I don't know what you are attempting to say. You are ignoring the history. Palestinians have vowed to destroy Israel and kill all Jews, and have done so for their entire history and have repeatedly rejected a two-state solution because they will settle for nothing less than the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews. Israel has done their best to live in peace with the Palestinians despite this and only reacts to being attacked. The obvious origin of each position is rooted in their religions. The conditions in Gaza are a result of the Palestinians vow to destroy Israel and attacks upon Israel and Jews at every chance they get and their election of a terror group to "govern" them. That "governance" results in no advancement of the Palestinian society, but only focuses on attacking Israel. Hammas uses their own Palestinian people as human shields so that Israel cannot avoid civilian casualties when responding to attacks. There is absolutely no moral equivalence between the two sides.
I'm no expert on the subject, but I think he is asking a question about the importance of understanding the origins of evil. For example, generalizing and othering people by designating them uniquely evil, which lays the groundwork for killing babies and grandmothers.
I think he is posing the question of whether there is an origin to evil and whether someone can inadvertently nurture its development while still being a victim of evil. (Of course, in posing that question, it appears to me that he might also be generalizing about a population. From my perspective in Barbie land, it seems like this happens a lot in the real world.)
I don't think he is asking about moral equivalency, but whether in stating the obvious (to most people with any sense of outrage) lack of moral equivalency and reacting based on justified moral outrage, one might fail to search for and uncover root causes that could lead to strategies to address the underlying rise and manifestation of evil. But what do I know, I spend most of my time beaching.
Evil is a value judgement. Its "origin" is someone defining the word. I would argue that in nature there is no such thing as "evil" absent a human value judgement. Animals kill each other all the time, is that evil? Evil is a concept that humans have established to create a value system of right and wrong in order to maintain a social contract and civil society. The problem is that those values justify killing others in the name of maintaining the integrity of your values. The origin of evil lies in the creation of a morality based value system. For example, we determine that murder is "evil" because nobody wants to be murdered, but killing in wartime is generally not considered "evil" because it is sanctioned by the government (and thus by a majority of the people, in a democracy anyway). Of course some people disagree and they are called war protestors and most countries have them. Yet, most people believe its ok to kill those who are trying to kill you as long as you are not instigating the violence but rather are defending against it. The origin of this lies in people's desire to live and to oppose as "evil" anyone who threatens to murder them.
Here is an additional perspective about making value judgements between good and evil. The virtue of ethical discernment involves considering context when categorizing acts as moral, amoral, or immoral.
Of course, animals can be evil. My cat is most definitely evil. She enjoys torturing her prey. I'm sure she knows she is evil and is quite alright with it. If you don't believe me, I'm happy for you to cat sit for an hour if you can last that long.
Chimpanzees have wars, even genocidal ones. When one group splits off from the ban, the original group is out for blood.
Evil lacks compassion. Instead of wanting people to be free of suffering, evil people like it when others suffer--and are happy to play a role in doing so.
In the US, some believe it is evil to allow citizens to go homeless and hungry or deprive them of healthcare or good education if they can't afford to pay for it. Others believe its perfectly fine, and that society has no obligation to help those in need. This too is a value judgement.
Rick, there is no end to the Yes-But game except to stop playing it. The purpose of Yes-But is not to find a solution or advocate for anything. The purpose is to get attention. As a professional beacher with blond hair and 6-pck abs, I naturally get attention. ;-)
I have no problems with value judgments. I do have a problem with people not living up to their own professed values and people who value themselves above all things.
But again, animals also have value judgments. Capuchin monkeys have a sense of fairness. Value judgments are not merely a product of discursive human minds. There is more to it than that.
I don't know what you are attempting to say. You are ignoring the history. Palestinians have vowed to destroy Israel and kill all Jews, and have done so for their entire history and have repeatedly rejected a two-state solution because they will settle for nothing less than the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews. Israel has done their best to live in peace with the Palestinians despite this and only reacts to being attacked. The obvious origin of each position is rooted in their religions. The conditions in Gaza are a result of the Palestinians vow to destroy Israel and attacks upon Israel and Jews at every chance they get and their election of a terror group to "govern" them. That "governance" results in no advancement of the Palestinian society, but only focuses on attacking Israel. Hammas uses their own Palestinian people as human shields so that Israel cannot avoid civilian casualties when responding to attacks. There is absolutely no moral equivalence between the two sides.
Ed, this post is not about my opinion. I am asking Socratic questions about a complex conflict and inviting people to learn and respond. Have all Palestinians vowed to destroy Israel and kill all Jews? Or are you just referring to Hamas? https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/israeli-palestinian-conflict
I'm no expert on the subject, but I think he is asking a question about the importance of understanding the origins of evil. For example, generalizing and othering people by designating them uniquely evil, which lays the groundwork for killing babies and grandmothers.
I think he is posing the question of whether there is an origin to evil and whether someone can inadvertently nurture its development while still being a victim of evil. (Of course, in posing that question, it appears to me that he might also be generalizing about a population. From my perspective in Barbie land, it seems like this happens a lot in the real world.)
I don't think he is asking about moral equivalency, but whether in stating the obvious (to most people with any sense of outrage) lack of moral equivalency and reacting based on justified moral outrage, one might fail to search for and uncover root causes that could lead to strategies to address the underlying rise and manifestation of evil. But what do I know, I spend most of my time beaching.
Evil is a value judgement. Its "origin" is someone defining the word. I would argue that in nature there is no such thing as "evil" absent a human value judgement. Animals kill each other all the time, is that evil? Evil is a concept that humans have established to create a value system of right and wrong in order to maintain a social contract and civil society. The problem is that those values justify killing others in the name of maintaining the integrity of your values. The origin of evil lies in the creation of a morality based value system. For example, we determine that murder is "evil" because nobody wants to be murdered, but killing in wartime is generally not considered "evil" because it is sanctioned by the government (and thus by a majority of the people, in a democracy anyway). Of course some people disagree and they are called war protestors and most countries have them. Yet, most people believe its ok to kill those who are trying to kill you as long as you are not instigating the violence but rather are defending against it. The origin of this lies in people's desire to live and to oppose as "evil" anyone who threatens to murder them.
Here is an additional perspective about making value judgements between good and evil. The virtue of ethical discernment involves considering context when categorizing acts as moral, amoral, or immoral.
Of course, animals can be evil. My cat is most definitely evil. She enjoys torturing her prey. I'm sure she knows she is evil and is quite alright with it. If you don't believe me, I'm happy for you to cat sit for an hour if you can last that long.
Chimpanzees have wars, even genocidal ones. When one group splits off from the ban, the original group is out for blood.
Evil lacks compassion. Instead of wanting people to be free of suffering, evil people like it when others suffer--and are happy to play a role in doing so.
In the US, some believe it is evil to allow citizens to go homeless and hungry or deprive them of healthcare or good education if they can't afford to pay for it. Others believe its perfectly fine, and that society has no obligation to help those in need. This too is a value judgement.
What do you advocate for? How might we expand beyond the language of values to the language of virtues?
Rick, there is no end to the Yes-But game except to stop playing it. The purpose of Yes-But is not to find a solution or advocate for anything. The purpose is to get attention. As a professional beacher with blond hair and 6-pck abs, I naturally get attention. ;-)
My response was .. yes and
I have no problems with value judgments. I do have a problem with people not living up to their own professed values and people who value themselves above all things.
But again, animals also have value judgments. Capuchin monkeys have a sense of fairness. Value judgments are not merely a product of discursive human minds. There is more to it than that.