Opinion of DavidB.?

[Badger]

There is a difference between a crazy belief and an evil belief.

What is that difference?

A crazy belief can come from a place of naivety or misinformation.

An evil belief is a statement to one's personal morality and character.

Do you imagine there's a strict dividing line between the two? Take the typical Nazi in 1930s Germany, who probably believed all sorts of ridiculous rumors about the Jews-- was he simply misinformed due to the overwhelming nature of state propaganda, or does his susceptibility to propaganda itself make a statement about his character?

You both pose very good analysis/questions here. I suppose to try to answer J d's queries, I would say that at least on an ethical or moral basis ignorance is better than malice, but in practice the 2 tend to go hand-in-hand is hand and create equally unethical/immoral results.

[John Dule]

There is a difference between a crazy belief and an evil belief.

What is that difference?

A crazy belief can come from a place of naivety or misinformation.

An evil belief is a statement to one's personal morality and character.

Do you imagine there's a strict dividing line between the two? Take the typical Nazi in 1930s Germany, who probably believed all sorts of ridiculous rumors about the Jews-- was he simply misinformed due to the overwhelming nature of state propaganda, or does his susceptibility to propaganda itself make a statement about his character?

You both pose very good analysis/questions here. I suppose to try to answer J d's queries, I would say that at least on an ethical or moral basis ignorance is better than malice, but in practice the 2 tend to go hand-in-hand is hand and create equally unethical/immoral results.

But few people, if any, do immoral deeds knowingly. Even the worst mass murderers in history believed they were serving a moral purpose. Therefore, isn't what we call "malice" just ignorance of morality?

[Badger]

There is a difference between a crazy belief and an evil belief.

What is that difference?

A crazy belief can come from a place of naivety or misinformation.

An evil belief is a statement to one's personal morality and character.

Do you imagine there's a strict dividing line between the two? Take the typical Nazi in 1930s Germany, who probably believed all sorts of ridiculous rumors about the Jews-- was he simply misinformed due to the overwhelming nature of state propaganda, or does his susceptibility to propaganda itself make a statement about his character?

You both pose very good analysis/questions here. I suppose to try to answer J d's queries, I would say that at least on an ethical or moral basis ignorance is better than malice, but in practice the 2 tend to go hand-in-hand is hand and create equally unethical/immoral results.

But few people, if any, do immoral deeds intentionally. Even the worst mass murderers in history believed they were serving a moral purpose. Therefore, isn't what we call "malice" just ignorance of morality?

 Well I believe ignorance Leads to a great deal of unwitting immoral/ Unethical act, I question whether most such acts are in fact done out of ignorance rather than malice. Malice at least in my book need not be to the level of Jack the Ripper or Is Charles Manson level Unvarnished evil.I do believe That most crimes-and forsake of argument let's just leave out so called "victimless crimes" is" such as drug use and Is prostitution, but including such things as assault, theft, Sexual assault, et cetera-are done with an understanding of the wrongfulness of one's actions.Even individuals in the deepest throes of drug addiction Is who shoplift or commit credit card fraud to feed their habits know at the time what they are doing is wrong But do it anyway.

 Your point is well taken regarding ignorance And prejudice/superstition leading to Many mass murders  But I firmly believe at some level that They are so called "good cause"" does not truly justify their actions either actions, but is enough to push them over the edge to commit what they understand to be an evil act. Did the grown white men who Is tortured and killed a 14 year old Emmett till Truly believe in their heart of hearts it was necessary to protect the sanctity of white women? Or did they deep down understand what they were doing to a child was wrong but Is between prejudice, mob mentality, and undoubtedly more than a little liquor, it was enough to make them commit an evil act? I honestly don't know the answer to that question with certainty,And obviously ignorance plays a tremendous role in either answer. I'm just not quite ready to ascribe  their actions as succumbing to ignorance as opposed to succumbing to evil.

[TheReckoning]

But few people, if any, do immoral deeds knowingly.

This is a very atheist take. In Catholicism, the fact that people do immoral deeds willingly is a key part of doctrine approaching the issue of sin.

[John Dule]

There is a difference between a crazy belief and an evil belief.

What is that difference?

A crazy belief can come from a place of naivety or misinformation.

An evil belief is a statement to one's personal morality and character.

Do you imagine there's a strict dividing line between the two? Take the typical Nazi in 1930s Germany, who probably believed all sorts of ridiculous rumors about the Jews-- was he simply misinformed due to the overwhelming nature of state propaganda, or does his susceptibility to propaganda itself make a statement about his character?

You both pose very good analysis/questions here. I suppose to try to answer J d's queries, I would say that at least on an ethical or moral basis ignorance is better than malice, but in practice the 2 tend to go hand-in-hand is hand and create equally unethical/immoral results.

But few people, if any, do immoral deeds intentionally. Even the worst mass murderers in history believed they were serving a moral purpose. Therefore, isn't what we call "malice" just ignorance of morality?

 Well I believe ignorance Leads to a great deal of unwitting immoral/ Unethical act, I question whether most such acts are in fact done out of ignorance rather than malice. Malice at least in my book need not be to the level of Jack the Ripper or Is Charles Manson level Unvarnished evil.I do believe That most crimes-and forsake of argument let's just leave out so called "victimless crimes" is" such as drug use and Is prostitution, but including such things as assault, theft, Sexual assault, et cetera-are done with an understanding of the wrongfulness of one's actions.Even individuals in the deepest throes of drug addiction Is who shoplift or commit credit card fraud to feed their habits know at the time what they are doing is wrong But do it anyway.

 Your point is well taken regarding ignorance And prejudice/superstition leading to Many mass murders  But I firmly believe at some level that They are so called "good cause"" does not truly justify their actions either actions, but is enough to push them over the edge to commit what they understand to be an evil act. Did the grown white men who Is tortured and killed a 14 year old Emmett till Truly believe in their heart of hearts it was necessary to protect the sanctity of white women? Or did they deep down understand what they were doing to a child was wrong but Is between prejudice, mob mentality, and undoubtedly more than a little liquor, it was enough to make them commit an evil act? I honestly don't know the answer to that question with certainty,And obviously ignorance plays a tremendous role in either answer. I'm just not quite ready to ascribe  their actions as succumbing to ignorance as opposed to succumbing to evil.

I should rephrase my previous statement-- sure, many people knowingly do immoral things. However, they rarely do the immoral act for the sake of the act itself. The vast majority of criminals steal, extort, or murder because they derive a benefit from it, not because they take pleasure in inflicting pain and suffering on others. They justify the harms they inflict through their own utility. Sociopaths and psychopaths-- people who have scientifically observable chemical imbalances-- are the only types who I'd say actually act out of "malice" and a desire to hurt others. I think it's virtually impossible to incorporate these people into coherent systems of political or social ethics, and I generally assume that any discussion of these issues excludes them.

Nonetheless, we should be careful to delineate "belief" (the subject of Ferguson's initial post) from "action." I would suggest that many (if not most) everyday actions are carried out in the absence of active belief. Moral considerations generally only enter a person's head if they are presented with a genuinely difficult choice that affects themselves and others, and a person on the brink of starvation is going to act on instinct rather than moral reasoning. Hence why I mentioned an active Nazi as my example of a "true believer" rather than, say, a German soldier who was drafted and put on the front lines, and kills based on survival instinct alone. Actions may be undertaken in the absence of firm moral conviction. Beliefs, however, typically require some justification in the believer's mind-- and those beliefs are susceptible to misinformation.

[John Dule]

But few people, if any, do immoral deeds knowingly.

This is a very atheist take. In Catholicism, the fact that people do immoral deeds willingly is a key part of doctrine approaching the issue of sin.

I was imprecise in my wording there (explained above).

[Badger]

There is a difference between a crazy belief and an evil belief.

What is that difference?

A crazy belief can come from a place of naivety or misinformation.

An evil belief is a statement to one's personal morality and character.

Do you imagine there's a strict dividing line between the two? Take the typical Nazi in 1930s Germany, who probably believed all sorts of ridiculous rumors about the Jews-- was he simply misinformed due to the overwhelming nature of state propaganda, or does his susceptibility to propaganda itself make a statement about his character?

You both pose very good analysis/questions here. I suppose to try to answer J d's queries, I would say that at least on an ethical or moral basis ignorance is better than malice, but in practice the 2 tend to go hand-in-hand is hand and create equally unethical/immoral results.

But few people, if any, do immoral deeds intentionally. Even the worst mass murderers in history believed they were serving a moral purpose. Therefore, isn't what we call "malice" just ignorance of morality?

 Well I believe ignorance Leads to a great deal of unwitting immoral/ Unethical act, I question whether most such acts are in fact done out of ignorance rather than malice. Malice at least in my book need not be to the level of Jack the Ripper or Is Charles Manson level Unvarnished evil.I do believe That most crimes-and forsake of argument let's just leave out so called "victimless crimes" is" such as drug use and Is prostitution, but including such things as assault, theft, Sexual assault, et cetera-are done with an understanding of the wrongfulness of one's actions.Even individuals in the deepest throes of drug addiction Is who shoplift or commit credit card fraud to feed their habits know at the time what they are doing is wrong But do it anyway.

 Your point is well taken regarding ignorance And prejudice/superstition leading to Many mass murders  But I firmly believe at some level that They are so called "good cause"" does not truly justify their actions either actions, but is enough to push them over the edge to commit what they understand to be an evil act. Did the grown white men who Is tortured and killed a 14 year old Emmett till Truly believe in their heart of hearts it was necessary to protect the sanctity of white women? Or did they deep down understand what they were doing to a child was wrong but Is between prejudice, mob mentality, and undoubtedly more than a little liquor, it was enough to make them commit an evil act? I honestly don't know the answer to that question with certainty,And obviously ignorance plays a tremendous role in either answer. I'm just not quite ready to ascribe  their actions as succumbing to ignorance as opposed to succumbing to evil.

I should rephrase my previous statement-- sure, many people knowingly do immoral things. However, they rarely do the immoral act for the sake of the act itself. The vast majority of criminals steal, extort, or murder because they derive a benefit from it, not because they take pleasure in inflicting pain and suffering on others. They justify the harms they inflict through their own utility. Sociopaths and psychopaths-- people who have scientifically observable chemical imbalances-- are the only types who I'd say actually act out of "malice" and a desire to hurt others. I think it's virtually impossible to incorporate these people into coherent systems of political or social ethics, and I generally assume that any discussion of these issues excludes them.

Nonetheless, we should be careful to delineate "belief" (the subject of Ferguson's initial post) from "action." I would suggest that many (if not most) everyday actions are carried out in the absence of active belief. Moral considerations generally only enter a person's head if they are presented with a genuinely difficult choice that affects themselves and others, and a person on the brink of starvation is going to act on instinct rather than moral reasoning. Hence why I mentioned an active Nazi as my example of a "true believer" rather than, say, a German soldier who was drafted and put on the front lines, and kills based on survival instinct alone. Actions may be undertaken in the absence of firm moral conviction. Beliefs, however, typically require some justification in the believer's mind-- and those beliefs are susceptible to misinformation.

 An excellent post. I will simply summarize as I am spending too much time procrastinating from work today by saying Is that evil and malice can be rightly distinguished from sadism. One does not need the latter for the former to be acted out.

[Continential]

FF for helping me when I posted about my struggles with eighth grade.

[windjammer]

FF for helping me when I posted about my struggles with eighth grade.

Yes frankly  he's  really a  super nice person