This sounds generally like my point of view, but I get stuck at “unnecessarily” because I ask who gets to decide what’s necessary.
You decide for yourself, others define for themselves…and The Body Politic sets the consequences.
edited to add: Ones ethics must allow for the fact that they cannot be universal.
Two points (sorry if they have been mentioned already):
-
There is no ‘good’ and there is no ‘evil.’ What we have is a group consensus on what is moral and what is immoral. Using force in a morally justifiable or necessary manner (eg to enforce security or defeat an enemy) is only ‘moral’ to the extent that the group considers it so.
-
Any individual can only be expected to do what is rationally best for their own group or community. I would certainly prefer that my own success does not come at someone else’s expense, but if it comes to a choice between ‘me’ and ‘you,’ I choose ‘me.’
Therefore: Harming someone else to preserve my own security is not ‘immoral.’ (Eg a policeman arresting a criminal, or the military attacking an enemy.) However, it may become ‘immoral’ by violating the group’s customs. (Eg. Attacking an enemy in war is moral, but attacking him with chemical weapons is immoral because the group decided that chemical weapons are taboo. Likewise, the group has decided that police should use proportionate force to accomplish their goals)
In all cases, the threshold for the use of force is decided by the standards of the group. There is no objective moral formula which says “X is universally good,” and “Y is universally evil.” The best we can hope for is to do what we think is best for us.
I define evil quite differently than you. (Mostly I don’t care so much about evil or good as labels when discussing ethics.) Intent matters a lot in my definition of making ethically sound decisions.
Got anything resembling a cite for your fact?
With almost 27 years of Army service, about 6 of it active time, I don’t see anecdotal evidence to support your claim. The military, and especially combat, is very much a team based event. Those with Anti-Social Personality Disorder, or the outright psychopathic, are horrible fits for the military. They don’t contribute to building cohesive and effective teams that can win in battle. The association of ASPD with criminal activity would also tend to get them disqualified from service under recruitment guidelines for most of the last several decades.
Lower grade cruelty is a poor fit for a long career in any military that uses a mission-oriented orders philosophy like all western militaries. It’s hard to develop a collaborative and open leadership climate if you are cruel to your subordinates. The led won’t tell you what they are thinking and feeling if they don’t trust you. They certainly won’t go out of their way, or assume extra risk to themselves, to accomplish the mission for someone who’s cruel and unfeeling.
It depends on your implication of callously. There’s a sense where it’s unfeeling or indifferent. I spent a lot of time as a volunteer crisis counselor and brought those skills to my Army leadership style. I’ve had a number of Soldiers trust me enough to open up about the things that haunt them in their nightmares from their experiences. In a couple cases, they opened up about things that they hadn’t been comfortable telling even their therapist to that point. They clearly were not unfeeling. They did an unnatural thing for the overwhelming majority of humans - hurting or killing their fellow man. They bore the emotional scars. There’s another sense behind calloused about becoming hardened. That sense seems more appropriate IME. We even had a common phrase that applied. Choose the hard right over the easy wrong.
That really leads back closer to my ethics on the use of force. For all but a limited chunk of humanity, killing is unnatural and emotionally difficult. Despite that strong irrational pull to never commit violence, it’s sometimes still the best option in an ugly world. Good IMO is then having the personal courage to pick the hard right over the easy wrong and live with the consequences.
Yes I did.
Because the military is at root an organization designed to use force and suffering to make others change their behavior so they are not a threat to the nation, including killing them.
Which brings me back to my point, do people just assume the evil necessary to keep a society alive isn’t evil the same way that the evil that threatens a social organism is evil? We don’t consider our white blood cells evil, but we do consider pathogenic microbes evil. But both are single celled organisms that use force to get their way. Killing someone in defense of the social organisms (joining the military, executing a prisoner or dangerous criminal) is not viewed the same as killing someone in a way that threatens the social organism (killing an attractive blond woman for fun)
A society without cops falls apart. No the cops don’t need to beat people, but they need to be willing to. There is a continuum of force in the police, and it ends at lethal force. The issue is that if a police officer can get cooperation by being polite he should. But if he can only get cooperation by killing someone, than they should. The issue isn’t how much force they use, the issue is how much force is needed to ensure compliance. Not all cops beat and kill people, but deep down inside they need to be willing to if that is what it takes to neutralize a threat to society.
And again, since the universe is entropic, we need the ability to use force and cause suffering to defend the structures we depend on for life and happiness. The military causes suffering. Police cause suffering. Shame and stigma cause suffering. But without those tools as a way to neutralize threats, the fragile constructs we depend on for life fall apart
Lying, cheating and stealing are dealt with via the military, police or social stigmas. These all cause suffering, but they are all necessary to keep society alive.
Lying & cheating = fraud
Stealing = theft
The police will prosecute for fraud and theft. The military will go to war over national levels of theft (if Mexico invades and annexes Texas). People will use shunning and shame to punish people who lie, cheat and steal.
Are you saying that coercion (perhaps of the violent kind) is the only real evil that exists?
Actually in my experience I’ve seen more cooperation in people when theyre trying to cheat then when they aren’t simply because major cheating usually takes a team to accomplish
But this topic reminds me of a smartass in Sunday school who asked "if killing is wrong what about the plants and animals we eat? Because n his mind there was no way to eat with out death
It was shined off as killing a cow was different than klling a human …
Your Question can easily be boiled down to…
Mankind cannot know up without down, cannot know light without darkness, and cannot know or believe in God without also knowing and believing in the Devil.
That is the viewpoint of some, but not all religions, yes.
There’s the Augustinian standard. Augustine recognized that wars were violent and caused great harm. But he argued that a war could nonetheless be just and good. But only if the harm that the war caused was less than the harm the war prevented from occurring and only if the war was the least harmful means of achieving that goal.
I feel the same standard can apply in general life. Yes, the police may use force. But force used by the police serves as a check on criminal activity which would cause far more harm than the force used by the police does. Society just needs to make sure that the police are not using unnecessary force.
In the real world, we can’t eliminate evil. What we can do is work on keeping evil at the lowest possible level.
That seems hard to define. How do you tell the difference between good and evil?
Is it actions? If so, then evil is defined as doing evil things, like killing people. So if you’re killing people then you’re evil, even if you’re killing people to defend good.
Is it intent? If so, how about a scientist who makes great life-saving discoveries - but only does so because he wants the fame and money? He actually hates everyone else and he’s just doing what’s best for him. If he could make more money committing crimes, he would happily do it. But he’s found that the most profitable thing he can do is discover new cancer treatments. Is this person evil?
How about a Nazi who sincerely believed that there was a Jewish conspiracy to destroy all non-Jews. So he defended himself and the rest of the non-Jewish world by fighting the Jewish conspiracy. He really believed he was defending good. Was he evil?
What if it was an American soldier who sincerely believed that there was a communist conspiracy to destroy the free world? Or a Soviet soldier who sincerely believed that there was a capitalist conspiracy to destroy the workers? Would they be justified in defending what they see as good against what they see as evil?
Does it have to be either/or?
Evil is evil and good is good. I know that’s tautological, but different people can have different definitions of good and evil, and that’s fine.
Is every individual entitled to act on their own belief of what is good and evil? Or are they bound by the consensus?
And if people are bound by the consensus, what about individuals who believe that submitting to the majority is evil and everyone should follow their own conscience?
Sometimes at least, this depends on how much and in what ways it affects others.
How do you tell the difference between good and evil?
Every individual is entitled to their own belief of what is good and evil; whether they act on it is up to them.
If their views are contrary to the consensus they may find it prudent to not act, but it’s their decision - and their responsibility to bear the consequences. But sometimes you need to stand up and be counted. Or sit down, in the case of Rosa Parks. It’s up to you.
It’s not that it’s offensive, it’s that it’s a diffuse term with very heavy connotations. You compound this by stating that police have to be cruel to have an effect.
If one regards all use of force as evil then you have a philosophical problem.
If one doesn’t, then your proposed problem goes away.
And to the extent that there is something meaningful down the well that you so thoroughly tried to poison, my personal view is one of pragmatism. The world is what it is. Less violence, both physical and not, is good, but sometimes committing violence is the only way to prevent more violence.