Is Chaotic evil more evil than Lawful evil?

[S'mon]

For the second part, no, I do not agree - causing harm to someone, wether bodily or to property for selfish reasons is evil, though damage to property is arguably less so. Stomping on a kid's sandwich at lunch does him no harm, but it is still a minor evil act.

Yup. Doesn't mean the bully has an Evil alignment in D&D terms, but the act itself is an Evil act not a Neutral act.

 

[Imagicka]

Greetings...

I am American, and agree with you. But every country has skeletons in its closet, including Canada. This isn't the place to examine them.

*turns and looks at Steel_Wind* What skeletons do we have? Everyone loves us!

 

[billd91]

Discussing whether a particular philosophical approach to evil is somehow greater than the other is pretty much meaningless. It all depends on the individual who takes that philosophical approach and applies it to create more or less evil than the other. If a CE character believes that he can create as much suffering as he wants based on his own personal strength, but is actually pretty weak and ineffective, then that's not a lot of evil. Compare him to a LE guy with some principles but who can generate evil on a tremendous scale because of his organizational ability. Now which is more evil? Neither philosophy. It's all in who's wielding it.

 

[Davek]

Discussing whether a particular philosophical approach to evil is somehow greater than the other is pretty much meaningless. It all depends on the individual who takes that philosophical approach and applies it to create more or less evil than the other. If a CE character believes that he can create as much suffering as he wants based on his own personal strength, but is actually pretty weak and ineffective, then that's not a lot of evil. Compare him to a LE guy with some principles but who can generate evil on a tremendous scale because of his organizational ability. Now which is more evil? Neither philosophy. It's all in who's wielding it.

Except if it is MY philosophy, in which case I KNOW it is right and yours is wrong

 

[Atom Again]

Nazi skinheads are arguably lawful evil (at least the more organized ones) as was the old Ku Kux Klan. Pinkerton strikebreakers back in the 1920's, were Lawful Evil, as were Communist informers in 1930's Soviet Union, or 1970's Cambodia.

?????

But that's the problem: Nazi skinheads and KKK don't *think of themselves as evil*. They think they are the *good* guys. Same with strikebreakers and communist informers. They think *we* are the evil ones.

Look at what Hitler wrote about Jews in Mein Kampf. He didn't write, "I am EVIL! And that's why I want to kill Jews!" No, he wrote, "JEWS are evil, and that's why I want to kill them!"

So isn't the definition just a matter of perspective?

 

[Atom Again]

Let me ask you a hypothetical question of my own. Is the Lawful Evil WW II Waffen SS trooper who is eaually loyal to his fellow troops, loves his mother and would do anything to make her happy, but also eagerly turns over Jews hiding in his neighborhood when on leave, and shoots Russian P.O.W.'s and civilians every chance he gets, engages in torture of Prisoners, and eagerly participates in burning homes of Russian Civilians in the hopes of creating Libernsraum ('living space') for Germans.... is he evil?

Of course he is.
DB

In whose opinion? The problem with your statement above is that you are getting into the realm of moral absolutism, the very realm that enables people like Nazis and Osama bin Laden to perpetuate horrific acts, all in the belief that they are *right*.

Are you a moral absolutist?

To us, the German soldier you describe is evil, but not everyone thinks that. How about the American soldier who does the same things in Vietnam or Iraq? Is he evil? Or is he a champion of freedom?

It's all a matter of perspective. Good and evil are not absolutes.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

In whose opinion? The problem with your statement above is that you are getting into the realm of moral absolutism, the very realm that enables people like Nazis and Osama bin Laden to perpetuate horrific acts, all in the belief that they are *right*.

Not really. The assumption that only moral absolutism enables horrific acts is in error. Moral relativism has been taught as a means to break down resistance to inflicting such horror in quite a few instances. I believe it was taught in communist nations as a means to break down inhibitions against such things as torture and atrocities. (Since I don't remember my source for that, it might not have been taught (or it may have been intended to simply make way for a new socialist "morality")--however, Richard Wurmbrand's testimony of the tortures he endured amply demonstrates that it was learned anyway and played that role).

One might also point out that, practically speaking, opposing evil requires actually believing that you are *right* to do so. The people who *actually* fought the Nazis generally believed that what they were doing was right. (In fact, this was the subject of much propaganda--and despite that, I think it is still true). Tell people that there's no such thing as justice and there's no reason to fight the Nazis. Why not just join them? After all, if there is no right and wrong then there's nothing *wrong* with doing so. (And, as Ghenghis Khan testifies, there's something to be said for driving your enemies before you, slaughtering them, ravishing their wives and taking their children into slavery--if it's not wrong, why deny yourself those pleasures if they're available and will, even better, win you the approval of your Nazi friends (which is, morally speaking, just as worthwhile as that of their opponents)). If you want to talk about the Nazis or Bin Ladin being bad, you're either a hypocrite or you're not a moral relativist.

Are you a moral absolutist?

I won't speak for DrifterBob but it's certainly a defensible position. Far more so than simple relativism. Personally, I'm still undecided between moral objectivism and absolutism.

To us, the German soldier you describe is evil, but not everyone thinks that. How about the American soldier who does the same things in Vietnam or Iraq? Is he evil? Or is he a champion of freedom?

Ahh, the classic blunder of the moral relativist--assuming that everyone behaves the same. Unless you believe the now-discredited testimony of certain individuals who claimed to have committed war crimes in the '70s but then backed off of those claims admitting that they never actually did or witnessed what they claimed but were merely reporting things that were told to them (by individuals--some of whom now claim that they were told what to say), neither US soldiers in Vietnam nor in Iraq behaved in the manner DrifterBob described. Yes, there were disgraceful incidents (Mai Lai and Abu Ghraib come to mind) but they pale in comparison to the conduct of the Germans on the soviet front, the conduct of the Soviets themselves (if I recall my Gulag Archipelago correctly, entire divisions were executed if they were cut off from the chain of command) and others. That's not to say that Americans are saints. (The disgraceful incidents of post WWII America also pale in comparison to Wounded Knee, etc if my history books are accurate). However, the cheap and easy relativism of "they're all the same anyway" is a load of hogwash. People are not all the same. Nations are not all the same. (Even the same nation over different years will not be the same). And their conduct shows it.

It's all a matter of perspective. Good and evil are not absolutes.

Is that true? Absolutely? Or is that just your perspective? And, if it is just your perspective, why should anyone else care? (That is, if it's not *right* to seek the truth).

 

[Drifter Bob]

?????

But that's the problem: Nazi skinheads and KKK don't *think of themselves as evil*. They think they are the *good* guys. Same with strikebreakers and communist informers. They think *we* are the evil ones.

Look at what Hitler wrote about Jews in Mein Kampf. He didn't write, "I am EVIL! And that's why I want to kill Jews!" No, he wrote, "JEWS are evil, and that's why I want to kill them!"

So isn't the definition just a matter of perspective?

Nearly everybody, except for the most utterly cynical, think of themselves as 'good' in some way or on the 'right' side. Much evil comes from "ends justify the means" beliefs.

You don't have to identify yourself as evil to be evil! If that is your standard then you are going to have very few examples in RL, thats for sure. No offense, but I think that is an absurd idea. Hitler was evil regardless of whether he thought he was a bad guy or not.

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

To us, the German soldier you describe is evil, but not everyone thinks that. How about the American soldier who does the same things in Vietnam or Iraq? Is he evil? Or is he a champion of freedom?

It's all a matter of perspective. Good and evil are not absolutes.

The American soldiers who performed atrocities such as the MaiLai (sp) massacre were EVIL. That does not preclude their changing their alignment later, but yes, they were evil. But as bad as it can be, the American army is not like the SS in WW II. there are evil people in US army, and hard core combat conditions do tend to promote that, but in the current US army at any rate, there is an effort to combat that. There are rules in the US army that if something unethical is going on you can refuse to go along with it. In the SS there is a good chance you would be shot or put into a punishment Battallion.

SS doctrine wanted their troops to be lawful evil.


Now, say, the US army in the Philipines in the Spanish American war in 1904 say, were probably much more like the SS.

Regardless, there are lines that if you cross them, you are evil.

So I suppose in a broad sense, yes, I am a moral absolutist. I don't care how people justify in their own actions, if they rape, torture, murder (without damn good reasons) then they ARE evil. Now, can there be extenuating circumstances to specific acts? Of course. Torturing a villain to find out where the bomb is before it goes off may be justified in one instance. Routinely torturing Bosnians because they are Bosnians and you are a Serb, is not justifiyable in any way. You are evil.


Good and evil are not absolutes, you may not be able to prove them mathematically, but as the man once said about pornography, "you know it when you see it", and you can make common sense judgement calls, which is why we have juries and judges to make decisions on matters of this sort.

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

Ahh, the classic blunder of the moral relativist--assuming that everyone behaves the same. Unless you believe the now-discredited testimony of certain individuals who claimed to have committed war crimes in the '70s but then backed off of those claims admitting that they never actually did or (snip) neither US soldiers in Vietnam nor in Iraq behaved in the manner DrifterBob described. Yes, there were disgraceful incidents (Mai Lai and Abu Ghraib come to mind)

You have to be careful here though. While I emphatically agree that since say the turn of the Century, U.S. troops have not committed as many acts of evil as their equivalents in the Nazi German or Soviet armies, you are actually treading dangerously close to another kind of moral relativism here.

As Adam was pointing out, people tend to assume they are in the right, their side is 'different' from all others. Americans are one of the worst practitioners of this kind of thinking for a variety of reasons.

We may not have had Auschwitz, and we may not have had on the books policies of wholesale rape, mutilation and massacres of civilians and P.O.W.'s as the Nazis or the Soviets did, but the idea that Mai Lai was a unique occurance during the Vietnam war, or that U.S. troops didn't commit vast numbers of atrocities, kill civilians, burn homes, kill P.O.W.'s, etc., simply doesn't hold up to historical analysis. For that matter, you should probably read a little more about WW II, it was hardly the cheerfully patrotic fight against evil it has been painted as in retrospect, certainly many of the troops on the front line had much more mixed feelings about it.

The only thing different about our troops is that they are governed by a democracy and their chain of command is influenced by democratic ideals to some extent, and the military code they live under is influenced by U.S. civil law which is based in democratic values. Other than that there is no inherent moral superiority. Maintaining anytthing close to moraly defensible behavior during combat is an immense struggle. The difference between the US and say, the Nazis or the Japanese Army of WW II, is that we attempted this struggle, and they did not.

DB