But is it evil? I would have to say no. My personal opinion, and again it is only personal opinion, is that some two-legged semi-sentient entities on this planet are damaged goods.
Civilization has a right to protect itself from child rapists, bombers, some politicians, and other bad actors. But we should be intellectually honest and acknowledge that this is someone that is (don't care why or how) damaged.
Dan, this appears to be a somewhat self serving distinction. You are in effect saying (along with Dawkins) that when an action crosses over into the repugnant you can simply attribute it to a damaged mind and do not see a continuum of human behaviour along a scale of ever increasing departure from what we would consider acceptable. Where is the point where we suddenly stop being bad (and responsible) and suddenly become damaged (and not responsible)? Or would you go as far as Dawkins and say we are never responsible for our actions but we are simply broken and need fixing?
We are having a conversation about evil but I don?t know if anyone has previously defined what we mean by evil.
Some definitions from Wiki:
?morally objectionable aspects of the behaviour and reasoning of human beings?
?those which are deliberately void of conscience, and show a wanton penchant for destruction?
?the absence of a good which could and should be present?
?unprovoked hatred against and coupled with an aggressive impulse to cause harm to another person or group?
I am sure you would have no difficulty with some of those definitions of evil, but how would you define it for the purposes of this conversation?
And let me now throw back your way a question equally intended to emphasize the extreme.
My country has a President, and yours a PM, who I believe have done far more damage to far more innocent children than all of the child rapists in your country combined. Why is it that we can all agree that child rape is a crime ... and blowing the arms and legs off a child, killing its parents, and burning its home and family to the ground, a matter where intelligent men might differ and not a single person has been put behind bars? Nor will any be.
So to return to your original question ... I would disagree with your assumption that child rapists, or my President, are of sound mind. Their actions, in and of themselves, indicate otherwise.
For Blair, whether I could define his actions as evil would depend on the definition of evil we are happy with. If it was ?unprovoked hatred against and coupled with an aggressive impulse to cause harm to another person or group? then I would not classify his actions as evil. It may appear that it sums his actions up very well, but I would not be convinced that he has an aggressive impulse to harm the Iraqi people. He is under the impression he is doing the right thing ? ?The Greater Good? and all that. I disagree with him and would be happy to see him in The Hague.
As for Bush ? He?s simply a breathtakingly ignorant buffoon and it should be the voters who are guilty for giving a chimp such power ? twice ? ?nuff said.
But you make a very interesting point about our cognitive dissonance. Raping = Evil / Blanket Bombing = Expedient.
Blacknad
