It seems like an unimportant distinction. Whether the act removed their humanity, or they lost their humanity and so committed the act, the fact remains that non-humans (as far as we know) are not part of the moral universe.
What I am interested in is the evil that exists outside of the minds of men. Is it the same thing? Can it be qualified? Quantified?
Frylock, Thank you for your extra efforts in trying to understand my position and where things might have gone awry. As I’ve said, I’ve gone back and reread things quite a few times trying to pinpoint it. I just volunteered that some of the problem may stem from my loose use of the word “excuse”. I think your observations are quite accurate.
My point is that someone’s humanity is such a basic element of what they are that no one can strip them of it. Except themselves. While those two scenarios you propose are both possible, I think we must give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
The difference in the real world can be seen with someone walking into your house in the middle of the day. If you simlpy shoot them before they do or say anything, your actions will probably be viewed as somewhat extreme. If that someone walking into your house is Charles Manson, your actions would be viewed as quite reasonable. (By me, any way.)
Yikes! Big question. Small answer: I do not know. Can an animal behave in an evil manner? I don’t think so. I’d say, one necessary component of evil I’d is forethought. Without it, even the most violent crime can probably be ascribed to a reaction to some pain or threat of pain. And there is plenty of evil that doesn’t manifest itself in violence. So, I tend to think that it does not exist outside of the minds of men. But not knowing for certain what “IT” is, I have a hard time concluding with any certainty that it exists nowhere else. I see that my phrasing pointed you to this question. My apologies. I was more concerned with focusing on where it was for certain than where it might exist at all.
In all honesty this is a question I often pose in informal conversation with many a friend, family, etc.
Personally, beyond the obvious technical and scientific advances (and many detrimental as well) we’ve made, no, I don’t think humans have made all that much moral progress at all. In many ways we’re still the same animals we were thousands of years ago, Social Darwinism still rules at the end of the day. Whereas a caveman would think nothing of beating the hell out of any other “heavy-browed” brethren in order to take something he had, nor do today’s majority of “sophisticated humans” spend much time thinking about anything but what might benefit themselves – and especially if they think they can get away with it.
Does that mean that we are all evil, egotistical beings? Well, thankfully, not all…OTOH, it’s so much easier to kill/murder now-a-days that it might have been safer living in a cave way back when. Even if the average lifespan was less than a third of what it is today.
Much more I could add – like I said, it’s a topic I enjoy discussing IRL – but just think about one thing: worldwide, really, how many people have peaceful, rewarding and are generally content with the estate of their lives? Do you think it really differs percentage-wise to that of the Neanderthals?
If that line of reasoning wasn’t bad enough, allow me to tell you it comes from an optimists. A cynical one at that, but still…
Wish I could agree with you a whole lot more on this matter, but I still trust the images my aging eyes feed me.
(bolding mine)
So, those that didn’t plan out this incident* aren’t evil? The ones that just went along with it, or were coerced into it at the last minute, or who didn’t get fellated, but only watched, I mean.
*I’m not sure yet if “rape” or “gang-rape” is the right word. Statutory rape, undoubtedly, but I haven’t heard reports that the 11 year old was physically or even emotionally or socially coerced. Did she chose dicks to suck because she feared for her safety, to impress this 16 year old or because some other life experience told her that it was the correct thing to do? I don’t know, and once again, am not excusing the illegal and heinous behavior of those who took advantage of her, but I think we shouldn’t use the terms “rape” and “gang-rape” to refer to underage yet consentual activities when “statutory rape” or “sexual activity with a minor” exist as a more precise term. We don’t even know if this was strictly speaking pedophilia - I’ve known 11 year olds who are physically mature and menstruating (I was one of them.) There’s a lot more information to come that may affect my view on the case. Right now, I’m being conservative in my tongue-lashing until I hear more details (or until a jury does and returns a verdict.)
I really doubt that our Neandrathal ancestors would have acheived a broad-based consensus among world-wide posters on an internet message board that the gang rape of 11-year olds is socially sub-optimal.
And for the record, please count me among those in opposition to the gang rape of pre-teens of all ages.
Sorry. I read the article at CNN.com and assumed that was the same one linked to in the OP.
Here’s the CNN article, which is much more complete
Ass u me.
My bad.
I see D_Odds beat me to the CNN link. This is what I get for having a job away from the computer. 
Wait-please tell me you’re not seriously asserting that there’s nothing unusual with an eleven year old going along with such an act, simply because he or she might be physically mature?
Uh, no, I’m pretty sure she’s not saying that.
I think part of the problem with this entire conversation is the idea that there is a moral constant.
There isn’t. What is moral at one point in time may not be moral in another.
What is moral to one person may not be to the next.
There are certain universals at play, for the most part. One doesn’t have sex with pre-pubescent children. This appears to be a fairly consistent rule of human behavior. But I can’t guarantee that it’s been the rule for all of them.
It’s like killing. Not acceptable to our current culture. Acceptable for the culture of a soldier at war.
Morality is fluid.
And it’s all human nature, folks.
The “devil” only encourages, he doesn’t put the thought in anyone’s head. Failure to understand that we, as humans, are capable of terrible terrible things, is a very blinding flaw. And I’m speaking as someone who went out with a loaded rifle intent on kiling another man just 11 years ago. I’m not that person anymore, I’ve changed. I’ve realized the moral code there, and have agreed to live by it.
---- For the record, I am against any rape, in all forms, if one or more of the parties is non-consensual. And if the consenting partners are under-age, physically or emotionally.
No, I said no such thing. I said it may not technically be pedophillia. There are plenty of things that are unusual and heinous that are not pedophillia.
Honestly, it might have been a straw man in this thread. I think it was another thread that used the pedophile term, possibly even on another board. Sorry 'bout that.
You know, I do believe that virtually every mainstream religion (and most of the non-mainstream ones) would disagree with you on this. Certainly Christianity, at least, teaches that this sort of act is precisely what defines human nature, and that it can only be overcome by appeals to the divine.
Ah, okay, that makes sense. :smack:
Sorry, I thought you were saying that since the kid went along with it, it wasn’t abuse, or rape. I would think that someone so mentally and emotionally immature would make it rape by default.
(Sorry, it’s been a rough week)
Oh, sure. Split hairs.
And this brings up an interesting point. Namely that according to the CNN report, it sounds like this young girl went into this with at least some knowledge of what oral sex was. And I’m sorry about who knows what, but as the father of a fifteen year old, that creeps me right the hell out. There are certain things that eleven year old kids should remain unfamiliar with, and the mechanics of a blowjob ranks right up there.
Second only to where the old man hides his liquor.
You didn’t know what oral sex was when you were 11?!
Umm, TMI, but I’ve got that beat: I didn’t know what sex was until sometime between my 11th and 12th birthdays.
-FrL-
Just like Frylock, I just kinda sorta knew what sexual congress was about.
Now, where the liquor was hidden, that’s a whole 'nother kettle of gin.
That you are capable of reading either of these options into what I wrote is evidence enough of your detachment from common-sense reasoning.
I will, this once, lay it out using short and simple paragraphs, and, for the most part, short and simple sentences. Try to stay with me here.
The rape of a child is a terrible thing that cannot be forgiven.
Neither, however, should it be particularly surprising.
The incident is horrifying.
But human beings are eminently capable of performing horrifying acts.
On the grand stage of history, in fact, this incident is rather small beer.
People do incredibly appalling things to one another on a depressingly regular basis.
Right now, as you read this, some guerrilla soldier somewhere is engaged in the disposal of an infant’s corpse, an infant he himself killed, if he is not in fact engaged in the act of crushing its skull with his rifle butt at this very moment.
This, too, is a horrifying thing.
The fact that it is also entirely routine should be additionally horrifying.
But — and stick with me here — that doesn’t make it any less routine.
That’s one of the great paradoxes of human nature. Everywhere you look, every single day, you can find great throbbing mounds of suffering, of absolute torment, visited on one set of people by another set of people. Everywhere. All the time. Grotesque, soul-searing cruelties: committed like clockwork.
And it will never, ever stop.
That we should recognize these terrible things as horrifying is to our credit.
That the horrors continue, unceasingly, is not.
Only a sociopathic monster would label these obscenities as anything less than appalling and sickening.
But only a fool would deny that these obscenities are part of mankind’s daily bread. The parade of sadness that fills our daily media is sufficient to expose the ignorance of such an assertion.
Again: the awful paradox, the ugly contradiction, of humanity.
Incidents like this are gruesomely distressing; and yet they happen all the time.
Perhaps you are content to be shocked and disgusted at each one individually. In this thread, you have professed bafflement at the fact that a human being would be capable of such an atrocity. Perhaps you will express similar mystification the next time news of such an event appears on your mental radar, and will ask again how it is that a human being could do such a thing.
And yet, the plain fact is that a human being has, indeed, done such a thing.
Not a monster. Not a soulless creature. Not an animal or a demon.
A human.
Being.
I am no longer capable of being shocked and amazed by such stories of cruelty. Horrified, yes. But surprised? Not at all.
As I said: this is who we are.
You. Me. All of us.
Inside each one of us is the capability to inflict astonishing violence and pain upon other people.
If you deny this, you are an even greater fool than if you deny the repetitive frequency of such acts as committed by others.
No, you will almost certainly not assist in the gang-rape of a pre-pubescent girl. Neither will I. And further I join you in condemning such an act in the strongest possible terms and wishing only the harshest justice to be served on those would do this thing.
Where you and I part ways, I think, is that I will not react with shock and surprise the next time an incident like this appears in the news.
Because there will be another one.
And another one.
And another.
Despite our best intentions, we are flawed beings, all of us.
Our good intentions save us and protect us; but it is because we have such deep flaws that we are required to have good intentions at all. If we were not flawed, we could simply act, and nothing but good would result.
Only a nodding acquaintance with reality is required to demonstrate that such is not the case.
I, for one, am not content to simply react with disbelief at each incident of this kind.
Horror, yes. Disbelief, no.
Because simple, raw observation is sufficient to demonstrate that disbelief is in fact the least realistic reaction one can have. If one reacts with disbelief every time one learns of some new atrocity, then the only reasonable conclusion is to disbelieve the world entire.
That way, clearly, lies madness.
I am not mad. I am a rational being.
And I experienced a rational epiphany some years back while reading a volume of primate studies. From the author’s description of a pack of baboons torturing and driving off a weaker member of the tribe for no offense beyond simply being weak, I drew the blindingly obvious conclusion.
As previously, and glibly, stated: we are monkeys with pants.
There is no moral implication to this realization. It is simply a matter of fact, and of rational recognition of the truths of our behavior.
There is, however, a significant moral implication that follows, in that, despite the undeniable evidence of our inborn weaknesses, despite the inarguable cruelties which we inflict on one another with blithe apathy, we continue to insist on ourselves as good and moral creatures.
We can aspire to goodness, and morality, and most of us, most of the time, are capable of achieving at least a small measure of these qualities. Some of us, some of the time, reach for and attain moments of breathtaking kindness and beauty. Still, most of us, some of the time, fall short of our ideals, and find ourselves scurrying about to justify, or conceal, our bad acts. Some of us, obviously, some of the time, are terrible, terrible people. And some of us behave abominably for much of our lives.
But: we are people.
I am a human being. You are a human being. Josef Stalin was a human being. Mahatma Gandhi was a human being. The guy in the office next to yours is a human being. Vlad the Impaler. Charles Bukowski. Mother Teresa. Hitler. The kid who drives the ice-cream truck through your neighborhood. Not a single one of them any less than a human being, or more.
My overriding concern, here, is an honest, unvarnished recognition of what that means: of what it really, truly means to be a human being.
Not of what it should mean.
But simply of what it does mean.
And that… is… all.
For your part, for your flat accusations that my words should be so terribly twisted and misread, for your ludicrously irrational suggestion that I would have anything less than disgust and contempt for the people who committed such horrifying acts, and that I sought to handwave away their cold depravities in a fog of anthropological abstraction, you are cordially invited to go fuck yourself bloody.
Goddamn, you use your mouth purdy.