Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> IN THIS LECTURE I AM GOING TO TALK ABOUT SOME THEORIES AND
CONCEPTIONS OF EVIL AND SOME OF THE ASSUMPTIONS MADE ON THE PART
OF THOSE WHO STUDY EVIL.
SO, THERE ARE MANY THEORIES OF EVIL ACTION OF COURSE.
IN THIS BRIEF LITTLE INTRODUCTORY LECTURE I AM ONLY
GOING TO TALK ABOUT A COUPLE.
IN PARTICULAR I AM GOING TO TALK ABOUT WHAT I AM GOING TO CALL
THE SCHWITZGEBEL THEORY.
ERIC SCHWITZGEBEL IS A PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY INTERNATIONALLY
RENOWNED ON HIS WORK OF PHILOSOPHY OF MIND; PHILOSOPHY
OF COGNITION CONSCIOUSNESS AND ALSO HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO
ETHICAL PHILOSOPHY, CHINESE PHILOSOPHY AND MORAL PSYCHOLOGY.
HE HAS DONE SUBSTANTIAL WORK IN THE AREA OF PHILOSOPHY OF EVIL
BUT THAT IS NOT HIS MAIN AREA OF PUBLICATION; BUT NEVERTHELESS
VERY INTERESTING FOR US TO CONTRAST WITH ANOTHER THEORY OF
EVIL BY JOHN KEKES.
SO YOU SHOULD NOTE IN YOUR READINGS THAT THERE IS A JOHN
KEKES FROM HIS BOOK "THE ROOTS OF EVIL" AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT
THE KEKES THEORY IN WAYS IN WHICH IT IS SIMILAR AND VERY
DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I AM GOING TO CALL THE SCHWITZGEBEL THEORY.
NOW, BEFORE WE TALK ABOUT ANY PARTICULAR THEORY OF EVIL.
THERE ARE TWO ASSUMPTIONS THAT ARE MADE ON THE PART OF THOSE
THAT ACTUALLY WRITE ABOUT AND STUDY EVIL.
ONE, ASSUMPTION IS FIRST, THAT SOME ACTS ARE INDEED
SERIOUS MORAL WRONGS.
THIS IS A METAPHYSICAL ASSUMPTION. IT IS ASSUMING THAT
SOMETHING ABOUT THE WORLD.
ABOUT THE WAY THE WORLD IS.
IN FACT, IT IS ASSUMING THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING
AS MORALITY.
THAT THERE IS A MORAL STRUCTURE TO THE WORLD AND THAT THERE IS
SUCH A THING AS MORAL TRUTH.
IF ONE DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING AS MORAL
TRUTH ABSOLUTE WORLD TRUTH.
THEN ANY DISCUSSION OF EVIL IS FAIRLY IMPOTENT BECAUSE THE TERM
EVIL IS GOING TO, IT DESIGNATES AT MOST JUST UNPOPULAR PRACTICES
OF A PARTICULAR CULTURE.
OR TABOO PRACTICES, BUT IF ONE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN ANY MORAL
REALITY THEN ONE CANNOT THINK THAT THERE IS ANYTHING
PARTICULARLY WRONG WITH ANY PARTICULAR ACT SINCE THERE IS NO
OBJECTIVE MORAL STANDARD OR TRUTH FROM, WHICH ONE WOULD
RENDER AN ABSOLUTE JUDGMENT.
THE FIRST ASSUMPTION IS SOME ACTS OR SERIOUS OR
GRAVE MORAL WRONGS.
THE WORD SERIOUS SHOULD BE HIGHLIGHTED.
THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF IMMORAL ACTS OR
WRONG ACTS WHAT THIS IS SAYING IS THAT THERE IS A SUBCLASS OF
IMMORAL ACTS.
IN THIS SUBCLASS IS IT DEALS WITH VERY SERIOUS MORAL WRONGS.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE IF ONE IS LIKE LOOKING AT VARIOUS IMMORAL
ACTIVITIES AND ONE LOOKS AT SOMEBODY STEALING A TWINKIE FROM
THE QUICKIE MART UNJUSTIFIED MULTIPLE BRUTAL HOMICIDES,
ONE IS GOING TO WANT TO MAKE A DISTINCTION IN THE SERIOUSNESS
OF EACH OFFENSE.
THE FIRST ONE, STEALING TWINKIES FROM THE QUICKIE MART IS
STEALING SO IT IS AN IMMORAL ACT BUT IT IS IN NO WAY AS SERIOUS
OR AS GRAVE AS TAKING MULTIPLE LIVES UNJUSTLY IN BRUTALLY SAY.
THOSE FACTORS MAKE THAT ACT IN A DIFFERENT CATEGORY OR IN A
DIFFERENT CLASS; A SUB CLASS AND SO THAT IS USUALLY WHY EVIL
THE WORD SERIOUS IS ATTACHED.
NOW AGAIN, THE OTHER PART MORAL WRONGS OF THIS ASSUMPTION IS
AGAIN THE COMMITMENT TO A THEORY CALLED MORAL ABSOLUTISM WHERE
ABSOLUTISM SAYS THAT THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE MORAL STRUCTURE
TO THE UNIVERSE.
DIFFERENT THEORIST HAVE MANY DIFFERENT THINGS TO SAY ABOUT
WHAT EXACTLY THIS MORAL STRUCTURE IS BUT ANYONE WHO IS
GOING TO THEORIZE ABOUT SERIOUS MORAL WRONGS IN ANY ABSOLUTE WAY
SO AS TO RENDER THOSE SERIOUS MORAL WRONGS IN TO EVIL IS GOING
TO HAVE TO BELIEVE IN SOME SORT OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH IN THAT THESE
ABSOLUTE STRUCTURES CAN BE VIOLATED.
IF ONE AGAIN, DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT; IF ONE BELIEVES IN THE
THEORY CALLED IMMORALIST OR RELATIVISM THERE ARE TWO NAME
METAPHYSICAL THEORIES NAMELY IN ALL THAT EXISTS IN THE UNIVERSE
THERE DOES NOT EXIST SUCH A THING AS MORAL TRUTH OR
MORAL FACTS.
IF YOU BELIEVE IN SUCH A THEORY THAN THERE IS GOING TO BE NO
PARTICULAR ACTION THAT IS GOING TO BE A SERIOUS MORAL WRONG
BECAUSE THERE IS ACTUALLY OBJECTIVELY IS NO MORAL WRONG.
THERE AGAIN AT MOST IF YOU ARE A RELATIVIST YOU MIGHT SAY WELL
CULTURES DO USE THE WORD RIGHT, WRONG, JUST AND UNJUST AND SO ON
AND SO FORTH.
BUT THAT IS JUST IN REFERENCE TO AN ARTIFICIAL SET OF RULES THAT
THEY HAVE PUT FORWARD AND YOU KNOW YOU LOOK AT ONE CULTURE AND
SAY WE ARE LOOKING AT ANCIENT CHINA OR ANCIENT GREECE WHERE
INFANTICIDE IS A WIDELY ACCEPTED AND PERMISSIBLE PRACTICE AND IT
ALSO IS CALLED INFANT ABANDONMENT.
THAT IS YOU HAVE A BABY IT IS USUALLY A FEMALE BECAUSE THAT IS
MOST COST INCURRING FOR A FAMILY AND THEY DECIDE THAT THEY DO NOT
WANT TO KEEP THE CHILD THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A BURDEN SO THEY
ABANDON THE CHILD BY LEAVING IT ON THE SIDE OF A HILL USUALLY TO
DIE OF EXPOSURE OR STARVATION OR A COMBINATION OF BOTH.
NOW IN THAT CULTURE ABANDONING AN INFANT OR A BABY
IS NOT A CRIME.
IT IS NOT SEEN AS MORAL ILLEGITIMATE AND IF THE TOWN
MEMBERS SAY FOUND OUT ABOUT IT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PROSECUTE
THE FAMILY WHO IS ENGAGED IN THAT ACT.
THEY WILL NOT USE WORDS LIKE UNJUST AND IMMORAL OR ATROCIOUS
OR HOMICIDE OR ANY OF THOSE MORALLY CONDEMNATORY WORDS.
OF COURSE YOU LOOK AT CONTEMPORARY UNITED STATES IF
ONE ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE OF ABANDONING ONES INFANT THIS
WOULD BE CONSIDERED A CASE A SERIOUS CASE OF *** AND THE
PARENT WOULD BE PROSECUTED BY LAW AND CONDEMNED BY MOST
MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY AS BEING SERIOUSLY IMMORAL
MAYBE EVEN PSYCHOPATHIC.
WE WOULD USE STRONG LANGUAGE TO CONDEMN THAT ACTION.
THE MORAL RELATIVIST THE PERSON WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE THERE ARE
MORAL TRUTHS IS GOING TO TAKE AN ACT LIKE THAT, THAT IN FACT SAY
THAT THE CONTEMPORARY CULTURE CALLS THAT EVIL AND THE ANCIENT
WORLD SEES IT AS PERFECTLY MORAL LEGITIMATE.
THE RELATIVIST IS GOING TO LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, WHO IS
CORRECT?
THE ANCIENT CULTURES THAT PRACTICE THAT OR THE
CONTEMPORARY CULTURE THAT FORBIDS THAT PRACTICE.
THEY ARE GOING TO SAY THERE ARE JUST DIFFERENT WAYS HUMAN BEINGS
ORGANIZING THEMSELVES.
HUMAN BEINGS CAN ORGANIZE THEMSELVES IN ANY NUMBER OF WAYS
AND THERE IS NO TRUTH TO ANY OF THESE WAYS OF
ORGANIZING OURSELVES.
WE CAN ORGANIZE OURSELVES SO THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE SLAVES.
SO THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE NOT SLAVES.
WE CAN ORGANIZE OURSELVES IN ANY NUMBER OF WAYS.
WE CAN HAVE A RULE ON THE RULE BOOKS THAT SAYS THAT INFANTICIDE
IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE FOR UNWANTED INFANTS.
WE CAN HAVE ANOTHER RULE THAT SAYS INFANTICIDE IS A CASE OF
HOMICIDE AND IS GRAVELY, MORALLY WRONG.
SO, THE RELATIVIST IS GOING TO SAY THERE IS NO TRUTH TO THE
MATTER THESE ARE JUST TWO DIFFERENT CULTURES AND TWO
DIFFERENT WAYS OF DOING THINGS.
SO THAT IS WHY THIS THEORY IS USUALLY CALLED RELATIVISM
BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHTNESS OR THE WRONGNESS IS JUST RELATIVE
TO THE CULTURE THAT IS PRACTICING IT BUT THERE IS NO
OBJECTIVE TRUTH TO THE MATTER.
SO, YOU COULD NOT STEP BACK OUTSIDE OF BOTH CULTURES IN
RENDER ANY SORT OF REAL JUDGMENT ABOUT WHETHER THAT WAS RIGHT OR
THAT WAS WRONG TO COMMIT INFANTICIDE.
YOU COULD JUST SAY WELL ACCORDING TO THAT CULTURE IT IS
ACCEPTABLE OR ACCORDING TO THAT CULTURE IT IS NOT AND THERE IS
NO TRUTH TO THE MATTER SO IT IS JUST A MATTER OF
HUMAN PRACTICES.
ONE PRACTICE PERMITS IT THE OTHER PRACTICE DOES NOT AND
CASE CLOSED.
IF YOU DO IT YOU BETTER BE IN THE CULTURE THAT SAYS IT IS OKAY
OR ELSE YOU WILL SUFFER PENALTIES.
IF YOU DO IT IN THE CULTURE THAT SAYS IT IS NOT OKAY WELL YOU ARE
RISKING YOUR LUCK ON JAIL TIME, THE DEATH SENTENCE,
GAS CHAMBER OR WHATEVER.
SO, IN ORDER AGAIN REVIEWING THIS FIRST ASSUMPTION THAT IS
MADE ON THE PART OF THOSE WHO STUDY EVIL THEY ARE GOING TO
HAVE TO BELIEVE THEY HAVE TO BELIEVE IN AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT AND
AN ABSOLUTE WRONG OTHERWISE THE NOTION OF EVIL DOES NOT REALLY
AMOUNT TO ANYTHING.
IT CAN ONLY REALLY MEAN SOMETHING; IT CAN ONLY REALLY
DESIGNATE A SUBCLASS OF SERIOUS IMMORAL ACTS, IF AND ONLY IF
THERE ACTUALLY EXISTS AN OBJECTIVE MORAL TRUTH.
SO THAT POSITION OF THOSE WHO THEORIZE ABOUT EVIL IS
CALLED MORAL ABSOLUTISM.
THEY ARE GOING TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE MORAL
STRUCTURE TO THE UNIVERSE.
A MORAL STRUCTURE SUCH THAT YOU COULD LOOK AT THE TWO CULTURES
THAT I HAVE JUST DESCRIBED AND YOU COULD YIELD AN OBJECTIVE
JUDGMENT OF WHETHER IT IS MORALLY RIGHT OR WRONG.
THE MORAL ABSOLUTIST IS GOING TO THINK THAT IN MOST ALL MORAL
RELEVANT CASES THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH TO THE MATTER AND
IT IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION.
EVEN IF A CULTURE SETS ITSELF UP WITH VARIOUS PRACTICES SUCH AS
SLAVERY, INFANTICIDE, SEXISM, RACISM OR VARIOUS SORTS EVEN
MURDERING VARIOUS MEMBERS OF VARIOUS COMMUNITIES
GENOCIDAL ACTIVITIES.
EVEN IF A CULTURE SETS ITSELF UP IN THAT WAY THE MORAL ABSOLUTIST
IS GOING TO THINK THAT THEY CAN YIELD AN ABSOLUTE JUDGMENT OF
THOSE PRACTICES BEING FOR EXAMPLE WRONG.
IT MAYBE EVEN SERIOUSLY WRONG MAYBE EVEN EVIL.
SO THEN THE MORAL ABSOLUTIST WOULD SAY THAT CULTURE HAS EVIL
ELEMENTS WITHIN IT AND THEY MIGHT POINT TO SAY NAZI GERMANY
WOULD BE A GOOD CASE.
HARDLY ANYONE IS GOING TO DISAGREE I WOULD IMAGINE THAT
USING EVERY MEANS OF KNOWLEDGE AND TECHNOLOGY POSSIBLE TO MASS
*** A SINGLE GROUP OF PEOPLE IS SERIOUSLY, MORAL WRONG FOR
THE SINGLE GROUP OF PEOPLE IS AN INNOCENT GROUP MEN, WOMEN, AND
CHILDREN OF ALL AGES SO ROUNDING UP ENTIRE PORTIONS OF PEOPLE ON
THE FACE OF THE EARTH AND RADICALLY, SYSTEMATICALLY
MURDERING THEM IN THE MOST BRUTAL WAYS POSSIBLE THAT IS
USUALLY GOING TO BE CONSIDERED VERY SERIOUSLY
MORALLY WRONG AND EVIL.
SO, FROM A MORAL ABSOLUTIST POINT OF VIEW THEY WOULD
PROBABLY WHATEVER THEIR THEORY OF THE GOOD OR MORAL RIGHT OR
WRONG IS THEY ARE PROBABLY GOING TO LOOK AT THAT PARTICULAR
PRACTICE AND SAY IT IS EVIL.
AGAIN, JUST REVIEWING ONE LAST TIME; THE FIRST MAJOR ASSUMPTION
THAT IS MADE ON THE PART OF THOSE WHO STUDY EVIL OR THEORIZE
ABOUT EVIL IS THAT THERE ACTUALLY ARE SERIOUS, MORAL
WRONGS; ACTIONS THAT ARE GOING TO COUNT AS EVIL.
IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN SERIOUS MORAL WRONGS YOU DO NOT REALLY
BELIEVE IN MORAL WRONGS THEN YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BELIEVE THAT
THERE IS SUCH A THING AS EVIL.
SO IT IS JUST A LOGICAL IMPLICATION OF
THEORIZING ABOUT EVIL.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING
AS ABSOLUTE MORAL TRUTH?
THE SECOND ASSUMPTION THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE ON THE PART OF THOSE
WHO STUDY EVIL IS AN EPISTEMIC ASSUMPTION.
EPISTEMIC REFERS TO AN EPISTEMOLOGY THE BRANCH OF
PHILOSOPHY THAT DEALS WITH HUMAN KNOWLEDGE.
IN THIS ASSUMPTION IS ALSO REQUIRED IT IS A NECESSARY
CONDITION FOR STUDYING EVIL AND THAT IS THAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE
TO TAKE FOR GRANTED THAT WE CAN KNOW THAT CERTAIN ACTIONS ARE
SERIOUS MORAL WRONGS.
SO, THE SECOND THESIS IMPLIES THAT WE CAN AND THAT WE DO KNOW
AT LEAST SOME CASES WHERE AN ACTION IS IN FACT,
A SERIOUS MORAL WRONG.
SO, USING MANY ACTIONS THAT MAY FALL WITHIN A GRAY ZONE OF A
HEATED DEBATE AND THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE GOING TO CALL THEM
EVIL AND SOME PEOPLE ARE NOT AND THERE IS GOING TO BE AN ARGUMENT
BACK AND FORTH WITH MAYBE EVEN NO HOPE FOR AN END.
SUCH ACTIONS MIGHT INCLUDE THE DEATH PENALTY, CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT, ABORTION AND A WHOLE NUMBER OF OTHERS.
WHETHER THESE ARE SERIOUS MORAL RIGHTS OR WRONGS IT MAY BE
A VERY SERIOUS DEBATE BUT THEN THERE IS GOING TO BE SOME THINGS
SUCH AS THE CASE I JUST MENTIONED ABOUT MASS MURDERING
BY WAY OF GENOCIDE MOST EVERYONE IS GOING TO AGREE THAT WE CAN
KNOW THAT, THAT IS A SERIOUS MORAL WRONG.
SO WHAT THE SECOND ASSUMPTION REQUIRES IS THAT WE ALLOW.
WE ALLOW OR GRANT OR WE THINK THAT WE CAN KNOW THAT CERTAIN
ACTIONS AT LEAST A SMALL NUMBER OF ACTIONS ARE IN FACT GRAVE
VIOLATIONS OF MORALITY AND IT USUALLY THE THINGS PEOPLE THROW
UP ARE THINGS LIKE SLAVERY THE KIND OF PERSECUTION BY WAY OF
SAY UNJUSTIFIED LYNCHINGS OF AFRICAN AMERICANS IN THE LATE
1800'S EARLY 20TH CENTURY; SLAVERY OF COURSE FROM THE
EARLIEST OF AMERICAN HISTORY AND SO ON THAT TYPE OF ACTIVITY; ANY
KIND OF GENOCIDAL ACTIVITY PARTICULARITY REFERENCING THE
HOLOCAUST AND THE ATTEMPT TO SYSTEMATICALLY ANNIHILATE ALL
JEWS OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH; IT IS VIRTUALLY THE CASE THAT
ALMOST EVERYONE IS GOING TO AGREE THAT THIS IS
A SERIOUS MORAL WRONG.
THERE WILL BE THOSE OF COURSE WHO WILL DEBATE ANY PARTICULARLY
ACTION BUT THAN THERE IS ALMOST UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT WE WILL SAY
THAT THESE THINGS THAT I AM MENTIONING ARE SERIOUS
MORAL WRONGS.
SO ALL YOU HAVE TO ASSUME FOR THE SECOND ASSUMPTION THE
EPISTEMIC ASSUMPTION IS THAT WE CAN KNOW THAT CERATIN CASES ARE
GRAVE, MORAL WRONGS.
SO WHAT PHILOSOPHERS THAT DEAL WITH EVIL ACTION TEND TO DO A
LOT OF THE TIME NOT ALWAYS BUT A LOT OF THE TIME IS THEY TEND TO
FOCUS ON A CASE WHERE VIRTUALLY EVERYONE IS GOING TO AGREE; LIKE
THE HOLOCAUST OR SLAVERY OR LYNCHINGS
OR SOMETHING OF THAT KIND.
WHY? BECAUSE THIS IS NOT REALLY MORAL CONTROVERSIAL TERRITORY.
THERE ARE VERY FEW PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE WALKING AROUND
SAYING, "OH YOU KNOW THE HOLOCAUST WAS A GOOD IDEA".
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT OF COURSE BUT THERE IS NOT
A HEATED DEBATE ABOUT THAT.
MOST PEOPLE WILL ALL AGREE THAT THEY CAN KNOW THAT IT IS A VERY
SERIOUS, MORAL WRONG ESPECIALLY IF THEY KNOW AND UNDERSTAND
VARIOUS DETAILS OF THE HOLOCAUST.
SO JUST TO REVIEW THEN, ARE TWO ASSUMPTIONS THAT WE ARE MAKING
IN STUDYING EVIL ARE THAT THERE ACTUALLY DOES EXIST MORAL TRUTH
SO SOME ACTS ARE SERIOUS MORAL WRONGS AND THEN ALSO THAT IS THE
METAPHYSICAL ASSUMPTION OF THE NATURE OF REALTY THAT REALTY IS
SUCH THAT THERE IS INDEED OBJECTIVE MORAL TRUTH AND THEN
THE SECOND ASSUMPTION IS THAT SIMPLY WE HAVE COGNITIVE ACCESS
TO AT LEAST SOME MORAL TRUTHS.
THAT WE CAN KNOW THAT AT LEAST SOME THINGS ARE SERIOUS,
MORAL WRONGS.
THE SECOND THESIS IS NOT CLAIMING THAT WE CAN KNOW
WITHOUT ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY EVERY SINGLE THING THAT IS RIGHT AND
EVERY SINGLE THING THAT IS WRONG AND EVERY SINGLE THING
THAT IS SERIOUSLY MORALLY WRONG.
IT IS NOT CLAIMING THAT.
JUST CLAIMING A MINIMAL CLAIM THAT WE CAN IN FACT KNOW THAT
SOME THINGS ARE SERIOUS MORAL WRONGS.
THERE IS A POSITION IN EPISTEMOLOGY CALLED SKEPTICISM
IN WHICH ONE CAN COMMIT TO A THESIS ONE OR ASSUMPTION ONE
THAT THERE ACTUALLY DOES EXIST A MORAL STRUCTURE TO THE UNIVERSE
BUT IF ON IS A SKEPTIC THEY WOULD HOLD THE VIEW THAT WE CAN
NEVER KNOW WHAT ACTUALLY IS MORALLY RIGHT AND
WHAT IS MORALLY WRONG.
IT IS JUST BEYOND HUMAN KNOWLEDGE.
WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING.
MOST PHILOSOPHERS ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ROUTE IF THEIR AN
ABSOLUTIST THEY ARE GOING TO THINK WE HAVE SOME WAY SOME
FACULTY SOME RESOURCE WITHIN US TO BE ABLE TO DISTINGUISH AT
LEAST IN SOME CASES WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG.
WHAT IS THIS FACULTY?
WELL, THERE IS AGAIN IT DEPENDS ON WHICH PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEM
WE ARE LOOKING AT OR WHAT PHILOSOPHER.
THERE HAVE BEEN MANY PROPOSALS.
IN ANCIENT CHINA PHILOSOPHER NAMED MENCIUS ARGUES THAT WE CAN
KNOW MORAL REALITY BECAUSE WE HAVE MORAL REALITY
BUILT IN OUR NATURES.
SO, IF WE LOOK AT OUR OWN MORAL REACTIONS OUR OWN MORAL FEELINGS
OUR SORT OF GUT IMPULSES HE IS GOING TO CLAIM WE ARE GOING
TO BE ABLE TO FEEL THAT CERTAIN THINGS ARE WRONG.
WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE INCLINATIONS AND IMPULSES
TOWARDS WORLD GOODNESS.
WHY?
BECAUSE HE HOLDS THE THESIS THAT HUMAN NATURE IS GOOD AND THIS IS
CASHED OUT IN TERMS OF WHAT IS OUR INNER
MORAL CONSTITUTION IS LIKE.
WE HAVE A MORALITY IMPRINTED IN US IN BECOMING A FULL BLOWN
MORAL AGENT IS A MATTER OF DEVELOPING THAT MORALITY OR
THOSE SEEDLINGS HE CALLS THEM THAT ARE WITHIN US.
OTHER PHILOSOPHERS WILL SAY AND, SO STEPPING BACK, LOOKING AT
MENCIUS VIEW A LITTLE FURTHER.
THE MENCIUS VIEW IS GOING TO SAY YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE
A SENSE OF PROPRIETY.
A SENSE OF WHAT IS RIGHT, A SENSE OF SERIOUSNESS AND CAUTION
TOWARDS CERTAIN TYPES OF HUMAN INTERACTIONS.
AGAIN, HIS VIEW IS THAT THIS INNER MORAL PSYCHOLOGICAL
CONSTITUTION THAT WE HAVE IS PART OF OUR HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY.
HE IS GOING TO SAY THAT THIS DEALS WITH EMOTIONAL FACTORS AND
VARIABLES SUCH AS WE HAVE A SYMPATHETIC CAPACITY TO
SYMPATHIZE WITH OTHERS THAT IS INDICATIVE OF
OUR MORAL CONSTITUTION.
WE FEEL THE PAIN OF OTHERS SO HE WILL SAY FOR EXAMPLE, IF AN
INNOCENT CHILD IS ABOUT TO MEET ITS UNTIMELY DEMISE BY FALLING
OFF A CLIFF OR FALLING INTO A WELL OR BEING RUN OVER BY A MACK
TRUCK WE ARE GOING TO FEEL WHEN WE GAZE UPON
THE IMPENDING TRAGEDY.
WE ARE GOING TO FEEL A STING OF TERROR GO THROUGH US AND THIS IS
OUR MORAL SENSIBILITY SORT OF REVEALING ITSELF OR
SHOWING ITSELF.
MENCIUS DRAWS UPON PSYCHOLOGICAL RESOURCES, EMOTIONAL RESOURCES
HE WILL DRAW UPON RATIONAL RESOURCES.
SO, HE SORT OF TAKES A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE ON HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY
AND SAYS THAT WE HAVE A WHOLE HOST OF FACULTIES THAT ALLOW US
TO ACCESS MORAL REALITY.
KNOWLEDGE OF MORAL REALITY STARTS BY LOOKING WITHIN AND
THEN WE DEVELOP WHAT IS WITH IN US.
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AND KIND OF THEORY ABOUT HOW WE KNOW MORAL
REALITY MIGHT BE SAY FROM PHILOSOPHER NAMED KANT;
IMMANUEL KANT.
KANT IS GOING TO ARGUE THAT WE CAN KNOW MORAL REALITY BY WAY OF
REASON AND ONLY BY WAY OF REASON.
HE IS GOING TO THINK THAT EMOTIONS ARE
SYMPATHETIC REACTIONS.
ALL OF THESES TYPES OF THINGS ARE IRRELEVANT AND POSSIBLY
STRONGLY MISLEADING TO WHAT IS ACTUALLY MORALLY RIGHT.
SO HE IS GOING TO HAVE A VIEW THAT REASON AND REASON ALONE IS
WHAT IS ABLE TO LATCH ON TO MORAL REALITY.
PLATO HELD A SIMILAR VIEW TO THAT.
KANT GIVES THE MOST INTERESTING AND SOPHISTICATED
DEFENSE OF THAT VIEW.
IN FACT, HE EVEN GOES SO FAR AS TO ARGUE MORALITY AND
RATIONALITY ARE ONE IN THE SAME THING.
NOW THOSE ARE JUST A GENERAL SET I HAVE GIVEN YOU A SMALL, LITTLE
SURVEY OF A COUPLE OF PHILOSOPHERS AND WHAT THEIR
VIEWS ON HOW IT IS THAT WE COME TO KNOW MORAL REALITY.
WHAT IT IS THEY SAY, HOW IT IS THAT WE ACCESS MORAL REALITY,
SO HOW WE WOULD KNOW THAT SOMETHING'S ARE SERIOUSLY
MORALLY WRONG.
KANT IS GOING TO THINK THAT YOU CAN KNOW WITH VIRTUAL CERTAINTY
WHAT IS MORALLY WRONG.
HE IS GOING TO THINK THAT USING REASON IN THE RIGHT WAY AND HE
SPELLS OUT IN DETAIL A VERY COMPLEX STORY TOO COMPLEX FOR ME
TO GET INTO IN THIS PARTICULAR LECTURE BUT HE DOES GIVE A VERY
SOPHISTICATED STORY ABOUT HOW REASON WORKS AND THE PRINCIPALS
OF REASON AND RATIONAL THOUGHT IN THE WAY IN WHICH IMMORAL
ACTIVITY GRATES AGAINST OR CONSTRICTS WITH RATIONALITY.
SO, WITH THOSE TWO ASSUMPTIONS ON THE TABLE THEN, WE CAN TURN
TO AND TAKE A LOOK AT SAY A PARTICULAR THEORY OF WHAT IS
MORALLY RIGHT OR WHAT IS MORALLY WRONG.
I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT ERIC SCHWITZGEBEL'S DEFINITION OF
EVIL AND THEN SOME OF HIS OBSERVATIONS ABOUT EVIL AS
HE UNDERSTANDS THE CONCEPT.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO PAY ATTENTION WITH SCHWITZGEBEL
THEORY AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO THINK ABOUT THE THINGS THAT
HE IS SAYING AND WE WILL THINK ABOUT THE CONTRAST BETWEEN WHAT
HE SAYS AND WHAT JOHN KEKES, THE AUTHOR THAT YOU HAVE BEEN
READING FOR WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT EVIL IN THE BEGINNINGS OF HIS
BOOK "THE ROOTS OF EVIL".
THESE TWO THEORISTS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I AM PUTTING THESE
TWO TOGETHER IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE SUCH DIFFERENT
TAKES ON EVIL.
THEY HAVE VERY DIFFERENT CONCEPTIONS OF EVIL
IN WHAT IS EVIL.
THESE TWO THEORISTS ARE JUST TWO OF MANY, MANY, MANY THEORISTS ON
THE NATURE OF EVIL OR THE CONCEPT OF EVIL.
THESE ARE NOT EVEN NECESSARILY THE TWO
MOST POPULAR THEORIES GOING.
I AM MAKING NO CLAIM OF THAT KIND I AM JUST SAYING THESE ARE
TWO INTERESTING THEORIES AND THEY GIVE GENERAL APPROACHES
THAT IF YOU LOOKED AT SORT OF ALL THE THEORIES OUT THERE ON
EVIL YOU WOULD SEE TENDENCIES IN THE SCHWITZGEBEL DIRECTION AND
YOU WOULD SEE OTHER THEORISTS THAT HAVE TENDENCIES IN
THE KEKES DIRECTION.
SO LOOKING AT THESE TWO MODELS IS I THINK USEFUL AND HELPFUL.
ERIC SCHWITZGEBEL HAS A FAIRLY, SIMPLE DEFINITION OF EVIL.
EVIL ON HIS VIEW IS ANY GRAVELY, MORALLY WRONG ACTION.
IN THAT IS HIS DEFINITION ANY GRAVELY MORALLY WRONG ACTION IS
EVIL; SO POINTING OUT AGAIN TWO KEY COMPONENTS FOR
THE SCHWITZGEBEL VIEW.
FOR ONE THING HE HAS AN EMPHASIS ON GRAVELY, MORALLY WRONG.
AGAIN, THE REASON WHY HE HAS THAT IS TO MAKE EVIL
A SUBCLASS OF IMMORAL ACTS.
SO, THERE ARE MANY IMMORAL ACTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE
CONSIDERED LESS THAN EVIL.
MAYBE EMBEZZLING ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS OR STEALING A HUNDRED
DOLLARS FROM THE CASH DRAWER IN YOUR MOMENT OF
DESPERATION WAS WRONG.
IT WAS DESERVING OF PUNISHMENT AND SO ON AND SO FORTH BUT
THAT DOES NOT COUNT NECESSARILY PERHAPS AS EVIL.
STEALING THE TWINKIE FROM THE QUICKIE MART IS PERHAPS MORALLY
WRONG BY MOST PEOPLE'S ACCOUNTS BECAUSE IT IS STEALING BUT IT IS
NOT GOING TO BE SERIOUS OR GRAVE ENOUGH TO BE CALLED EVIL.
THINGS LIKE MASS MURDERING INNOCENT CHILDREN THAT IS
THE HOLOCAUST AND SUCH WOULD BE CONSIDERED A VERY SERIOUS MORAL
WRONG MAYBE RESERVING EVIL FOR ACTIONS LIKE RAPING,
BRUTALIZING, TERRORIZING THINGS LIKE THAT ARE USUALLY WHAT IS
GOING TO FALL INTO THE GRAVE OR SERIOUS CATEGORY.
NOTICE ALSO ON THE SCHWITZGEBEL THEORY THAT THE EMPHASIS IS ON
ACTION.
IT SAYS ANY GRAVELY, MORALLY WRONG ACTION IS EVIL.
THIS IS A SUBTLE BUT INTERESTING AND CONTROVERSIAL ASPECT OF
THE SCHWITZGEBEL THEORY.
WHY?
WELL, BECAUSE FOR ONE THING ACTIONS ARE MAKING THE EMPHASIS
UPON ACTIONS IS DIFFERENT THEN HAVING AN EMPHASIS UPON PEOPLE.
IF ONE WANTS TO THEORIZE ABOUT VARIOUS PEOPLE BEING EVIL
THIS IS GOING TO BE VERY DIFFERENT THEN THEORIZING ABOUT
ACTIONS BEING EVIL.
SCHWITZGEBEL IN GENERAL WANTS THE DISCUSSION TO MOVE AWAY FROM
TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE, PERSONALITY TYPES, AND
DEGENERATIVE STRUCTURES WITHIN THE PERSONALITY AND SO ON.
ALTHOUGH, HE WILL ADMIT THAT THOSE THINGS EXIST HE WANTS EVIL
TO REALLY FOCUS IN UPON ACTION AND ONE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE
HE IS SENSITIVE TO CASES IN WHICH AND, THERE IS A LOT OF
LITERATURE ON THIS, ORDINARY PEOPLE COMMITTING
GRAVELY MORALLY WRONG ACTS.
SO, IF EVIL IS CONFINED TO A DISCUSSION ONLY OF CERTAIN
PERSON'S OR PERSONALITIES THEN ON THIS CONCEPTION A WHOLE
BORAGE OF TERRITORY IS LOST.
IN FACT, MOST EVIL SO THIS KIND OF THINKING IS GOING TO SAY,
MOST EVIL IS COMMITTED BY ORDINARY PEOPLE AND NOT BY
ATROCIOUS FIGURES THAT OFTEN GET PORTRAYED IN HOLLYWOOD FILMS AND
SUCH AS BEING EVIL.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT HOLLYWOOD YOU ARE GOING TO GET A WHOLE
SMATTERING OF EITHER UNUSUALLY, VICIOUS CHARACTERS THAT ARE VERY
DIFFERENT THEN YOU OR THE PEOPLE THAT YOU KNOW USUALLY.
OR ELSE YOU ARE GOING TO GET SUPER NATURAL ENTITIES OR
MONSTER TYPE FIGURES THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT HUMAN AND SO IF
ONE FOCUSES EXCLUSIVELY ON EVIL AS THE ACTIONS OR THE RESULT OF
THE DOINGS OF THESE MONSTER FIGURES OR RADICALLY AND
USUAL PERSONALITIES.
THEN ONE IS GOING TO MISS AND BE BLIND TO WHAT SCHWITZGEBEL IS
GOING TO THINK IS A FACT NAMELY THAT MOST EVIL IS COMMITTED BY
ORDINARY PEOPLE AND THAT THE HOLLYWOOD PORTRAIT IS COMMITTED
BY REALLY UNUSUAL FIGURES AND SUCH. THAT IS ACTUALLY
EXTREMELY MISLEADING.
WHAT DOES HOLLYWOOD GIVE YOU?
WELL THINK ABOUT WHAT HOLLYWOOD IS GOING TO SET OUT AS ITS
PORTRAITS OF EVIL YOU HAVE GOT DARTH VADER FROM STAR WARS AND
WHAT IS DARTH VADER?
IT IS LIKE I DO NOT KNOW PARTICULARITY BUT IT IS HALF MAN
HALF MONSTER TYPE OF THING OR WHATEVER IT IS DARTH VADER IS
ONLY PARTIALLY RECOGNIZABLE AS HUMAN IF EVEN AT ALL.
OR THE EMPEROR OF STAR WARS IS CLEARLY A NON HUMANOID ODD
ENTITY THAT CLEARLY NOT LIKE YOU AND NOT LIKE PEOPLE YOU KNOW AND
NOT LIKE THE PEOPLE AROUND YOU IT IS A BIZARRE, UNUSUAL ENTITY;
LOOKING AT OTHER EXAMPLES MAYBE SAURON FROM LORD OF THE RINGS.
WHAT IS SAURON?
IT IS A FLAMING EYE IN THE SKY THIS WEIRD DEMON ENTITY THAT
WANTS EVIL FOR THE SAKE OF EVIL AND WANTS A SECOND AGE OF
DARKNESS FOR NO OTHER REASON THEN JUST BECAUSE.
SO IF ONE HAS THESE HOLLYWOOD PORTRAITS OF DARTH VADER AND
SAURON AND MAYBE HANNIBAL LECTER IS A GOOD PSYCHOPATH;
HE IS PORTRAYED AS A PERPETRATOR OF EVIL.
ONE THINKS THAT WELL EVIL IS JUST DONE BY THESE NON-HUMAN
ENTITIES OR IS DONE BY THESE RARE FREAKS AND SO ON.
THEN ONE IS GOING TO MISS A REALLY CRUCIAL DEEP ASPECT TO
THE VERY NOTION OF EVIL THAT IT IS ACTUALLY PERPETRATED BY
REAL ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS.
HUMAN BEINGS THAT ARE PERHAPS DO NOT LOOK ANY DIFFERENT THAN YOU
DO AND LIVE LIVES IN GENERAL THAT ARE RADICALLY DIFFERENT
THAN YOUR LIFE AND SO THE IDEA HERE IS THAT MANY SEEMINGLY
ORDINARY PEOPLE OR ORDINARY PEOPLE ACTUALLY
DO COMMIT EVIL ACTIONS.
SCHWITZGEBEL AGAIN, HAS THE EMPHASIS ON ACTIONS
NOT UPON PEOPLE.
THIS IS AT LEAST TO SOME EXTENT IN CONTRAST WITH KEKES WHO MIGHT
BE MORE INCLINED TO LOOK AT EVIL AS THE RESULT OF CERTAIN
ACTS OF CERTAIN PEOPLE.
SO FOR HIM THE EMPHASIS MIGHT BE ON CERTAIN PEOPLE.
BUT OTHER CONCEPTIONS DEFINITELY WILL ANALYZE EVIL STRAIGHT
FORWARDLY IN TERMS OF DEVIANT PERSONALITY TYPES.
SO WHEN EVIL GETS MENTIONED THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN ONE WANTS TO
SWITCH INTO ABNORMAL PSYCHOLOGY AND START DESCRIBING SERIAL
KILLERS AND VARIOUS RADICAL FIGURES FROM HUMAN HISTORY
JACK THE RIPPER, TED BUNDY, JOHN WAYNE GACY THESE RARE FIGURES
GARY RIDGEWAY.
THESE RADICAL FIGURES WHERE RIDGWAY KILLED MAYBE EIGHTY SOME
PEOPLE IN THE SEATTLE, THE GREEN RIVER AREA.
OR, REALLY BIZARRE, UNUSUAL CHARACTER TYPES LIKE A JEFFREY
DAHMER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BUT, AGAIN ON THE SCHWITZGEBEL DEFINITION AND VIEW HE WANTS
TO SHY AWAY FROM THAT KIND OF DISCUSSION OF ABNORMAL
PSYCHOLOGY AND FOCUS ON THE BULK OF EVIL BEING PERPETRATED BY
ORDINARY PEOPLE AND IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE CASE STUDIES OF
EVIL YOU CAN SEE THIS HE IS GOING TO THINK OR LIKE MINDED
THINKERS ARE GOING TO ARGUE YOU CAN SEE THIS PROFUSELY ALL OVER.
THEY MAY POINT TO THINGS LIKE ENRON.
VARIOUS ACCOUNTING SCANDALS AND WALL STREET SCANDALS AND SO ON
WHERE ORDINARY PEOPLE ARE ROBBED OF SO MUCH MONEY BY VARIOUS
TYCOONS AND OTHER PEOPLE MAYBE CROOKED ACCOUNTING FIRMS AND
WORK ACCOUNTING FIRMS AND SO ON.
BUT THEN YOU LOOK AT THESE ACCOUNTANTS OR FINANCIAL BANKERS
THESE WALL STREET CHARACTERS AND THEY DO NOT LOOK ANYTHING LIKE A
SAURON AND THEY ARE NOT LIKE A DARTH VADER AND THEY ARE NOT
LIKE A JEFFREY DAHMER AND THEY ARE JUST BY MOST PEOPLE'S LIKES
THEY ARE NORMAL PEOPLE WHO SAY HAVE THEIR MOTIVATION MAY HAVE
BEEN RADICAL GREED OR EXTREME EGOISM OR WE WILL TALK ABOUT
VARIOUS MOTIVES FOR EVIL BUT THEIR MOTIVE MAY BE A FAIRLY
HUMAN MOTIVE TAKEN TO AN EXTREME.
BUT THEY THEMSELVES ARE NOT TYPICALLY UNUSUAL LOOKING.
WHEN YOU ENCOUNTER THEM IN THE STREET THEY DO NOT STRIKE
YOU AS EVIL AND SO ON.
ON THE SCHWITZGEBEL VIEW, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT EVIL
NEED NOT INVOLVE.
WHAT EVIL NEED NOT INVOLVE.
FIRST, SCHWITZGEBEL IS GOING TO ARGUE WITH THESIS NUMBER ONE.
EVIL DOES NOT NEED TO INVOLVE INTENTIONAL HARM.
THIS THESIS YOU WILL NOTE IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE VERY
HEART OF KEKES' THEORY OF EVIL.
IN FACT, KEKES ARGUES THAT EVIL CONSISTS OF THREE CONDITIONS;
ONE THE MALEVOLENT MOTIVATION OF THE EVILDOERS SO HE BUILDS
MALEVOLENT MOTIVATION HENCE, INTENTIONAL HARM INTO
HIS VERY DEFINITION OF EVIL.
SCHWITZGEBEL IS SAYING THAT EVIL DOES NOT NEED
TO INVOLVE INTENTIONAL HARM.
WHY DOES SCHWITZGEBEL SAY THAT?
WHY DOES HE BELIEVE THAT SOME EVIL ACTIONS ARE PERFORMED IN
NEGLIGENCE IN RECKLESSNESS IN CULPABLE IGNORANCE?
WELL IT IS NOT AN EXCUSING CONDITION.
HE IS NOT TRYING TO SETUP A SYSTEM WHERE FEW PEOPLE WILL BE
FOUND GUILTY OF COMMITTING EVIL ACTION.
WHAT HE WANTS TO DO IS SAY HE IS MAKING A CLAIM ABOUT
THE SUBCLASS OF IMMORAL ACTS EVIL ACTS.
HE IS SAYING THAT IN THIS SUBCLASS OF SERIOUS MORAL WRONGS
THERE MAYBE SERIOUS MORAL WRONGS WHERE THE ACTION
WAS NOT INTENTIONALLY DONE.
THE KIND OF EXAMPLE FOR THIS AND THIS IS GOING TO BE MY EXAMPLE.
I AM GOING TO CALL THIS EXAMPLE THE NEGLIGENT FACTORY OWNER OR
YOU COULD ALSO CALL THIS THE NEGLIGENT SHOP KEEPER SOMETHING
LIKE THAT BUT LET US JUST SAY OWNER FACTORY OWNER.
SO LET US SUPPOSE THAT THERE IS SOMEBODY WHO OWNS A FACTORY AND
THIS GUY IS NOT PARTICULARLY MEAN OR UNPLEASANT IN
YOUR EXPERIENCES WITH HIM.
HE DOES NOT HAVE ILL WILL TOWARDS OTHER PEOPLE.
HE IS NOT SOME SORT OF A MISOGYNIST OR WOMEN HATER HE
DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE PREJUDICES BUILT INTO HIS PERSONALITY HE
JUST SEEMS LIKE AN ALL AROUND PRETTY GOOD GUY
WHO RUNS A FACTORY.
THIS FACTORY IS UP ON A HILL AND THERE IS STREAM OR FLOW
BEHIND HIS FACTORY.
IN HIS FACTORY CREATES SOME SORT OF A PRODUCT IN THE PRODUCTION
PROCESS THERE IS A BI-PRODUCT THAT IS TOXIC.
SO THERE IS TOXIC WASTE THAT HE NEEDS TO DEAL WITH AND SUPPOSE
THAT THIS NEGLIGENT SHOP OWNER FACTORY OWNER CHARACTER SUPPOSE
THAT JUST MERELY OUT OF LAZINESS JUST SAYS, WELL I CALLED AROUND
AND IT WOULD COST A FORTUNE TO HAVE THIS TOXIC BI-PRODUCT
CLEANED UP PROPERLY.
IT WOULD REQUIRE EXTENSIVE PACKAGING AND CERTAIN CONTAINERS
TO BE HANDLED BY EXPERTS THAT ARE PROPERLY ATTIRED AND READY
TO DEAL WITH THIS TOXIC MATERIAL.
THEN HE HAS TO PAY FOR THEM TO HAUL IT AWAY AND THEN HE HAS TO
PAY FOR IT TO BE STORED, TAKEN CARE OF, BROKEN DOWN OR WHAT
HAVE YOU; AND THE SUM TOTAL OF THIS IS GOING TO BE A BILL SO
LARGE THAT HIS PROFITS ARE GOING TO SHRINK TO A VERY CONSIDERABLE
EXTENT TO THE POINT WHERE THE FACTORY IS
HARDLY MAKING ANY MONEY.
SO HE CRUNCHES THE NUMBERS AND HE DOES THIS AND SAYS, WHAT THE
HELL THERE IS A RIVER BEHIND ME IT IS NOT GOING
TO HURT ANYTHING.
HE DUMPS HIS TOXIC WASTE IN THE RIVER.
HE IS NOT INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO HARM OTHERS BUT TO BE CHEAP
AND TO SAVE A BUCK AND TO MAKE HIS BUSINESSES FINANCIALLY
PROSPEROUS AS POSSIBLE.
BUT AS IT TURNS OUT THAT FLOW OF WATER THAT RIVER IS CONNECTED TO
A LARGER BODY OF WATER THAT ACTUALLY RUNS INTO A MAJOR
STREAM OR FLOW THAT THE WATER SUPPLY FOR A TOWN DOWN BELOW.
SO THROWING HIS TOXIC WASTE INTO THE RIVER HAS ACTUALLY CREATED
SOME SORT OF SERIOUS CONDITION IN THE WATERS.
THE DRINKING WATER THE WATER THAT THE TOWN USES HAS BEEN
CONTAMINATED AS A RESULT OF THIS THERE HAS BEEN SAY SOME DEATHS
OR MAYBE MULTIPLE DEATHS BEFORE THE TOXIN WAS IDENTIFIED AND
TRACED BACK TO HIS NEGLIGENCE.
CLEARLY THE SHOP KEEPER IN THIS KIND OF CASE DID NOT INTEND
TO KILL ANYBODY.
HE WAS NOT MOTIVATED BY MALICE OR HE DID NOT HAVE SOME SORT OF
INTENTION OF POISONING THE TOWN'S WATER SUPPLY.
HE IS NOT A TERRORIST.
HE DID NOT HAVE ANY INTENTIONS OF THAT KIND.
IT WAS JUST SIMPLY OUT OF RECKLESSNESS, NEGLIGENCE,
ICULPABLE IGNORANCE THAT HE DID THIS DEED BUT NEVERTHELESS, IT
RESULTED IN GRAVE WRONG NAMELY A BUNCH OF INNOCENT PEOPLE GETTING
SICK, INJURED OR POSSIBLY KILLED.
SO IT IS GOING TO COUNT ON THE SCHWITZGEBEL VIEW AS AN EVIL ACT
YET, IT DID NOT INVOLVE INTENTIONAL HARM.
ON THE SCHWITZGEBEL THEORY THE SECOND THESIS OF WHAT EVIL NEED
NOT INVOLVE IS THAT EVIL NEED NOT INVOLVE SELFISHNESS.
SCHWITZGEBEL IS GOING TO THINK THAT THERE ARE PERHAPS MANY OR
AT LEAST SOME EVIL ACTIONS WHERE ONE ACTUALLY DOES NOT PROFIT BUT
ONE LOOSES SOMETHING VITAL TO THERE OWN SELF INTEREST
MAYBE EVEN THEIR LIFE.
SO USING AS OUR EXAMPLE HERE LET US JUST SAY A SUICIDE BOMBER OF
A CERTAIN KIND WHO THE SUICIDE BOMBER SAY STRAPS THEM SELF WITH
EXPLOSIVES GOES INTO A SCHOOL YARD AND BLOWS UP
A BUNCH OF CHILDREN.
NOW LET US ALL SUPPOSE THAT THIS BOMBER IS NOT TRYING TO PROMOTE
A RELIGIOUS CAUSE STIPULATE THAT IN.
THERE IS GOING TO BE NO DOING IT FOR THE GLORY OF GOD AND HENCE
SOME SORT OF THEORY THAT THE BOMBER MIGHT HOLD ABOUT HOW THEY
ARE GOING TO BE DOING GOD'S WORK OR THEY ARE GOING TO BE DOING IT
FOR A HIGHER PURPOSE OR THEY ARE GOING TO BE DOING IT FOR REWARDS
IN HEAVEN OR ANYTHING OF THAT KIND SUPPOSE THAT IS THE CASE.
WELL, IF THAT IS THE CASE THEN SAY THE SUICIDE BOMBER IS LIKE
AN ATHEIST TYPE THAT THINKS THEY ARE GOING TO DIE IN THE
EXPLOSION AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GET ANYTHING OUT OF IT.
THAT THEY ARE DOING IT FOR A GREATER CAUSE BUT THEY WILL NOT
REALLY BENEFIT FROM BUT FUTURE GENERATIONS NAMELY SUPPOSE THAT
IT WE WILL LEAVE IT VAGUE IS A DEDICATION TO THE POLITICAL
CAUSE THAT MAYBE NOT RELIGIOUS BUT SOME POLITICAL CAUSE
THE COMMUNIST PARTY, GREATER FREEDOMS, WHATEVER.
HERE THIS PERSON ENGAGES IN A GRAVELY, MORALLY WRONG ACT
NAMELY KILLING A BUNCH OF CHILDREN A WHOLE SAY SCHOOL OF
CHILDREN BY WAY OF SUICIDE BOMBING AND THEY GET NOTHING OUT
OF IT BECAUSE THEY DIE.
THEY DO NOT HYPOTHESIZE THAT THEY EVEN GO TO HEAVEN OR
GET REWARDS OF ANY SORT.
THERE IS NO RELIGIOUS MOTIVATION MY KILLING MYSELF IS IT REALLY
DYING BECAUSE I AM IMMEDIATELY GOING TO FLOAT OF TO THE HIGHEST
REALM OF GOD'S INNER CIRCLE.
THE PERSON IS GOING TO SAY, NO I AM JUST GOING
TO BE OUT OF EXISTENCE.
I LOOSE EVERYTHING MY FAMILY, EVERYTHING I CARED ABOUT, ALL MY
JOYS; EVERYTHING WILL BE BANISHED WHEN I BLOW UP.
BUT THE PERSON NEVERTHELESS, GOES AND DOES IT AND BLOWS UP
A BUNCH OF PEOPLE.
SELFISHNESS IS INVOLVED.
THERE OF COURSE CAN BE MANY EXAMPLES OF THESE PRINCIPLES
THAT I AM LAYING OUT BUT I AM JUST GIVING YOU ONE TYPE OF
EXAMPLE THAT SCHWITZGEBEL WOULD PROBABLY,
MOST LIKELY AGREE WITH.
THE THIRD ITEM THAT EVIL NEED NOT INVOLVE IS
EXCESSIVE CRUELTY.
SO, HE IS GOING TO HOLD THE VIEW THAT ONE MAY PERFORM AN EVIL
ACTION WITH KINDNESS AND MERCY.
NOTICE HOW THIS THESIS IS DIRECTLY IN CONFLICT WITH
THE SECOND CONDITION OF EVIL ON KEKES' THEORY.
KEKES' THEORY IS GOING TO CLAIM THAT IN ORDER FOR SOMETHING TO
BE EVIL THERE MUST BE EXCESSIVE HARM.
THERE MUST BE EXCESSIVE HARM ON KEKES' VIEW.
SCHWITZGEBEL IS SAYING THERE DOES NOT NEED
TO BE EXCESSIVE HARM.
SO HE IS GOING TO COME UP WITH AN EXAMPLE.
WE WILL TAKE AS OUR EXAMPLE A HIT MAN.
THE HIT MAN GETS A CONTRACT.
A PAID KILLER; SOMEONE IS PAID TO KILL ANOTHER PERSON.
THE HIT MAN IS MOTIVATED BY MONEY AND SO THE HIT MAN
RECEIVES A CERTAIN PAYMENT TO TAKE OUT A CERTAIN TARGET.
NOW, IN THIS CONTRACT IT IS JUST THE CONTRACT IS TO KILL
A CERTAIN PARTY.
THIS IS GOING TO COUNT AS EVIL BECAUSE THEY ARE OF COURSE
ENGAGED IN ***; INTENTIONAL *** OF ANOTHER PERSON AND
MAYBE THE *** OF AN INNOCENT PERSON.
MAYBE SOMEBODY IS GOING TO TESTIFY AND TELL THE TRUTH AND
REVEAL SECRETS ABOUT THE MOB UNDERWORLD OR SOMETHING.
SO PERHAPS IT IS JUST A COMPLETELY INNOCENT PERSON WHO
IS GOING TO GET WIPED OUT BY THE HIT MAN.
NOW THE HIT MAN HAVING RECEIVED THE CONTRACT CAN FULFILL THEIR
CONTRACT IN ANY NUMBER OF WAYS.
THE HIT MAN COULD SAY GET THE VICTIM, TORTURE THE VICTIM FOR
MANY HOURS AND SMASHING EVERY BONE IN THEIR BODY AND
BREAKING BLOOD VESSELS.
FIGURING OUT WHICH WAYS YOU ARE GOING TO CREATE THE MOST PAIN
AND BURN THE PERSON ALIVE SET THEM ON FIRE.
YOU CAN JUST THINK OF ANY NUMBER OF TORTURES AND HORRORS AND
LITERALLY HORROR FILMS PROBABLY START COMING INTO MIND.
BUT, THAT IS ONE WAY TO FULFILL THE CONTRACT.
ANOTHER WAY TO FULFILL THE CONTRACT IS SAY TO PUT DEADLY
POISON CYANIDE OR SOMETHING IN THE PERSON'S TEA
BEFORE THEY GO TO BED.
SO THEY ARE DRINKING THEIR NIGHTLY CUP OF TEA MAYBE
IT IS SLOW REACTING POISON.
THEY BRUSH THEIR TEETH, THEY GO TO BED AND FALL A SLEEP
THE POISON KICKS IN AND THEY DIE IN THEIR SLEEP.
THEY DIE PAINLESSLY.
IT DID NOT INVOLVE ANY PAIN AND THEY DID NOT EVEN KNOW
THEY WERE DYING.
NO PSYCHOLOGICAL NO PAIN INVOLVED WHATSOEVER.
YOU COULD PROPHESIZE ANY NUMBER OF THINGS.
HE STEALTHY, SNEAKS INTO SOMEONE'S HOUSE WHEN THEY ARE
SLEEPING GIVES THEM AN INJECTION OF CYANIDE THEY DO NOT REALLY
WAKE UP THEY JUST OBVIOUSLY DIE OF THE CYANIDE AND THIS DID NOT
INVOLVE EXCESSIVE CRUELTY OR EXCESSIVE HARM.
I MEAN OF COURSE IT IS EXCESSIVE IN SO FAR AS THE PERSON IS DEAD
BUT IT IS NOT EXCESSIVE IN THE SENSE THAT CONTRASTING THAT MODE
OF KILLING WITH SOME MODE OF KILLING THAT INVOLVES INFLICTING
GREAT PAINS AND PROLONGED AGONY ONTO THE PERSON BEFORE THEY DIE,
SO THAT THEY GET BOTH PSYCHOLOGICAL SUFFERING AND
PHYSICAL PAIN AND SO ON IN THE PROCESS AND THAT SEEMS VERY
PLAUSIBLE SO IT SEEMS LIKE SCHWITZGEBEL HAS I THINK GOT A
REAL SERIOUS, LEGITIMATE VIEW ON THE KEKES' VIEW EVIL MUST
NECESSARILY INVOLVE EXCESSIVE CRUELTY IN PERFORMING
THE ACTION.
ANOTHER ELEMENT TO THE SCHWITZGEBEL VIEW ANOTHER THESIS
HE HOLDS ABOUT WHAT EVIL DOES NOT NEED TO INVOLVE NOW, NOTICE
EVIL MIGHT INVOLVE ALL OF THESE THINGS.
HIS CLAIM IS SIMPLY THAT IS DOES NOT NEED TO.
EVIL ON THIS FOURTH ITEM WE ARE AT ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
EVIL NEED NOT INVOLVE THE ABANDONMENT OF MORAL PRINCIPLES.
THIS I THINK YOU CAN SEE VERY EASILY.
ONE MAY PERFORM AN EVIL ACTION THINKING THAT ONE IS DOING
A MORALLY RIGHT THING.
FOR EXAMPLE, ON MANY ACCOUNTS MANY NAZI EXECUTIONERS DID THEIR
EVIL DEEDS THEIR RADICAL, GENOCIDAL ACTS ACTUALLY THINKING
THAT THEY WERE DOING IT FOR A GREATER CAUSE.
THEY WERE DOING IT FOR SOME MORAL JUSTIFIABLE REASON.
THEY MAYBE COMMITTED TO A PERVERTED MORAL PICTURE IN THIS
PERVERTED PATHOLOGICAL MORAL PICTURE IS WHAT MOTIVATES THEM
OR LEADS THEM TO COMMIT THE EVIL ACT OF GENOCIDE OF KILLING OF
WHATEVER IT MAY BE.
IN THIS CASE IT IS NOT THAT THEY HAVE ABANDON MORAL PRINCIPLES
ALL TOGETHER IT IS THAT THEY COMMITTED TO A VERY DISTORTED
CONCEPTION OF MORALITY AND THIS DISTORTED SET OF PRINCIPLES IS
WHAT LEAD THEM TO DO THE GRAVELLY, MORALLY WRONG ACTION.
I THINK THERE IS MANY AND ANY NUMBER OF CASES TO SUPPORT THIS.
THIS IS NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST NECESSARILY.
THESE ARE WE ARE GOING TO THINK OF THIS AS SCHWITZGEBEL FOUR
OBSERVATIONS ABOUT WHAT EVIL NEED NOT INVOLVE.
NOW THERE IS NO CLAIM ABOUT NECESSITY HERE.
SWITZGABLE IS VERY CAREFUL IN MAKING THESE CLAIMS NOT TO OVER
COMMIT HIMSELF TO A POSITION.
HE IS BEING VERY THEORETICALLY CAREFUL IN LAYING THESE OUT.
SO, THEY ARE GIVEN OR PRESENTED AS SOME CHARACTERISTICS OR
ASPECTS OF EVIL ACTION.
NOT AS NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS.
THOUGH THERE IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE IN CLAIMING THAT EVIL
NECESSARILY DOES NOT INVOLVE CRUELTY THEN SAYING EVIL
NEED NOT INVOLVE CRUELTY.
ON SCHWITZGEBEL'S PICTURE MUCH EVIL OR EVEN MOST MAY IN FACT
INVOLVE EXCESSIVE CRUELTY.
IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT MUCH EVIL DOES IN FACT, INVOLVE
THROWING MORAL PRINCIPLES OUT THE WINDOW.
HE IS NOT COMMITTING TO ANY VIEW OF THAT BEING THE CASE OR
NOT THE CASE.
HE IS JUST SAYING THERE ARE CASES IN WHICH EVIL DOES NOT
INVOLVE EXCESSIVE CRUELTY.
EVIL DOES NOT INVOLVE THE ABANDONMENT OF MORAL PRINCIPLES.
THERE ARE CASES IN WHICH EVIL DOES NOT
INVOLVE INTENTIONAL HARM.
THERE ARE CASES WHERE EVIL INVOLVE SELFISHNESS.
THAT IS ALL HE IS CLAIMING.
THAT IS A CAUTIOUS AND MINIMAL CLAIM ALTHOUGH, OBVIOUSLY IT IS
STRONGLY CONTESTED EVEN THOUGH MODERATE STRONGLY CONTESTED IN
HEATED DEBATE BETWEEN HIM AND SAY KEKES, WHOSE CONCEPTION OF
EVIL REQUIRES INTENTIONAL HARM.
IT REQUIRES MALEVOLENT MOTIVATION.
IT REQUIRES EXCESSIVE GRATUITY.
IT INVOLVES EXCESSIVE HARM AND IT INVOLVES THIS IS ALSO CRUCIAL
GOING BACK TO WHAT EVIL MAY NOT INVOLVE REMEMBER ON
THE SCHWITZGEBEL VIEW EVIL MAY NOT INVOLVE ABANDONMENT OF
MORAL PRINCIPLES.
WELL ON THE KEKES' VIEW ON KEKES VERY DEFINITION OF EVIL THERE
HAS TO BE A LACK OF JUSTIFIABLE MORAL EXCUSE.
THIS IS ANOTHER POTENTIAL CONFLICT I THINK BETWEEN
SCHWITZGEBEL AND KEKES.
YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHY I AM PICKING THE SCHWITZGEBEL, KEKES
MODELS OF ALL THE POSSIBLE ONES OUT THERE.
THEY ARE TWO CONCEPTIONS THAT ARE CONSTANTLY IN CONFLICT
WITH ONE ANOTHER.
SCHWITZGEBEL DOES SOMETHING VERY INTERESTING THAT KEKES DOES NOT
DO AND THAT IS SCHWITZGEBEL GIVES YOU AN ANALYSIS OF THE
CONCEPT OF EVIL NAMELY ANY GRAVELY, MORALLY WRONG ACTION
BUT THEN HE ALSO GIVES YOU A DEFINITION IN A CONCEPTUAL
ANALYSIS OF OTHER CONCEPTS THAT ARE RELATED TO EVIL BUT HE
THINKS TECHNICALLY OR STRICTLY SPEAKING ARE IN FACT,
DIFFERENT THAN EVIL ACTS.
IN OUR ORDINARY, EVERYDAY LANGUAGE; IN OUR ORDINARY,
EVERYDAY WAYS OF SPEAKING WHEN WE ARE LOOSELY SPEAKING, WE
OFTEN USE THE TERM MALEVOLENCE OR MALICE COEXTENSIVELY
WITH EVIL.
WE MAY USE THE WORD WICKEDNESS IT IS A SYNONYM FOR EVIL.
THAT IS A WICKED ACT OR THAT IS AN EVIL PERSON.
EVIL ACT OR AN EVIL PERSON; EVIL, WICKEDNESS SOMETIMES
WE THROW THOSE TOGETHER.
WE MAY TREAT MALEVOLENCE AS THE SAME THING AS WICKEDNESS.
SO IN OUR ORDINARY LANGUAGE WE MAY NOT MAKE THESE
FINE GRADE DISTINCTIONS.
BUT AS A PHILOSOPHER WHO WANTS A TO HAVE CONCEPTUAL CLARITY AND
THAT IS ONE THING THAT PHILOSOPHERS HAVE DONE SINCE THE
DAWN OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY AT LEAST WESTERN PHILOSOPHERS.
IT IS NOT NECESSARILY PRACTICED IN EASTERN PHILOSOPHY BUT
ALTHOUGH IT IS IN SOME ASPECTS.
BUT IN WESTERN PHILOSOPHY ONE OF THE DOMINATE CHARACTERISTICS
FROM ITS ORIGINS IN ANTIGUA IN ANCIENT GREECE IS TO HAVE
CONCEPTUAL CLARITY AND RIGOR IN YOUR CONCEPTS, SO THAT IS WHAT
SCHWITZGEBEL IS DOING WHEN HE STARTS GIVING US AN ANALYSIS OF
CONCEPTS THAT ARE RELATED TO EVIL BUT DIFFERENT.
THE FIRST ONE WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IS
MALEVOLENCE/MALICE.
SCHWITZGEBEL TREATS MALEVOLENCE AND MALICE AS SYNONYMS BUT
MALEVOLENCE AND OR MALICE IS DIFFERENT ON HIS VIEW THAN EVIL.
MALICE/MALEVOLENCE IS GOING TO BE DEFINED AS DELIBERATELY AND
UNJUSTLY SEEKING SOMEONE ELSE'S HARM; DELIBERATELY AND UNJUSTLY
SEEKING OUT SOMEONE'S HARM.
NOW AS ALREADY STATED AN EVIL ACT NEED NOT BE MALICIOUS RIGHT?
SO THIS IS TO CREATE CONCEPTUAL BOUNDARIES.
FIRST, LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF MALICE AND THEN I
WILL EXPLAIN THE OTHER PART.
AN EXAMPLE OF MALICE AGAIN MALICE, MALEVOLENCE DEFINED AS
DELIBERATELY AND UNJUSTLY SEEKING SOMEONE'S HARM.
IN THIS CASE SUPPOSE THAT ON A PARTICULAR INSTANCE IT IS A ONE
TIME EPISODE AND THAT IT IS NOT AN ON GOING, REPETITIVE PROCESS.
SUPPOSE ON A ONE TIME EPISODE ONE INDIVIDUAL TEASES A COWORKER
UNJUSTLY IN CAUSING PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS.
THEY TEASE THIS COWORKER ABOUT SOMETHING; ABOUT
THEIR PHYSICAL APPEARANCE SAY.
THEY TEASE THE COWORKER FOR GOING BALD THEY TEASE THE
COWORKER FOR BEING OVER WEIGHT.
THEY TEASE THE COWORKER FOR MAYBE HAVING LESSER
QUALITY CLOTHING THEN THEY DO.
THE COMMENT IS GOING TO BE DELIBERATE.
THEY ARE AWARE OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
MAYBE THEY HAVE THOUGHT OUT THE TEASING OR PLANNED IT OUT AND IT
IS UNJUSTIFIED THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE TEASING
AND THEY ARE DOING IT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAUSING SAY THE
PERSON PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA WHICH IS A KIND OF HARM.
THEY ARE DOING IT TO MAKE THEIR COWORKER FEEL BAD.
WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?
WHAT WOULD MOTIVATE THEM?
WHO KNOWS A NUMBER OF THINGS MAYBE THE COWORKER GOT A RAISE
AND THEY DID NOT AND THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE IT OUT ON THE
COWORKER BY TAUNTING THEM ABOUT BEING BALD, OVERWEIGHT OR
WHAT HAVE YOU.
ON THE SCHWITZGEBEL VIEW THAT WHAT I JUST DESCRIBED WOULD NOT
COUNT AS EVIL BECAUSE THE KEY INGREDIENT THAT IT IS GOING TO
BE MISSING IS THE GRAVE PART.
THE SERIOUSNESS OR THE GRAVENESS IT IS NOT OBVIOUS THAT THIS
IMMORAL TEASING THAT IS GOING ON.
THIS MALICIOUS EPISODE IS SERIOUS ENOUGH ESPECIALLY IF IT
IS A ONE TIME INSTANCE IT IS A CASE OF HURTING SOMEONE'S
FEELINGS WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION.
SO, IT FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF THE MORALLY WRONG ON THE
SCHWITZGEBEL VIEW NO DOUBT IT JUST DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE
CATEGORY OF SERIOUSLY, MORALLY WRONG.
NOW THERE COULD BE MANY CASES IN WHICH MALICE, MALEVOLENCE
DOES CROSS SOME SORT OF LINE OR BARRIER AND DOES BECOME
A SERIOUS MORAL WRONG.
SUPPOSE THEY CHRONICALLY TEASE VARIOUS COWORKERS AND SOMEONE
COMMITS SUICIDE OR SOMETHING AS THE RESULT OF THE TEASING.
MAYBE THAT WOULD COUNT AS EVIL.
A ONE TIME EPISODE OF TEASING SOMEONE OVER CLOTHING OR
SOMETHING OF THAT KIND IS NOT REALLY GOING
TO BE SERIOUS ENOUGH.
THAT EXAMPLE THAT I JUST GAVE WOULD BE A MALICIOUS ACT THAT IS
IT IS GOING TO BE A MALICIOUS ACT THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE EVIL
BECAUSE THE MATTER IS NOT GRAVE ENOUGH.
WE WILL KEEP IT AT THAT.
NOW ON THIS VIEW AN EVIL ACT NEED NOT BE MALICIOUS RIGHT.
RECALL THE HIT MAN COULD POSSIBLY KILL THE VICTIM IN A
COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY PAINLESS WAY IT IS ABSOLUTELY
NO PSYCHOLOGICAL OR PHYSICAL SUFFERING.
THEY JUST DIE INSTANTLY VIA THE INJECTION OR THE POISON IN
THEIR SLEEP.
SO IN THAT CASE THERE IS NO MALEVOLENCE OR MALICE
INVOLVED WHATSOEVER.
ON THIS CONCEPTION SCHWITZGEBEL IS GOING TO BE FULLY, JUSTIFIED
IN HAVING EVIL CONCEPTUALLY AND CATEGORICALLY DIFFERENT
THAN MALEVOLENCE OR MALICE.
ALTHOUGH, THE TWO WILL COLLIDE AT TIMES THEY ARE CONCEPTUALLY
DIFFERENT THINGS.
VERY INTERESTINGLY SCHWITZGEBEL MAKES A DISTINCTION BETWEEN
EVIL AND WICKEDNESS.
EVIL REMEMBER IS DEFINED AS ANY GRAVELY, MORALLY WRONG ACT.
WICKEDNESS IS DEFINED AS PERFORMING AN EVIL ACTION IN
FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS EVIL.
SO, A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THIS WOULD BE SAY THE HIT MAN THAT KILLS
KNOWING THAT WHAT HE IS DOING IS GRAVELY, MORALLY WRONG BUT HE
DOES IT ANYWAY FOR OTHER MOTIVES SAY HE CARES ABOUT
THE MONEY MORE THAN HE CARES ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE.
SO HERE THE HIT MAN WOULD BE PERFORMING AN EVIL ACT IN
FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS EVIL.
SO YOU ASK THE HIT MAN, DID YOU KNOW YOUR OCCUPATION OF KILLING
PEOPLE FOR MONEY IS SERIOUSLY, MORAL WRONG IN FACT, ITS EVIL?
THE HIT MAN MAY ANSWER, YES I KNOW THAT.
SO THAT ADMISSION THAT WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS GRAVELY, MORALLY
WRONG AND THAT THEY ARE DOING IT ANYWAY THAT BRINGS
THE IMMORALITY TO ANOTHER LEVEL.
A LEVEL THAT IS EVEN SORT OF DEEPER THAN OR EVEN A SUBSET OF
EVIL NAMELY WICKED.
IT BECOMES A WICKED ACT AND THIS I THINK IS VERY USEFUL.
IN TERMS OF THE CONCEPTUAL SCHEME YOU HAVE A CLASS OF
IMMORAL ACTIONS THEN YOU HAVE A CLASS OF ACTIONS THAT WOULD BE
COUNTED AS EVIL AND THEN WITHIN EVIL YOU HAVE A SUBCLASS OF
WICKED ACTS; ACTS THAT ARE EVIL DONE IN FULL KNOWLEDGE
THAT THEY ARE EVIL.
TWO OTHER CONCEPTS, THIS NEXT CONCEPT HAS BEEN WIDELY DEBATED
BY PHILOSOPHERS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT IS EVEN POSSIBLE.
SOME PHILOSOPHERS ARE GOING TO THINK THAT
IT IS NOT EVEN POSSIBLE.
THIS CATEGORY IS CALLED DEEP WICKEDNESS.
DEEP WICKEDNESS IS USUALLY DEFINED AS PERFORMING AN EVIL
ACTION PRECISELY BECAUSE AND FOR NO OTHER REASON THAT IT IS EVIL.
THE EXAMPLE HERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING LIKE SAURON
FROM LORD OF THE RINGS.
COMING UP WITH FICTIONAL EXAMPLES SEEMS TO BE
THE EASIEST IN THIS CASE.
WHY IS SAURON CREATING AN ARMY OF DARKNESS TO GO TRAMPLE AND
TAKE OVER THE PLANET?
WELL, FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN HE WANTS EVIL FOR EVIL'S SAKE.
HE WANTS A SECOND REIGN OF DARKNESS TO COVER THE EARTH OR
WHATEVER IT MAY BE BUT THERE IS NOT ANY OBVIOUS MOTIVE
OTHER THAN EVIL.
EVIL SEEMS TO BE THE SOLE MOTIVATION.
SO IT WOULD BE DOING AN EVIL ACT IN FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS
EVIL SO ALL DEEPLY WICKED ACTS WOULD BE WICKED ACTS OF COURSE
AND THEN WHAT MAKES THEM DEEPLY WICKED IS THAT
THE MOTIVE IS JUST EVIL ITSELF.
SO THE HIT MAN WOULD NOT QUALIFY IN THIS EXAMPLE.
THE HIT MAN WOULD BE PERFORMING KILLINGS IN FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT
IT IS GRAVELY, MORALLY WRONG BUT IN DOING SO, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
A REALLY HIGH PAYCHECK.
WHERE AS SAURON, DARTH VADER OR WHATEVER KIND OF CHARACTER IS
DOING IT FOR NO OTHER REASON THAT IT IS EVIL.
IF YOU LOOK AT MOST PROFILES OF SERIAL KILLERS AND SO YOU WANT
TO PULL VARIOUS, NOTORIOUS NAMES OUT OF THE HISTORY BOOKS MAYBE
SOMEBODY LIKE GARY RIDGWAY WOULD BE A GOOD EXAMPLE.
GARY RIDGWAY IS THE MOST DOCUMENTED SERIAL KILLER IN
AMERICAN HISTORY.
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A SERIAL KILLER
NAMED H.H. HOLMES
WHO KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN GARY RIDGWAY BUT
THOSE KILLINGS WERE UNDOCUMENTED AND UNVERIFIED.
WHERE AS, RIDGWAY'S KILLING SPREE LASTED FROM THE 70'S AND
HIS HEIGHT WAS AROUND 1983, 1984, 1985 BUT IT LASTS ALL THE
WAY INTO THE EARLY 90'S AND THEN HE IS EVENTUALLY APPREHENDED
THROUGH SOME MIRACULOUS FEATS ACTUALLY OF METICULOUS POLICE
WORK, DNA TECHNOLOGY AND MICRO TRACE FIBER TECHNOLOGY THEY ARE
ABLE TO CATCH THIS GUY BUT FOR YEARS AND YEARS HE IS KILLING
WOMEN BY THE DOZENS LITERALLY.
THIS IS A PERSON WHO IS CLEARLY IN A CATEGORY OF DEEPLY
PATHOLOGICAL BUT HIS MOTIVATION WAS NOT TO DO EVIL
FOR EVIL'S SAKE.
IF YOU ASK HIM WHAT HIS MOTIVATION WAS HE HAD A VERY
DEFINITIVE SET OF MOTIVATIONS.
NAMELY, HE WANTED SEX BY PROSTITUTES AND
HE DID NOT WANT TO PAY FOR IT.
SO, THOSE WERE HIS VICTIMS.
HIS VICTIMS WERE VIRTUALLY ALL PROSTITUTES AND HE WOULD HAVE
SEX WITH THEM AND THEN KILL THEM AND DUMP THEIR BODIES AND THEN
HE EVEN WENT BACK AGAIN AS HORRIFIC AS IT MAYBE AND HAD
SEX WITH THEIR CORPSES.
HE IS ENGAGED IN THIS PERVERTED NECROPHILOUS ACTIVITY.
SO HE IS A CASE OF A RADICAL CASE, UNUSUAL CASE THAT WE CAN
PULL OUT OF THE HISTORY BOOKS AS A CASE OF REAL-LIFE BUT EVEN
THAT GUY IS NOT GOING TO FALL UNDER THE DEEPLY WICKED
CATEGORY, BECAUSE HE IS DOING WHAT HE IS DOING FOR THE SAKE OF
*** GRATIFICATION AND KIND OF MISERLINESS.
EVEN HE IS SIMPLY NOT DOING HIS EVIL DEEDS FOR THE SAKE OF EVIL;
WHERE AS, YOU PULL OUT FICTIONAL CHARACTERS THEY FIT MUCH BETTER
THIS DEEPLY WICKED MODEL.
FOR THIS REASON THAT IT IS HARD TO ACTUALLY POINT OUT OR PULL
OUT OF THE HISTORY BOOKS OR POINT TO IN REALITY SOMEBODY WHO
IS DOING EVIL FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN FOR IT IS EVIL
PHILOSOPHERS AND PSYCHOLOGIST DEBATED WHETHER OR NOT DEEP
WICKEDNESS IS EVEN A POSSIBILITY FOR HUMAN BEINGS.
SCHWITZGEBEL DOES NOT MAKE ANY COMMITMENT TO DEEP WICKEDNESS
BEING THE CASE OR NOT THE CASE.
HE JUST SIMPLY PUTS IT ON THE TABLE AS WHATEVER IT IS
CONCEPTUALLY DIFFERENT THEN WICKEDNESS BECAUSE IT IS A
FURTHER SUB CATEGORY OF WICKEDNESS.
HENCE, IT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE CONCEPT OF EVIL ITSELF.
ANOTHER CONCEPT THAT IS RELATED THAT GETS USED IS THINKS THIS TO
BE PUT ON THE TABLE AS IMMORALITY.
HE THINKS THAT IMMORALITY HAS TO BE DIFFERENT THAN EVIL.
IMMORALITY IS DEFINED AS THE INABILITY AND THIS WOULD BE
GENUINE INABILITY, NOT JUST SOME EXCUSING CONDITION, AND A
GENUINE INABILITY TO DISTINGUISH RIGHT ACTION FROM WRONG ACTION.
THE ACTIONS OF AN IMMORAL CREATURE CANNOT BE JUDGED AS
IMMORALLY GOOD OR BAD BECAUSE THE ENTITY INVOLVED HAS NO WAY
OF DISTINGUISHING RIGHT FROM WRONG.
IF SOMEONE WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING LIKE A LION IS
SAVAGELY EATING THE ZEBRA YOU KNOW IT TRACKED IT DOWN, POUNCED
ON IT, RIPPED IT APART AND ATE IT.
THAT IS EVIL.
SCHWITZGEBEL WOULD SAY NO THAT IS IMMORAL THE ENTITY INVOLVED
THE CREATURE INVOLVED DOES NOT HAVE CONCEPTS AND IS UNABLE TO
MAKE DISTINCTIONS FROM RIGHT FROM WRONG.
NOW THERE MAYBE CASES OF HUMAN BEINGS WITH EXTREME PATHOLOGICAL
DISORDERS; A WHOLE POSSIBLE VARIETY WHERE THEY GENUINELY ARE
INCAPABLE FROM TELLING RIGHT FROM WRONG MAYBE EXTREME CASES
OF THE DEMENTED THE CATEGORY OF THESE EXTREME UNCONTROLLABLE,
UN-MEDICALLY CONTROLLABLE SCHIZOPHRENIC WHO IS
HALLUCINATING RADICALLY I SUPPOSE EVEN IN THIS CASE IT
MIGHT BE HARD TO CLAIM THAT THERE IS IMMORALITY GOING ON.
EVEN IF YOU ARE LIVING IN A RADICALLY, FANTASIZED WORLD
WHERE ELEMENTS OF REALTY ARE DISTORTED SO INCREDIBLY THEIR
VERSION OF REALITY IS SO RADICALLY, DIFFERENT THAN WHAT
MOST PEOPLE WOULD TAKE TO BE WITHIN THEIR OWN SYSTEM OR THEIR
OWN WORLD THEY MAYBE USING MORAL CONCEPTS AND THEY CAN
DISTINGUISH MORAL RIGHT AND WRONG WITHIN THEIR FABRICATED
WORLD, BUT SOMETHING LIKE A LION, TIGER OR THE ACTIONS OF
SOME SORT OF BEAST OR ANIMAL WITHOUT A DOUBT WOULD FALL UNDER
THE CATEGORY OF THE IMMORAL.
NOW THERE ARE PEOPLE TO BE FOUND NOT GUILTY FOR LEGAL INSANITY;
CASES OF IMMORALITY.
IN ORDER TO BE CLEARED OF CHARGES ON THAT GROUNDS ONE
REALLY HAS TO BE PROVEN IN A COURT OF LAW SO, TO AT LEAST TO
A SET OF JURORS THAT THIS PERSON COULD NOT DISTINGUISH RIGHT FROM
WRONG AND THAT IS FAIRLY RARE IF YOU LOOK AT THE CASES OF SAY
SERIAL KILLERS THEY ARE USUALLY ALL FOUND TO BE PERFECTLY
CAPABLE OF DISTINGUISHING RIGHT FROM WRONG.
VERY FEW ARE ACQUITTED ON REASONS OF INSANITY.
ALTHOUGH, IT DOES HAPPEN VERY FEW ARE.
WITH THOSE CONCEPTS IN MIND WE CAN UTILIZE THEM IN OUR
DISCUSSIONS OR YOU CAN UTILIZE THEM IN THINKING ABOUT THE
READINGS AND THINGS AND YOU CAN SEE HOW SCHWITZGEBEL IS CARVING
OUT A CONCEPTUAL TERRITORY THAT IS QUITE DIFFERENT THAN SOMEBODY
LIKE KEKES AND IT GIVES YOU RESOURCES FOR TALKING ABOUT
PARTICULAR CASES WHERE YOU MIGHT NOT THINK THAT EVIL IS INVOLVED.
OR YOU MIGHT THINK THAT OTHER CONCEPTS ARE MORE APPROPRIATE TO
THE DISCUSSION SO YOU MIGHT WANT TO SHIFT THE DISCUSSION FROM
EVIL TO IMMORALITY OR FROM EVIL TO A SUB CATEGORY OF EVIL NAMELY
THE WICKED OR THE DEEPLY WICKED.
SCHWITZGEBEL LAYS OUT VARIOUS MOTIVES FOR EVIL.
AGAIN, THIS LIST THAT SCHWITZGEBEL IS GOING TO GIVE US
IS NOT EXHAUSTED IT IS MERELY THE BEGINNINGS OF A LIST OF
MOTIVATIONS OF EVIL ACTIONS.
NOW WE ARE GOING BACK TO THE CONCEPT OF EVIL NOT WICKEDNESS
OR DEEP WICKEDNESS, BUT WE ARE BACK TO THE CONCEPT OF EVIL.
WHAT ARE MOTIVATIONS FOR EVIL?
SCHWITZGEBEL IS GOING TO LIST WHAT HE THINKS ARE A HANDFUL OF
THE MOST COMMON.
THESE WOULD INCLUDE WELL HE SITS ON THE TABLE THIS MAY NOT BE THE
MOST COMMON BUT HE INCLUDES AS PART OF THAT DEEP WICKEDNESS.
THE CLAIM IS IF THERE IS SUCH A THING AS DEEP WICKEDNESS THAT IS
PERFORMING AN EVIL ACTION FOR NO OTHER REASON
THEN IT IS BEING EVIL.
IF THAT IS THE CASE THEN DEEP WICKEDNESS WOULD BE A MOTIVE
FOR EVIL ACTION.
SCHWITZGEBEL MAKES NO CLAIM THAT DEEP WICKEDNESS ACTUALLY EXISTS
BUT HE IS JUST SAYING IF THERE WAS SUCH A THING THEN IT WOULD
COUNT AS A MOTIVE FOR EVIL.
A MORE COMMON MOTIVE I THINK THAT YOU CAN I THINK YOU CAN SEE
THIS AT A LOT WHEN YOU LOOK AT ORDINARY PEOPLE DOING EVIL THE
MOTIVE TURNS OUT TO BE SOMETHING INVOLVING SELFISHNESS; PERHAPS
WEIGHING ONE'S OWN SELF INTEREST OVER AND ABOVE THE INTEREST
OF OTHERS.
THIS WOULD CLEARLY BE THE MOTIVE OF THE HIT MAN WHO KILLS PEOPLE
FOR MONEY.
THE HIT MAN KILLS PEOPLE FOR MONEY HE WAYS THE INTEREST OF
HIS BANK ACCOUNT HIS FINANCIAL WELL-BEING OVER THE LIFE OF
THE PERSON HE IS TAKING.
SO IN THIS CASE IT SEEMS THAT THE MOTIVE IS JUST PURE
SELFISHNESS AND THEY OFTEN WILL NOT FULFILL A CONTRACT UNLESS
THEY ARE PAID RIGHT.
IT IS VERY UNLIKELY A HIT IS GOING TO BE FOR FREE.
SO THERE AGAIN, IT REINFORCES THE MOTIVE IS MONEY.
THE MONEY WOULD BE A SELFISH MOTIVE.
PERHAPS ANOTHER COMMON MOTIVE MIGHT BE THOUGHTLESSNESS.
CULPABLY FAILING TO CONSIDER THE INTEREST OF OTHERS OR THE
CONSEQUENCES OF ONE'S ACTION, SO IN THIS CATEGORY OF
THOUGHTLESSNESS I THINK THE NEGLIGENT SHOP KEEPER WOULD BE
PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE OR THE NEGLIGENT FACTORY
OWNER/OPERATOR.
AGAIN I MENTIONED THIS BEFORE THIS NEGLIGENT INDIVIDUAL JUST
SORT OF THROWS THEIR TOXIC WASTE IN THE STREAM BEHIND THE
FACTORY, FLOATS DOWN TO A MAJOR RIVER; FLOATS INTO A WATER
SUPPLY AND KILLS OTHER PEOPLE.
WHAT WAS THE MOTIVE OF THIS EVIL YOU MIGHT SAY WELL IS MORE LIKE
SELFISHNESS BECAUSE THE SHOP KEEPER WAS JUST TRYING TO SAVE
MONEY BUT IS ALSO A CASE WHERE THOUGHTLESSNESS COMES INTO PLAY
IN A VERY SERIOUS WAY.
THIS IS NOT AN EXCUSING CONDITION ON THE SCHWITZGEBEL
ANALYSIS THIS IS YOUR BLAME WORTHY SO YOU ARE CULPABLE BUT
YOU ARE CULPABLE AND WHAT ARE YOU CULPABLE OF?
THINKING ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTION; THE SHOP KEEPER
IF THERE WAS SUCH A PERSON THAT DID SUCH A THING WOULD ONLY BE
THINKING OF THE IMMEDIATE, SAVINGS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO
GET BY NOT PACKAGING THE TOXIC WASTE PROPERLY BUT THEY ARE NOT
LOOKING AT LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES OR EVEN SORT OF
CONSEQUENCES THAT ARE NOT OBVIOUS LIKE WELL HEY WHAT IF
THIS TOXIC WASTE KILLS A TON OF HABITATS ON ITS WAYS AS IT
FLOATING DOWN THE STREAM.
WHAT IF THIS TOXIC WASTE ENDS UP IN A TOWN'S WATER SUPPLY RIGHT
BECAUSE OF THAT IT WOULD MAKE IT A CASE OF THOUGHTLESSNESS; THEY
ARE NOT WEIGHING AND CONSIDERING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTION
AND THAT CAN BE A CAUSE OF EVIL ACTION?
TWO OTHER MOTIVATIONS FOR EVIL ACTION WOULD BE PRINCIPLE.
THIS WOULD BE ACTING ON AN INCORRECT MORAL PRINCIPLE OR
INCORRECTLY UNDERSTANDING OR WEIGHING A MORAL PRINCIPLE.
HERE I THINK A PERFECTLY GOOD EXAMPLE WOULD BE
THE NAZI EXECUTIONERS.
WHY? BECAUSE THE NAZI EXECUTIONERS IN MANY, MANY CASES
THOUGHT THAT WHAT THEY WERE DOING WAS MORALLY RIGHT.
THEY WOULD GIVE A MORAL DEFENSE OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
SO THEY HAVE A PRINCIPLE BUT IT JUST TURNS OUT TO BE RADICALLY,
PATHOLOGICAL AND INCORRECT.
IT TURNS OUT TO BE FILLED WITH PSEUDO FACTS MEANING NOT FACTS
BUT IT IS FULL OF FALSEHOODS.
THEIR WHOLE WORLD VIEW THEIR WHOLE CONCEPTION OF THINGS IS
ACTUALLY CONTRARY TO MODERN SCIENCE.
THEIR WHOLE CONCEPTION OF THE BIOLOGICAL SUPERIORITY OF RACES
IS NOT SCIENTIFICALLY JUSTIFIABLE EVEN THOUGH MANY OF
THESE FIGURES WERE MOTIVATED BY THEIR RACIAL VISION OF
SUPERIORITY.
THEY ALSO HELD A FALSE BELIEF THAT THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC
EVIDENCE NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND THAT MORAL
CHARACTERISTICS ARE BUILT INTO DNA OR GENETICS SO THAT A GROUP
OF PEOPLE IS GOING TO BE MORE LIKELY TO BE MORE LYING AND
DECEPTIVE FOR EXAMPLE THEN SOME OTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE.
THERE IS NO CONCEPTION OF SOME GROUPS BEING BY THEIR OWN
BIOLOGICAL NATURE MORALLY SUPERIOR OR INFERIOR THEN OTHER
GROUPS AND THIS IS AGAIN THE NAZI'S HELD THIS VIEW.
MANY OF THEM MAY HAVE BEEN UNPRINCIPLED ROGUE, HOODLUMS OUT
TO MASS *** AND BUTCHER INNOCENT PEOPLE AND HAVING FUN
WHILE DOING SO BUT THERE IS A GREAT NUMBER OF SUCH INDIVIDUALS
THAT WERE MOTIVATED BY PRINCIPLE IT JUST TURNS OUT TO BE
INCORRECT, DEFECTIVE, EELY CONSTRUED OR
EELY CONTRIVED PRINCIPLES.
ANOTHER CASE THAT MIGHT FALL UNDER CORRUPT PRINCIPLE WOULD BE
THE CASE OF THE SUICIDE BOMBER.
THE SUICIDE BOMBER AGAIN, MOTIVATED BY THE CAUSE BUT IT
TURNS OUT THAT THE CAUSE IS BOGUS IT IS RADICALLY WRONG.
SUPPOSE SOMEBODY THINKS THAT BASED ON SOME INTERPRETATION
THAT THEY HAVE COME UP WITH OF A HOLY BOOK THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED
OR JUSTIFIED IN COMMITTING SOME RADICAL ACT OF *** OR
SOMETHING OF THAT KIND.
WELL CHANCES ARE LIKELY THAT THEY MISREAD THE HOLY TEXT OR
PASSAGE OR SOMETHING SO THEY COME UP WITH SOME MORAL REASON
OR JUSTIFICATION THAT IS BOGUS.
THAT IS WHAT THE FOURTH KIND OF MOTIVE FOR EVIL WOULD INVOLVE.
AGAIN, YOU CAN NOTE THAT ON THAT THERE IS NOT AN ABANDONMENT OF
MORAL PRINCIPLES.
THERE IS JUST SIMPLY MISCONSTRUED OF
MORAL PRINCIPLES.
ANOTHER MOTIVE WOULD BE PASSION.
SCHWITZGEBEL POINTS OUT BEING CARRIED AWAY BY RAGE; BEING
CARRIED AWAY BY HATRED OR SOME OTHER VIOLENT
EMOTION OR PASSION.
A JEALOUS, ENRAGED SPOUSE COMES HOME TO FIND THEIR PARTNER IN AN
AFFAIR WITH SOMEBODY ELSE OUT OF PURE RAGE AND BEING OVERCOME BY
VIOLENT EMOTIONS THEY THROW OBJECTS AND SERIOUSLY INJURING
OR KILLING ONE OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED.
THERE YOU HAVE A CASE OF PASSION TAKING OVER; VIOLENT PASSION
MAYBE HATRED OR RAGE BEING BROUGHT OUT TO BE A CAUSAL
FACTOR A MOTIVATING FACTOR IN PERPETRATING AN EVIL ACT.
THIS I THINK IS NOT PARTICULARITY UNCOMMON; VERY
OFTEN YOU GET CRIMES OF PASSION WHERE THERE WAS A *** THAT
TOOK PLACE OR A BEATING OR SOME ALTERCATION RESULTING IN DEATH
WHERE YOU COULD TRACE IT BACK DOWN TO A CONFLICT DERIVATIVE OF
PASSION.
THIS IS SCHWITZGEBEL'S SORT OF GENERAL COMMENTS TO US ON EVIL.
THEY ARE BY NO MEANS DEFINITIVE I THINK THEY ARE HELPFUL IN AT
LEAST AN INITIAL APPROACH TO EVIL.
THEY ARE NOT IN ANY WAY THE FINAL SAY ON EVIL ACTION
BY ANY STRETCH.
THEY ARE SIMPLY AND HE SIMPLY PRESENTED THESE AS
CONSIDERATIONS THE MOTIVES ARE NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF
MOTIVES THEY ARE JUST FIVE POSSIBLE MOTIVES OR AT LEAST
FOUR OF THEM ARE COMMON MOTIVES FOR EVIL.
THE THOUGHTS ABOUT WHAT EVIL MAY NOT INVOLVE IS AGAIN, NOT AN
EXHAUSTIVE LIST BUT IT IS AN INITIAL LIST TO GET US GOING AND
TO GET US THINKING.
IN HIS VERY DEFINITION OF EVIL AS ANY GRAVELY, MORALLY WRONG
ACT IS THOUGHT TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR CAPTURING THAT SUBSET OF
IMMORAL ACTS THAT ARE IN FACT EVIL.
IN HIS CONCEPTUAL DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN WICKEDNESS, DEEP
WICKEDNESS, MALICE AND SO ON IS MEANT TO HELP US UNDERSTAND THE
CONCEPT OF EVIL AND HOW IT IS RELATED TO BUT DIFFERENT FROM
OTHER CONCEPTS.
NOW TURNING TO JOHN KEKES BRIEFLY; KEKES HAS A VERY, VERY
DIFFERENT CONCEPTION OF EVIL ACTION.
HE TELLS US THAT EVIL CONSISTS OF THREE COMPONENTS
HE WILL TELL US.
THE FIRST COMPONENT IS THE MALEVOLENT MOTIVATION OF
THE EVIL DOER.
NOW, IN CONTRAST TO SCHWITZGEBEL YOU HAVE KEKES FOCUSING ON THE
PERPETRATOR AND IN PARTICULAR THE MOTIVATION OF
THE PERPETRATOR.
SO THE PERPETRATOR IS MOTIVATED BY MALEVOLENCE, WHERE
MALEVOLENCE IN KEKES'S VIEW IS NOT DEFINED AS SCHWITZGEBEL
MAYBE MORE OF A DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF MALEVOLENCE.
MALEVOLENCE MIGHT EVEN MEAN FOR HIM THEY ARE MOTIVATED BY
THE WRONGNESS OF THE ACT OR SOMETHING.
IT MAY HAVE A RELATION TO WHAT SCHWITZGEBEL CALLS
A DEEP WICKEDNESS.
ANOTHER ELEMENT TO THE KEKES VIEW IS THE SERIOUS, EXTENSIVE
HARM CONDITION TO COMPONENT TWO THE SERIOUS, EXTENSIVE HARM
CAUSED BY THE EVIL ACT, SCHWITZGEBEL SAYS THAT THERE
DOES NOT NEED TO BE EXCESSIVE HARM.
EXCESSIVE HARM IS BUILT INTO THE VERY IDEA OF EVIL.
IF YOU HAVE THE CHARACTER LIKE THE NEGLIGENT SHOP KEEPER THAT
PERSON WOULD NOT COUNT AS EVIL ON THE KEKES'S VIEW BECAUSE FOR
ONE THING THEY LACK MALEVOLENT MOTIVATION.
THEY MAY MEET CRITERIA TWO IN SO FAR AS THERE IS AN EXCESSIVE
HARM CAUSED BY THEIR ACTION NAMELY THE DEATH OF THE VICTIM
THAT THEY POISONED OR KILLED IN THEIR SLEEP OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
THE THIRD COMPONENT AND FINAL COMPONENT OF EVIL ON KEKES'S
VIEW IS THAT THERE IS A LACK OF MORALLY ACCEPTABLE, INEXCUSABLE
LET ME SAY AGAIN THERE IS A LACK OF MORALLY ACCEPTABLE EXCUSE
GIVEN FOR THE ACTION.
SO, THE PERPETRATOR IN THIS CASE IS GOING TO HAVE NO GOOD MORAL
JUSTIFICATION FOR WHAT THEY ARE DOING BUT PRESUMABLY IF THEY
COULD CONJURER UP SOME MORAL JUSTIFICATION IT WOULD THEN
DISCOUNT THE ACT AS EVIL.
SO IN THIS CASE IS THE NAZI EXECUTIONER EVIL?
WELL THEY ARE MOTIVATED BY SUPPOSEDLY IN SOME CERTAIN CASE
THE GENOCIDAL EXECUTIONER IS MOTIVATED BY THEIR PRINCIPLES
WHAT SCHWITZGEBEL IS GOING TO CALL THEIR INCORRECT AND
IMMORAL PRINCIPLES.
WELL ON KEKES'S VIEW THOSE PRINCIPLES MAY BE MORALLY
JUSTIFIED ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE GIVEN BY THE MEDICAL AND
SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY AS THEY WERE IN NAZI GERMANY.
NAZI GERMANY'S BIOMEDICAL VISION A VISION OF RACIAL DISTINCTIONS
THEIR ENTIRE CONCEPT OF RACE WAS GIVEN TO THEM
BY SCIENTISTS AND DOCTORS.
OF COURSE IT IS BOGUS SCIENCE IT IS PSEUDO SCIENCE AND THESE ARE
BAD PRACTITIONERS BUT NEVERTHELESS, THEY ARE GIVEN BY
AUTHORITY FIGURES DOMAINS.
THOSE PEOPLE ACT UPON THOSE BELIEFS GIVEN TO THEM BY
RELIGIOUS LEADERS, SCIENTIFIC LEADERS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH,
THEY MAY HAVE HAD SOME WHAT MORAL JUSTIFIABLE EXCUSE.
THEIR LOCAL THEOLOGIAN TOLD THEM THAT WHAT THEY WERE DOING IS
MORALLY RIGHT.
THE GOVERNMENT TOLD THEM WHAT THEY WERE DOING WAS
MORALLY RIGHT.
THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY SAID IT WAS MORAL NECESSARY TO GET RID
OF THE DISEASED THE BIOLOGICALLY DISEASED GROUP THAT WAS
INFECTING GERMANY, ETC. SO SOMEBODY IS MOTIVATED BY THAT IT
SEEMS THAT THEY HAVE SOME SORT IMMORAL EXCUSE.
ON THE SCHWITZGEBEL VIEW IT IS GOING TO BE A PERVERTED EXCUSE
SO IT WILL NOT COUNT AS AN EXCUSING CONDITION.
ON THE KEKES'S VIEW IT SEEMS TO BE AT LEAST POSSIBLY MORALLY
JUSTIFIABLE EXCUSE AND THEREFORE MAY BE EXCUSABLE.
KEKES'S TELLS US THAT THOSE THREE ITEMS THE MALEVOLENT
MOTIVATION OF THE EVIL DOER, THE SERIOUS EXCESSIVE HARMED CAUSED
BY THE ACTION AND THE LACK OF MORAL ACCEPTABLE EXCUSE FOR THE
ACTION; THOSE THREE COMBINE TOGETHER FORM THE NECESSARY AND
THE SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS FOR SOMETHING COUNTING AS EVIL.
SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT IS AN IMPORTANT PHILOSOPHICAL CLAIM.
IT MAKES HIS VIEW VERY STRONG.
SO HE IS CLAIMING THAT ANY CASE OF EVIL MUST INVOLVE
THOSE THREE ITEMS.
SO, EVIL NEEDS TO INVOLVE MALEVOLENT MOTIVATION,
SERIOUS AND EXCESSIVE HARM.
IT NEEDS TO INVOLVE A LACK OF MORALLY ACCEPTABLE EXCUSE; ONLY
WHEN YOU HAVE THOSE THREE ITEMS ALL TOGETHER DO YOU HAVE EVIL.
WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING IN TERMS OF COMPARING THE THEORIES
SCHWITZGEBEL HAS A FAIRLY BROAD CONCEPTION OF EVIL AND THEN HE
CARVES OUT SUB CATEGORIES SUCH AS WICKEDNESS AND SO ON.
WHAT KEKES ENDS UP DOING IS COLLAPSING EVIL TO A FAIRLY
NARROW CONCEPTION BECAUSE FEWER THINGS YOU ARE GOING TO MEET ALL
THREE CRITERIA THAT HE LAYS OUT.
SO KEKES AND SCHWITZGEBEL AGAIN HAVE THESE VERY DIFFERENT
APPROACHES TO EVIL AND THESE TWO APPROACHES ARE NOT DEFINITIVE.
THEY ARE NOT THE END OF THE STORY THESE TWO THEORIES HAVE
RIVAL THEORIES. I AM NOT NECESSARILY GOING
TO SPELL THOSE OUT.
I AM GOING TO LEAVE US WITH THESE TWO TO CONTEMPLATE BECAUSE
TWO IS ENOUGH FOR OUR PURPOSES.
BUT YOU COULD PUT CONCEPTION OF EVIL THAT FOCUSES SPECIFICALLY
ON THE VICTIMS AND THE ATROCITIES THAT TAKE PLACE
TO THE VICTIMS.
SO EVIL MAYBE DEFINED IN TERMS OF WHAT IT DOES TO THE VICTIMS
AND A PHILOSOPHER WHO GIVES THAT KIND OF APPROACH WOULD BE A
WOMAN NAMED CLAUDIA CARD IN HER BOOK CALLED
"THE ATROCITY PARADIGM".
SHE ANALYZES EVIL IN TERMS OF WHAT ITS RESULTS ON CONSEQUENCES
FOR VICTIMS.
IT IS A VICTIM CENTERED THEORY OF EVIL.
SO SHE IS GOING TO HAVE DIFFERENT THINGS TO HIGHLIGHT
AND SAY WITH DISAGREEMENT WITH BOTH SCHWITZGEBEL AND
JOHN KEKES.
THERE ARE AGAIN OTHER THEORIES OUT THERE BUT FOR THE MOMENT
I WILL LEAVE US WITH THESE TWO THEORIES.
SO AS YOU DO THE KEKES'S READING AS YOU READ THROUGH THE NOTES IN
YOUR READER ON SCHWITZGEBEL'S THEORY BARE THESE POINTS IN MIND