Re: Thoughts on Evil (Prince Trippy)                          04/06/23
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prince  Trippy (I  believe it  is, but  we'll call  him PT  for short)
recently recorded some  "Thoughts on Evil"[1]. Somehow,  he managed to
end  each paragraph  perfectly justified,  with no  text hanging,  and
every period at the  full margin width. I don't know  if this was done
on purpose, or if  it had anything to do with  the subject matter, but
it did stand out to me.

I  really  like reading  on  verisimilitudes,  and  not just  for  the
wonderful formatting.

Before  replying with  my chatter,  I'll point  out something  that PT
neglected, which is the definition of the word Evil. The Collaborative
International  Dictionary of  English gives  this primary  definition:
"Anything which impairs  the happiness of a being or  deprives a being
of any good;  anything which causes suffering of any  kind to sentient
beings; injury;  mischief; harm;  -- opposed  to {good}."  This glazes
over a full moral definition, which should include accountability as a
qualifier, but it works for the items that PT seems to have addressed.

While it would  take far more than  a single gopher post  (or a single
author!) to  completely cover the  philosophical subject of  evil, one
might cover thoughts on evil in as few or as many words as one wishes.
PT touched on these at least:

1. The differences between man and beast. In terms of raw suffering, I
think PT  had a  reasonable point.  Animals as  a group  torment other
animals en masse and in perpetuity  (if selectively in some cases), as
a matter of course in their  existence. PT asserts that "civilized man
has  grown to  cease with  torture and  to reduce  suffering". If  you
exclude the insane (using perhaps a collective / average definition of
sanity  spanning  the  last  hundred  years)  from  the  group  called
"civilized  man",  then you  have  a  strong  case. The  outliers  and
exceptions are  so few that  any reasonable person would  exclude them
automatically (even if  the News and Propagandists make  these few out
to be more than they are in truth).

On the topic of empathy in animals, the question has been addressed by
many over the years. We look  for shared traits in our animal friends,
and  we find  some  few examples.  PT's simple  claim  was that  "many
animals lack [empathy]", and that  seems perfectly  reasonable on  the
surface. His  larger claim  that this  lack of  empathy is  what makes
animals more  evil than men is  something I take exception  with; but,
only because my  mind wanders to the moral and  religious questions of
evil without accountability. In terms of suffering only, perhaps he is
right.  If you  look  at accountability  differences  between man  and
beast, I feel the question is  more blurry (animals being, in my view,
unaccountable or innocent by nature, in spite of their tendencies).

Briefly, this bit: "Regardless, from man's view, reality is his, as it
should be. I choose to see  most livestock as biological machines, who
exist for man's use, and for no other particular reasons." Seems to me
a justification for  eating animals to one's heart's  content. I enjoy
meat, I won't lie. And religiously,  I'm inclined to side with PT here
(in  that animals  are  here  for our  use).  However,  the view  that
livestock  are  biological  machines  and nothing  else  seems  a  bit
overdone. There are a great  many realities connected to the existence
of animals, in  the balance of our planet's  continuance. Viewing them
in a purely exploitative framework may be dangerous; and evil, in that
it could certainly  contribute to evil in the form  of suffering, even
and especially to future humans and present animals. A safer viewpoint
might be one where we view animals as a stewardship.

2. Flavors  of men.  PT creates  two classes of  evil men,  lesser and
greater. The  lesser, more base  version being  the man who  cannot or
will  not  deny  their  animal  tendencies, and  who  seek  their  own
gratification  at  the expense  of  others,  demonstrating a  lack  of
empathy. The greater being the  intelligent men who subject all within
their power to whatever selfish designs they may have.

For my part, I view all mankind as falling first into the lesser evil 
class, by their very nature. At  least to some degree or variance, at 
some point in their lives. We all must face the natural animal nature 
within us, and decide (if we're blessed with that faculty) whether we 
will contain it or let it run free.                                   

Perhaps at  some point, a man  may become stuck in  this "lesser evil"
for lack of  will or education, carrying on  in animalistic tendencies
with or  without understanding.  To exit, would  one abandon  evil and
master self, entering the realm of "good"; otherwise, embrace evil and
enter the realm of "greater evil"? Seems about right I suppose.

3. Higher forms of evil. Here's where things got really interesting in
PT's post.  The machinations of  evil people  are worthy of  study, as
they tend  to have a very  wide impact. PT spoke  to the weaponization
and  manipulation of  language, which  is now  so commonplace  that it
seems odd that anyone would be blind to it. It's not a new tactic; but
these days it seems like it's over-employed. I'm shocked that it still
works so well.

Perhaps PT will spend more time on  the subject, I don't know. I would
like to,  though I'm running  out of time this  evening. Specifically,
I'd love to hear his view on the motivations of higher evil. I believe
this is an area where people  make many logical mistakes, leading them
to  incorrect conclusions  about what  is going  on around  them. Many
people  I know  seem unable  or unwilling  to see  evil, which  I find
fascinating.

Last point:  PT's conclusion, tucked  in to his  post, on how  to deal
with highly evil  men. "The proper way  to deal with such a  man is to
treat him  like a  'philosophical zombie' and,  since no  zombie feels
pain,  to  harm  him  until,  almost  miraculously,  understanding  of
language returns to him." Maybe it was just for fun, but I got lost on
the zombie bit, which mixes fact with fiction to the befuddling of the
philosophy. Heck, it was funny and insightful at the same time, not to
be taken too seriously I think.

Thanks for the gophersite PT, I truly enjoy it.

[1] gopher://verisimilitudes.net:70/02023-04-04