(October 14, 2013 at 7:23 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: *shrug* Evil, like good, is positional and temporal.
I think the word you are looking for is "contextual".
(October 14, 2013 at 7:23 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: As to your specific objection, I'm unconvinced that any need for personal enjoyment is sufficient to over ride a particularly heinous act. Admittedly, I can not be sure that your pleasure doesn't outweigh the suffering of the dog, but so what? If that were the criteria used, we would never punish rapists, thrill-killers or paedophiles.
The point I was making was that while the cliche "evil is causing unnecessary harm" gets thrown about a lot, it falls woefully short as a definition and measure of morality. We do not use that principle to evaluate whether or not an act is evil. We do not go about comparing the relative value of pleasure of the perpetrator to the victim's suffering and we do not punish the perpetrator if the suffering outweighs the pleasure.
Even if the rapist or pedophile can show that their victims actually enjoyed the crime - that would not detract from the gravity of the crime. The fact that you judged the act as "heinous" does not depend on how much the victim has suffered. The real criteria here is whether the victim's agency has been violated or compromised. That is the how we determine if an evil act has been committed and that is why statements like "she enjoyed it" and "he is better off dead" do not constitute as a defense even if they were provable.
(October 14, 2013 at 7:23 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: That being said, I agree that there is no hard and fast yardstick regarding necessity. There is a thought experiment which addresses this directly:
Alien beings arrive at the Earth and contact you, personally. They are able to convince you that they have a treatment which will end cancer, AIDS, and all birth defects. Clearly, this treatment will drastically reduce suffering among your fellow humans, and will, on balance, make the world a better, happier place. The kicker is that they won't release the details of this treatment until you torture a 5 year old child to death on world-wide television broadcast. What do you do?
My definition above is meant to be a working one, not a metaphysical certitude.
Boru
Actually, this is a good example to show why your definition is not actually a working one.
According to your criteria, killing and torturing the 5-year old would be a necessity - given the enormous benefit at stake. It would be a good act and refusing to do so may be regarded as evil.
On the other hand, if we view evil as "intentional compromise of an agency", then, no matter what the benefit, you do not have the right to torture and kill that 5-year old. So, no matter what the aliens have promised you in return, that act would remain an evil one.
