scores of 'Legal Immigrants' who enter our country and learn to read all on their own...even those who are slower in reading comprehension seem to make a life without crime...The same cannot be said of 'Illegal Immigrants' which make up a vast proportion of the US prison system...


Also some very highly educated persons in the prison system are charged with horrendous crimes against the people!

Nice try Kumbia guys!