Is enlightened self-interest Good?

[Umbran]

But, if we just consider genocide by itself it is just a neutral concept.

You play it down, but that's a mighty big "if". You're talking about a massive amount of death and suffering there. Considering that neutral isn't a simple or easy thing.

The other way of thinking of it is that genocide by itself is evil. But that evil may be countered by a greater good. In other words, genocide will always be an evil thing, but it it saves more pain, death, and suffering than it causes, the perpetrator may just be able to avoid eternal damnation for his or her sins. This view is less convenient for some logical constructions, but it is likely to be an easier pill for the audience to swallow.

 

[LRathbun]

So, if [Hitler] decided...

That's quite different from the case that I was addressing, which involved pure motives coerced into an evil action, not a decision.

First of all, I would strongly argue that it is impossible to do what Hitler did for any good/selfless/altruistic reason. He, and the thousands who followed him, were monsters.

I think this comes down to the point of contention. It seems that you are saying that there are some actions that you can never undertake without them being evil. I think that there will always be a case (usually theoretical) that could be found that would prove that the person was acting out of the best of intentions or a mistake, either through coercion/curse/false information/force or whatever. For example, we agree that, generally speaking, genocide is wrong/bad/evil. But theoretically, if there was a button that could kill all Americans (that's me) and a baby pushed it, that's still genocide. It's a silly example, but it proves that point that not all genocides have to be the result of evil, but rather that the evilness or goodness of the action depend on the intent/motive.

Anywho thanks for listening.

 

[fredramsey]

That's quite different from the case that I was addressing, which involved pure motives coerced into an evil action, not a decision.

First of all, I would strongly argue that it is impossible to do what Hitler did for any good/selfless/altruistic reason. He, and the thousands who followed him, were monsters.

I don't want to draw this out (the end seems a fixed point), but I must argue that "that guy" didn't do what he did because he was feeling naughty. He did it because he believed (I think) in his heart of hearts, that the world would be a better place once:

1. He was in charge
2. Selective breeding created a stronger human race
3. Those bad people who killed Jesus were all dead

I don't think he did it out of anger, at least the way you and I understand it. He did it because he felt it was the right thing to do. When it comes down to it, he was the only politician to keep all his campaign promises. He promised to return Germany to its former glory. No one, however, bothered to ask him how he was going to do that...

A monster? Assuredly. Evil? Without question. But here in the real world, I don't believe in the existence of *absolute* evil like Demons and Devils. Those things are us trying to make sense of someone's twisted motives. But evil people do have motives. I'm actually glad I can't understand them sometimes.

I think this comes down to the point of contention. It seems that you are saying that there are some actions that you can never undertake without them being evil. I think that there will always be a case (usually theoretical) that could be found that would prove that the person was acting out of the best of intentions or a mistake, either through coercion/curse/false information/force or whatever. For example, we agree that, generally speaking, genocide is wrong/bad/evil. But theoretically, if there was a button that could kill all Americans (that's me) and a baby pushed it, that's still genocide. It's a silly example, but it proves that point that not all genocides have to be the result of evil, but rather that the evilness or goodness of the action depend on the intent/motive.

Anywho thanks for listening.

 

[Eolin]

Uh ho, Hitler!

Well well, Hitler's been mentioned. Which means my interested has ceased to exist.

Uh Oh.

Anyway, once the extremes get mentioned, things get crazy. An ethical system does not well handle the extremes, like I said earlier.

So I think, anyway.

Eolin.

 

[Piratecat]

Klunk.

Discuss Jewish genocide, win a free thread closing!