Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Is Evil, evil?


Ok, let me start by saying that I need to do a little "lead into" for this blog topic - just to make sure that we're all clear on the actual topic - "Is Evil, evil?"  So I ask that each of you do me the courtesy of reading what I have written here prior to posting your comments.

Several years ago I heard a speaker while in college speak about the importance of properly analyzing history.  The reason that I remember the core of his speech was that I found the topic to be interesting and the questions he raised to be thought provoking; and as most of you know, I love thought-provoking conversations.... the deeper, the better!  To my "sick" academic mind, a good evening would be to have a bunch of people sitting around and engaging in a great discussion on "deep" topics.  Anyway, moving on...

The professor was Dr. Demos of Yale University (btw, one of the most interesting history professors I ever had) and he was stressing how it is important for students of history, professors of history, research writers, etc., to learn to analyze history as history.  In other words, not give what they may conceive as clear-cut labels.  According to Dr. Demos, when we do that, we enter into a "wrong way to attempt to understand history."  History, of itself, has no unambiguously good actors or bad.  There are just actors.  In fact, good and evil should not factor in a historical analysis at all.  Properly done, history must be examined and analyzed from a dispassionate, almost other-worldly, perspective. Let me give you an example using the Civil War.

Lincoln fought a war to preserve the Union—a union that had been voluntarily, democratically entered by the various states and subsequent territories.  Take away the repugnant institution of slavery, and the Confederacy had the better democratic claim for what they wished to do, if the critical ideal for a democratic republic is self-determination.  Had Lincoln not been able to wrap his cause of preserving the Union in the flag of ending slavery, the 600,000 dead would have been an atrocious cost to pay in order to keep a voluntarily-entered union from being voluntarily and democratically dissolved.

Stripped of moral judgments, history abounds with irony.   Lincoln had to subvert the democratic will of the Southern state legislatures in order to preserve democracy.  He eventually used the greater evil of slavery as justification for his fight against Southern democracy, but it should never be forgotten that he didn’t issue the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863, well after hostilities had commenced.   He pinned his cause on eliminating slavery only when it appeared his cause of preserving the Union was in jeopardy.  One wonders, what rationale to hold together the Union would be available, if in the future some state democratically determined it wished to leave?  Considering that even client states like Iraq and Afghanistan have no choice about their limited participation in the Union, it would be outlandish to imagine that something would not be contrived if, e.g., Texas figured it would be better off going it alone, again.  Lincoln was lucky.  He had the abolition of slavery to steel the people’s hearts and minds to battle against their own people, and in some measure, against their own ideals.  Artfully leveraging slavery to his purposes was part of Lincoln’s genius.  It would take an even more astute politician to conjure such a compelling purpose today, if one of the several states sought leave to end its association.

Ok, continuing my example using the Civil War (yes, one of my favorite period so history to study), let's take a look at the Confederate General, Robert E. Lee.  Lee is perhaps the most mythologized and romanticized military leader in American history.  His tactical brilliance is routinely praised, though there is precious little evidence supporting the view.  In fact, Lee led tactical disaster after disaster, not least Pickett’s charge at Gettysburg, which as any reasonably astute tactician understands, and all Lee’s generals at the time fully well knew, was nothing more or less than Confederate suicide.  In many ways, Lee was the Union’s best general.  History is always written by the victors, perhaps explaining the enduring myth of Lee’s tactical brilliance.  The victors would not wish to imagine that Lee’s defeat was anything other than the product of their own valor and determination against a formidable foe.

So, are we correct to label something as "evil" simply to justify our own desire to elevate our own "goodness" or to justify something we consider (or in history's case - the victor) to be morally good.  Could not one claim that Lincoln was an "evil" man for leading the country into a war that, as stated earlier, actually went against the very principals of the Declaration of Independence? If you don't think so, maybe you should take the time to re-read the Declaration of Independence, for it clearly stated:

"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Would it not be equally justified to declare that Robert E. Lee was "evil" for leading the Confederate states into one disaster after another; only on the belief that for some reason the South was justified in it's succession?

What about other characters that we find throughout history?  Who is "evil"?  Why are they considered "evil?"  How will history look back at us 100, 500, or a 1000 years from now when they read that we aborted millions of unborn children (NO!!! THIS IS NOT AN ANTI-ABORTION MESSAGE!!!...but what if for some reason later on that it's discovered that a fetus at 1 week old can indeed feel pain...it would probably change the interpretations that some have about the "justification" of aborting a fetus...therefore the future may judge us completely different)?  Will we be considered an "evil" people?

Last but not least - the question must also be asked - is an individuals actions "evil" or is it the results of a given action that are evil?

Trust me, the topic is difficult to nail down and granted, the interpretations are just as varied as the events in history itself.  So here's the blog topic for this week.....

BLOG QUESTION:
Is Evil, "evil"?  Can we effectively and justifiably declare someone or something in history as being "evil" - if so how or why? 

61 comments:

  1. There are several interpretations of the word evil. In addition, most of us, like Mr. Gehm’s Professor Demos had stated, have the tendency to label certain events in history as unjust and completely wrong, without fully analyzing the situation. For example, The Holocaust was indeed a ridiculously cruel time in history that is tagged as completely wrong in the present day. However, at the time, Hitler was thought to have believed that he was only doing the world a favor by cleansing the population, and that he may not actually have had evil intentions, although many people beg to differ. Another example would be abortion, which was mentioned in the blog topic. Today, even though abortion is still a highly opposed act, women still continue with the procedure. If people of the future were to learn that a fetus was able to feel pain at an early age during pregnancy, wouldn't you expect them to believe that we were evil people for performing such a procedure, even though we were not aware of the new knowledge? While we don’t always realize it, people back 500, 100, and even 50 years ago were more unaware of rights and wrongs than we are today because we are more advanced and have gained more knowledge since. In class, Hava and Mr. Gehm were discussing the innocence or wrong doing of a man who had grown up with badly influenced family and ended up in jail, where he was taught even worse things. Later, he realized that he had done corrupt things and he worked on improving his reputation. Although he had previously committed immoral acts, he should not have to be labeled as evil because he had been almost completely oblivious to what was right against what he had grown up learning. While there are many situations where the intentions of many people are ultimately evil, there are numerous scenarios where we are quick to judge because we do not realize that the thought behind it may not be characterized as malevolent. Remember, it is all about perspective and how history is interpretive. All in all, I believe that in general, evil is not evil if it has the ability to be broken down into better intentions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When Mr. Gehm had told us about what his professor said, it completely changed my opinion on the topic, because I was then able to look at the question from other viewpoints; and I really like that you mentioned that here. On another note, the examples that you had included in your post were very good, especially the one about the Holocaust, which I believe is perfect for this situation. Yes, although many believe it was a cruel, sick thing, the Nazis thought otherwise. Plus, your last line (like Mr. Gehm had mentioned) also interested me. It implied that people can have varying views on evil and what it really is..and sometimes, like in the Holocaust or 9/11, people might have thought they were doing something beneficial, while others may look at it as something wrong and unjust.

      Delete
    2. Anshul, great points overall. I also mentioned how the Holocaust viewed with different perspectives can be classified as evil, and in other point of views, it is seen as doing a good deed. Of course, as time progressed, majority of people would claim that these acts were evil. However, there will be those select few people who still see the Holocaust as a morally good thing. I see where you are going with tha example. I also like your example of the discussion between Hava and Mr. Gehm. It helped me understand the essay question a bit more. Lastly, I definitely agree with all of you points and how you said it is all a matter of perspective, just how hstory is interpretive.

      Delete
    3. Evil is always evil even if it has the ability to be broken down into better intentions. Imagine a poor woman had a starving baby, she robbed a store and killed a police, will her action becomes not guilty or "evil"? Yes of course. In fact, human evil comes mostly a decision made from despondency ignorance and under fear. Evil is always evil.

      Delete
    4. Anshul, nice post. Your last line, like Paige and Mr. Gehm touched upon, had me really thinking. It was a strong, suspensful (in a way) sentence. It required you to think. Also, nice other points. I agreed when you said that Hitler thought he was helping the world by 'cleansing the population'. I definately agree with you.

      Delete
    5. I visualized this blog topic similarly to you as I also believe evil is not evil due to the different interpretations. There have been many examples that I came across which displayed an individual believing their actions were beneficial while others would have viewed it as barbaric or preposterous. Using Hitler as an example proved your point justifiably from the way he and the Nazis distinguished the Holocaust to how we do today. I believe interpretations are based on the knowledge you obtain. The discussion Mr. Gehm and Hava were having was additionally great to add in your blog post which I didn’t initially think of.

      Delete
  2. Your last line: "All in all, I believe that in general, evil is not evil if it has the ability to be broken down into better intentions" intrigued me. Interesting concept - dissecting an event or I guess you could say an individual's "intention." Yet, what happens if for some reason, one cannot dissect that event or character - maybe at no fault of their own -limited say due to complete knowledge or understanding - do we then declare it as "evil." History is a strange character, of itself, for it truly is the mirror which reflects our own past - a mirror that does not lie nor hide imperfections. One could also argue that mirror is a "pure" reflection of our former self and even what we are today. Another example would be that I, personally, do not understand a level of hatred that would cause me to wish an entire group or race of people, but just because I cannot "dissect" its meaning does not change the fact that human history is full of such individuals or groups of individuals that experience such a level of hatred. If I hated left-handed people (point of clarification, I do not!) and believed that because of the very existence of those type of people society suffers and I am able to show why (in my opinion or interpretation) such people should not exist (breaking it "down into better intentions") does that make any actions that I may take against such people less "evil"?

    Note that I am not saying that you are wrong - for I do not believe there is a truly right or wrong approach to this topic - just adding my analysis of your post (a good one, by the way!).

    ReplyDelete
  3. This week’s blog topic allowed me to analyze the many “evil” occurrences of history. Of course, without a doubt, the concept of Adolf Hitler, Nazis and the Holocaust makes us immediately think of an evil and unjust time period. The Nazis’ actions discriminated against the Jewish, mentally handicapped people, homosexuals and more. They put them through harsh, unimaginable conditions in concentration camps. From our perspective and those who were being discriminated, the actions of the Nazis are considered to be immoral. Their actions resulted in the evil outcome. However, the Nazis did not consider their actions to be evil from their point of view. They believed that what they were doing was not unjust and it was morally correct. Therefore, in a way, evil cannot necessarily be considered evil because there are different viewpoints on each situation, like how an opinion cannot be wrong or right. As mentioned in the blog topic above, Lincoln’s actions went against the Declaration of Independence, which can be defined as “evil” but were the results of his actions evil? To a certain extent, a person or group’s individual actions are not evil, but the outcome that arises due to their actions can be defined as evil. The Nazis’ actions led to a cruel and evil outcome, but Lincoln’s actions did not result in an evil outcome overall. To sum it up, given the examples mentioned above, evil cannot be classified as evil, considering there are different viewpoints regarding the situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We had similar opinions on the subject, so obviously I believe that your statement was one to agree with. The Holocaust is a great example for this blog topic, because as you stated, "From our perspective and those who were being discriminated, the actions of the Nazis are considered to be immoral. Their actions resulted in the evil outcome. However, the Nazis did not consider their actions to be evil from their point of view.", which is absolutely right. Once again, this all depends on your own interpretation and perspective.

      Delete
    2. Kushali, I completely agree with you overall. I also explained the Holocaust, however only Hitler's intentions, while you discussed the Nazi's, Jews, and the world's perspectives, which I had not thought of. I definitely agree that opinions play a major role in situations where the outcome is to be ruled as good or bad. I agree fully with this statement of yours: "To a certain extent, a person or group’s individual actions are not evil, but the outcome that arises due to their actions can be defined as evil." and to a certain point, defines this blog topic in a nutshell.

      Delete
  4. After researching various figures and events of history that corresponded with the blog topic of evil, I came to the conclusion that the initial actions of an individual are not primarily considered evil but the outcomes could possibly contain iniquity. The interpretations of evil overweigh in this circumstance. What do you consider evil based on your experiences and knowledge? The answer to this question varies immensely especially contrasting the era before to now. What I connote by “different interpretations” is similar to when Mr. Gehm asked us what we define as intelligent. Everyone had their own, distinct representations of intelligence just as people would with what they consider “evil” in events. For example, a time in history considered throwing babies overboard a “godly action”. If we reflect this act now with what we know, it would be considered unruly, unacceptable, and would result in severe consequences if performed. Also, Maximilien Robespierre was the leader of the French Revolution. He became obsessed with guillotining people for the most bizarre reasons. At the time, the population accepted this and respected him as a ruler. If we interpret this currently, we would think Robespierre was barbaric and would differentiate vastly from the opinions in the past. As mentioned in the blog topic, Abortion would be seen highly dissimilar in the future compared to how we deal with it today. With the examples of supporting my opinion, I believe evil is not evil although there are some circumstances where the intentions are initially evil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shivani, I completely agree with you on this. I liked the examples you used here, especially the one about when Mr. Gehm asked us to define intelligence. Honestly, I think that tied in perfectly here. Plus, the example of throwing babies overboard was also a good one. Of course it was okay to do back then, but could you imagine performing an action like that at this day in age? It all depends on your point of view, which is why I agree that evil really is not evil.

      Delete
    2. Wow, Shiv, the example of the babies being thrown was a good example. I completely agree with you. My blog is similar in ways that consist of your opinion of evil. As mentioned in your last line, evil is not evil, though actions could be evil.

      Delete
    3. Shivani, I agree with all of your points. You definitely had some great examples that tied your entire post together and all of them I agree with. I hadn't thought of it, however I liked how you included the example of Mr. Gehm asking all of us our personal definition of intelligence and that all of us had a different answer because of our various perspectives. The French Revolution example with Robespierre was also particularly interesting to learn because I was not aware of that historical event. Overall, I agree that everyone's opinion and interpretation alters their ultimate decision or judgement.

      Delete
  5. This blog topic really got me thinking from various viewpoints. At first, I was very quick to say that, yes, evil exists. However, I began to think deeper into the question; and it was then that I realized that, no, evil is not evil. Take the 9/11 attacks, for example. September 11, 2001 was a very tragic, dark day for America. On this day, thousands of innocent people had lost their lives due to the terrorist attacks. So many people were left without members of their families, friends, coworkers, etc. Of course, millions of people across the country had labeled this as an evil, horrific thing (and I do, too). On the other hand, if you look at this from the attackers' point of view, it was not an evil event. Although we look at this as something that was completely and utterly horrific, the terrorists felt as though they had ultimately fulfilled a duty. Another example of this includes slavery. Years ago, it was completely legal for people to own slaves and overwork them for their personal use. Now, we look at this as such a cruel thing; however, back then, many didn't think of this as something that was wrong. Having said that, the point that I am trying to express is that evil is not actually evil. It all depends on the way you look at certain situations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paige, I like how you compared the past with the present. Slavery certainly was not looked at as an evil concept in the past. However, as time progressed, we became familiarized with the cons of it and recognized it as an evil and barbaric thing to do. As mentioned in the blog post, maybe years into the future, people will consider abortion to be evil.I do agree with you when you say that it all depends on the way you look at certain situations.

      Delete
    2. Paige, I have the same thoughts on this topic as you. In my opinion, it's all in the prespective. If you agree with something, you won't consider it evil. It's also about the time period. In the future, like Kushali said above, the events that occur today may be classifed as evil in years to come.

      Delete
    3. To tell whether a thing is evil or not depends on a man's own philosophy. And people can have different measurements of that...even though I think that the actions of hurting people are all evil, but your thinking is pretty interesting to me...

      Delete
    4. I agree completely with your points. I used the 9/11 example as well. It seemed to be an evil event in the eyes of the victims, us, but not to the attackers, Al Qaida. Like i stated in my main post, evil is only interpretation and you worded that perfectly in your blog, which is why i totally agree.

      Delete
    5. As a whole, personally I feel a massacre [or other mass killings] should be deemed evil. That goes for retaliation attacks as well. However, because 9/11 is very tragic, it is not very easy to deem it as not "evil". Like I stated before however, if you put yourself in someone else's choose, your morals change.

      Delete
  6. When I first read the question, "Is Evil, Evil?"; the first thing that popped into my mind, was "Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be?" Well, after I continued reading, I began to question the validity of my previous statement. When we look back at cartoons from when we were children, such as Tom & Jerry, everyone associates Tom the Cat as a "bully". Bullies commit "Evil" deeds, right? Well, the show is primarily from Jerry's point-of-view. If we were to see it from Tom's perspective, perhaps we would feel differently. [*note: ~"There is a mouse in my house."~ ~"It does not belong here and it steals"~] Now, although that was just a cartoon, I just wanted to get you into that mindset of "place me in someone else's shoes". Now lets get serious.
    Firstly I would like to clear up this statement... everyone's morals are different. Who is to say that one's own morals are "correct" vs. someone else's? Just because one set of morals has a bandwagon does NOT mean it is correct. *Note: The Nazi regime.
    When we look back in history, we remember those who are worthy enough to be deemed "Heroes", whether they be political members, or life-savers, they are deemed under the same category. But, one does not have to be a "hero" in a situation to be a "good-deed doer" Yet again, Hitler was considered a Hero for Germany. After all, he fed the starving country and gave them power. Is he Evil from Germany's Perspective in the 1940's? Most likely not, but from other surrounding European countries... it was the polar opposite.
    Another moment in history, is December 7, 1941. The Empire of Japan decided to attack U.S. Soil. This was an act of war. Was it evil? From morals and the death toll: yes. Yes, it was. From japan's point-of-view? They looked at it as revenge because American was cutting their oil supply [*reason: Japan sided with Germany and America was against that decision]. America had the right to their opinion, and Japan took it out on us. We retaliated on Nagasaki and Hiroshima with brute force. Was this morally just? Although this is heated... some feel that America did "too much" of an attack. Some say that [if Japan attacked a military base, why did Americans attack the homeland of Japan 2x?] But, if you look at it from another point-of-view, Japan was torturing Chinese citizens and were slowly taking control of their nation. China was America's ally. Why wouldn't we help them? If America had not retaliated against the Japanese, perhaps their empire would have expanded and taken over China and caused more threats to other nations. From different points of views, negatives and positives can be found. Hopefully, positive outcomes outweigh the negative ones.
    Evil, is opinion. Right and Wrong cannot be scientifically proven. It is all opinion. Bandwagon; "popular" opinions, are the morals that are followed by current day society. As long as positive outcomes outweigh negative outcomes, I'd say we're doing the right thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thomas, your intro was genius because it shows how even the media influences what is evil or good. I believe that the media influences a persons view and moral compass. Additionally, when you talked about viewing things from both sides was very smart. We become so biased to the point where we only pay attention to the side we are benefitted from, or can gain putty from. Evil is an opinion as you stated, and it is all based on our perception.

      Delete
    2. Tom, I know in proper "blog etiquette" I should not say this, but I cannot resist saying that your blog was the best I have read so far and one of the most detailed and well-written. Completely loved that you used Tom and Jerry as a comical example, but it really did capture the main idea of perspective. Pearl Harbor and our retaliation was another fantastic example because from both sides of the heated topic are everyone's opinions about each situation. The Holocaust seems to be popular, as well as a great example, which everyone used in a unique way. Like you mentioned, to Germany, Hitler was a pretty respected leader, for the most part. I think we all need to learn to attempt to put ourselves in other people's shoes, like you also stated, although it may be potentially very difficult because after all, opinions are opinions, and everyone has them.

      Delete
  7. I really looked at the question is "Is Evil, Evil" in two different ways. One example of evil is Adolf Hitler. Just his name alone brings up terrible connotations. He and his Nazi party wiped 6 million Jews along with other people who were not characterized as "perfect". His idea that there was a superior race was evil in itself. How could you say someone is better that another person by the skin, hair, or eye color. In addition, Osama Bin Laden is another definition of true evil in recent history. He created this image that it was his duty to terrorize his foes. He masterminded things such as 9/11, and for what, to fulfill his "duties" under his extremist religion. (For the record i am not saying Islam is extreme, I'm saying he manipulated it, and made it sound extreme, which obviously isn't true).
    On the other hand, evil could not exist in history, but is just a word we put on terrible monstrosities. In the eyes of the people who supported these things, there was no evil being done. It is all in the way you look at things that make events and people in history "evil", or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You expressed your views on this topic clearly and briefly. I would definitely have to agree with you on this one. I also believe that evil is not necessarily considered to be evil. I like how you said that iy is "just a word we put on terrible monstisities," which in my opinion. is true. Whether something is evil or not is all based on a matter of perspective and opinion and how one individual or group looks at it differently from another. Overall, you had good points and I agree with all of your views regarding this topic.

      Delete
    2. I deeply agree with your point "evil could not exist in history, but is just a word we put on terrible". Every time when we think of a red knife pulled out of the body who was so vivid and motional just a second ago, we will think about "wow, there is a life passed away, by intention..." Fear comes up, and we call it evil. Overall, good point Ian!

      Delete
    3. As you mentioned evil is a word we put on terrible monstrosities and I couldn't agree anymore. By labeling someone or something "evil" we are forming our own opinion. However, there can be many different interpretations. Hitler and Osama Bin Laden did immoral acts, but cannot be labeled evil because their point of view was completely different from ours. "Evil" didn't exist in history because all of history is interpretive.

      Delete
    4. It is interesting on your views of morals. I feel that morals are part of a "bandwagon" vs. a whole. However, you support your reasons with human emotions. There is no doubt that the Holocaust was indeed an "evil" thing. But as you stated in the end, it is all based on opinions in the end, as science cannot prove what is right or wrong/good or evil.

      Delete
  8. In my opinion, we can't describe anyone as "evil" but evil things are always evil no matter what good they can make on the other hand. When Tetsuko Kuroyanagi visited West Africa, she found there were a lot of children under 12, shooting at people including other children. These child soldiers were brainwashed to become assassin, and following orders to do evil things. Gunshots rang out, men fall down on the ground, crimson drops splash from face to clothes. Those children just stood their watch the "evil" thing they just did, but do we have the courage to blame them? No, because we know the least choice for these ruined kids, everyone is good from heart... Is evil, evil? It really depends on how we measure evil, and true, everyone have different points of view for this. To me, any actions which harm other people are be considered evil no matter the good intentions nor reasons. Otherwise, the origin of evil is like you ask a person either egg or chicken comes first. If we want to view the events through history, although we won't ignore little details, but we will still see more value in how the whole thing work, (the result of the combination of "evil things" ). Chairman Deng from PRC was criticized a lot by people around the world for his military assaulting to unarmed student protestors from Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. But however, Chinese people today praise him as a hero because he gave economic reforms and gave Chinese people hope of democracy. He had a famous quote which says,"It doesn't matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice." Evil things are always evil, nothing will change it, but the effects of evil will sometimes become as the opposite.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But if you think of it from the view of the West Africans they think what they are doing is to help. They can say that they are brainwashing children in order to defend themselves against any threats. They are teaching children to be independent at a young age. The people might be thinking like the successful way of the Spartans and bringing that culture back. In their eyes they are doing what is needed to be done to help the greater good. Evil is only a word to describe the interpretation of an event in ones own way (in my opinion). As I said in my previous comment, "For example, the drones sent to Pakistan by the Americans is very controversial. Many Pakistanis think that the Americans aren't trying to help, but trying to kill the innocent and have an excuse to start conflicts. They are though as evil by some. But, the Americans think they are doing good and are sending drones to kill terrorists. I think evil isn't evil and it is (only) the interpretation of an event in ones own way. People think in completely different ways."

      Delete
    2. I agree with some of your points. You were right when you said can you really blame those children because that's all they knew and they were completely oblivious. When it comes to discussing if evil is evil, it's difficult to perceive both sides because its not easy to remain unbiased.

      Delete
    3. Gemma, you bring up a new argument which is very controversial to this topic. On one hand you have events that are considered either good or bad and then on the other hand there could be an event where nothing good occurs and there's no other word to describe it except evil. The example that you gave about the child soldiers expresses the fact that sometimes evil is evil. No matter which way you look at it people are getting hurt and dying so that fits into the definition of evil. Overall the side you took is intriguing as it applies to certain events in history.

      Delete
    4. I disagree with part of your main point, that evil things are always evil (the second half of the statement that is). Evil is just a title we put on tragic events. In reality, all it is interpretation. One party may think an event is completely normal and just, while the other side may label it as an evil doing. So, overall, i disagree with your opening statement that evil things are always evil.

      Delete
  9. According to dictionary.com, evil is "morally wrong or bad; wicked; or immoral."
    When I orginally glanced at the title, I thought, of course evil is evil. But as I read Mr. Gehm's blurb of information, I put all little more thought into my reasoning. Evil is evil. Actions that pose harm or threat to others is considered evil. It's up to a person's interpretation upon the matter.
    There are many people considered evil. For example, Hitler is considered one of the most evil people in history. His actions were frowned upon greatly and are still classified as evil. Is HE really evil or were his ACTIONS? That is the big question. I don't think anyone is truly evil, though their actions may be. Many people may have agreed with Hilter. Did they consider it evil? No, because it was their interpretation on the topic. Everyone has a different definition on the word, "Evil,". So in answer to the question, maybe evil is evil. It depends how you look at it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The people who had agreed with Hitler though he was doing right and trying to help the greater good, but the people against him like the Jews thought he was completely evil. I think evil isn't evil it is just a term used to explain ones interpretation to another. Hitler was trying to protect his people's view and his own. He thought what he was doing was going to help Germany and the world. As said by dictionary.com, evil is "morally wrong or bad; wicked; or immoral." That describes someones feeling towards a subject. For example, the drones sent to Pakistan by the Americans is very controversial. Many Pakistanis think that the Americans aren't trying to help, but trying to kill the innocent and have an excuse to start conflicts. They are though as evil by some. But, the Americans think they are doing good and are sending drones to kill terrorists. I think evil isn't evil and it is the interpretation of an event in ones own way. People think in completely different ways.

      Delete
    2. Kate, you bring up a good point by mentioning the dictionary definition and comparing it to interpretation. Like I said in my blog the dictionary definition is too broad for the amount of opinions out there. Honestly evil is evil some things cannot have any good side effects but in history that is a whole different story. Overall it always comes down to how events are interpreted by society.

      Delete
    3. I really like how you incorporated the definition of evil into your post. Evil is a term that can be interpreted by each person. You mentioned Hitler and his actions in your post, and it is a prime example of the word evil. However, there were two sides up for interpretation. Some thought his actions were evil and others didn't. This is why true evil cannot exist with two different opinions on a topic.

      Delete
    4. First of all, you said that considering someone evil is based on your interpretations. You also said that actions that pose harm to others is evil. HOWEVER, you completely contradicted yourself by saying that many people considered evil including Hitler, but you said it was the actions, not the person. Also, actions don't stand alone, they can't make their own decisions, so the people that physically do these things have to be evil as well. It didn't really fall into place for me.

      Delete
    5. Kaitlyn, I really liked the way you ended the post. Though in the beginning you stated your arguments, you still ended with a sentence that allowed for interpretation. I'd never considered to put the exact definition in my post, and that too added a sense of understanding that you later changed when reading Mr.Gehm's informational background. Overall, the simplicity of your post was what made it quite interesting to read.

      Delete
  10. Every person is born with a duality of good and evil. You have a moral compass of what is right and wrong. To try and perceive someone's duality is the same exact question as "Is Evil, Evil?" This is all about perception of what you deem as evil or good. All major religions do state that their is good and evil, whether the religion be monotheistic or not. As my other classmates have mentioned, for example, Adolf Hitler thought that he was cleansing a population and creating a perfect society. He had wholeheartedly believed what he was doing was correct. To be able to understand his methods unbiasedly is a difficult task for well educated historians, let alone a student in a honors history class. Some may also argue that Ariel Sharon (the late Prime Minister of Israel) was a good guy, while others say he was an evil guy. For Israeli Jews, he was a patriarch and a fair ruler. On the other hand, Palestinian Muslims will deem him as an oppressor, tyrant, and murder. These are just two examples of where whether evil is evil is based on your perception. Going back to a persons duality, as I stated in the beginning, is how a person lives their life. A person's moral compass is effected by the environment they are grown in, their family background, and what they have been exposed to. This relates back to Malcolm X and his life story. He was a smart student, but since he was oppressed by the color of skin, that's the reason he started committing petty crimes once he dropped out of school and went to Harlem from Nebraska. After being sentenced for 10 years in jail, he was taught even worst things and was completely oblivious that they were wrong. Once out of jail, he started to enjoy the teachings of Elijah Muhammad. Malcolm learned better ways, realized his mistakes, and became part of the civil rights movement. So can you say he was evil because his compass was messed with at a young age, didn't he learn the right way to live in the end? We are all taught what is right and wrong from a young age, but we aren't all taught the same. Our moral compasses are messed with everyday whether by the media, or people, or anything else, so can one truly say evil is evil?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with most of your statements especially the one where you state, "We are all taught what is right and wrong from a young age, but we aren't all taught the same." As, philosophes state we all come into this world as a blank page and we change our personalities by our experiences. Some people go through very tough experiences and are completely changed by them and sometimes become very negative. When this occurs the person thinks only in tunnel vision. They think what they are doing is completely right and will help the greater good. But, others might think of it as the complete opposite. I believe evil isn't evil and it is the interpretation of an event in ones own way. People think in completely different ways.

      Delete
    2. I agree how the response to evil is based solely on one's interpretation and view point. Hitler posed a great example to support how evil is based on elucidation since at the time he was viewed as "cleansing" the population yet now we would have no doubt in his atrocious actions. I used an example in history of when babies were thrown overboard and classified as "godly" when now we would say it is illegal and wrong in all ways. I liked how you added Malcolm X's story which made me think back to your heated conversation in class. Ending your post with "Our moral compasses are messed with everyday whether by the media, or people, or anything else, so can one truly say evil is evil?" tied up your blog post perfectly and really made me ponder further.

      Delete
  11. After thinking really deep into this topic I really don't think evil is evil. If you don't agree look at the evidence. Many people think the Holocaust was a completely evil event, but if you look at Hitler's point of view he though he was doing what is right. Many of the Germans of that time would agree with me. The people supporting Hitler's plan thought he was going on to help the greater good. It is amazing how he made so many people believe in his idea and convince him that it was all for the greater good. He stated that the Jewish people were obstacles and were taking away there jobs (many more things too), and showed it was okay. They all thought they were great people and were helping the whole of Germany and even the world by ridding of these people. HOWEVER, I am not saying what he was doing was morally right. What one thinks is evil might be thought by another as a step in the direction of the greater good. "Good and evil are just ways to define how individuals like Hitler can perform such atrocities while others suffer immense difficulties while still striving for the benefits or others." Another example would be the idea of communism. When it came about people thought it was brilliant and began using the idea on the government. Later did people find out that Communism wasn't what it seemed liked and a kind of trap. Karl Marx created the idea as a way to benefit the government, but when the word comes about it is automatically given a negative connotation. Sometimes you have to step into someone else's shoes and see their point of view even though they are completely wrong. Is evil really evil or is it just the interpretation of two different point of views? Another example of someone who is thought of as evil is Tomas de Torquemada. Websites portray him as a negative person and give him the description: "The Spanish Inquisition was an ecclesiastical tribunal run by the Spanish monarchy and established to root out heretics and other individuals who threatened the status of Roman Catholic Church in Spain. Torquemada’s spies turned friends against friends and they made sons and daughters testify against their parents. Torquemada without lack of evidence would order Jews to be tortured or killed because of his discrimination towards them. Countless of people were tortured, whipped, subjected to horrific physical punishments, and forced to surrender all of their property." In HIS mind he was doing everything the right way and he was needed to be a strict ruler so people would follow him. He was trying to make the best out of the Spanish Inquisition. But, as stated by many websites he was a brutal leader and was vicious. Abortion will bring up a whole different topic and people will say that it is killing babies. I think if the pain was found people would change their interpretation because they will step into the other peoples' shoes. Yet there will still be those who will stay true to their beliefs no matter what. As, I said before Is evil really evil or is it just the interpretation of two different point of views?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Abu, you had very good points which were similar to mine. The examples that you used really explained how evil isn't evil, it's only an interpretation. So many times has society labeled history without considering the fact that others have different opinions on the matter, especially in the examples you mentioned. Overall good points and good historical background.

      Delete
    2. Abu, I agree with many of your points. When you stated "What one thinks is evil might be thought by another as a step in the direction of the greater good." I couldn't agree more. All people tend to avoid seeing both sides because we are so accustomed to only seeing what side helps ourselves. Everyone has a different moral compass because we are not all taught the same things and that definitely effects how we view evil.

      Delete
  12. This blog has really got me thinking about how I and others interpret history. After reading the lecture by Mr.Deemo I can certainly agree that we as a society have a tendency to "label" specific events as good, or bad. First of what exactly is evil? The dictionary definition is profoundly malevolent or immoral. This is a very broad definition because what we consider evil is an interpretation molded by our opinions. What is evil to me might not be evil to someone else so my answer to the topic question is no. Everyone is innocent at birth, depending on what you are subjected to as a child depends who an individual will grow up to be which is the main reason evil isn't considered "evil". Unless everyone's opinion on a certain topic is the same evil will not exist. Overall the way an event is interpreted does not establish its characteristics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you. People are "golden" at birth and only change based on what they experience. Also, i agree with your statement, that what i consider evil may not be so evil to another person. Take Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao for example. If you had tried to convince them that what they did was evil, they would never agree with you in a million years. They thought what they did was right which is why they did it. Overall, I agree with most of your points. I am going to end with a quote, "Stay gold Ponyboy, stay gold."

      Delete
    2. Elijah, I agree with your points you make on "evil." As you mentioned what is evil might not be evil to someone else. Everyone has different opinions, and before I had this blog assigned I was biased and not looking at what others' opinions might be. Nothing is truly evil, unless we all have the same opinion on a topic. Overall, you wrote a great post!

      Delete
    3. Not one person can be considered evil, because they have been brought up a certain way. If someone considers another person evil, that cannot be true at all. A persons actions is based on what events occur around them every fraction of a second. It is easy to get influenced nowadays and people really know how to deceive you. That point you made really had me thinking.

      Delete
    4. Elijah, firstly I have to say that I liked your post because I felt it really connected with mine. I too feel that evil is interpretive, and in fact a broad term altogether. I'd forgotten to consider that we are in fact, blank pages at birth. How life writes on that page affects our interpretation of life, and essentially evil.

      Delete
  13. This topic has made me ponder about what "evil" really is. After reading the post I can say that "evil" is not evil because everyone has different viewpoints. For example, what I consider evil might be considered good to others. The words "evil" and " good" go hand in hand because they depend on interpretations. In history many immoral acts have occurred, but are they considered evil? The Holocaust was a period of time when millions of people were killed because of their race. Without prior knowledge from this post, I would have immediately considered Hitler's acts evil, but if we look at it from Hiltler's point of view it would be different. Hitler firmly believed he was doing the right thing by trying to wipe out an entire race. Also, in history slavery occurred for hundreds of years and was considered fine. However, present day many of us disagree with the concept of slavery. As time passes, what's evil or good changes because we as a society have different interpretations. Unless the entire world had the same opinion on something, nothing would be considered truly evil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Evil" really is based on opinion, something cannot be set and stone as evil. Killing off another race can be moral and just to some people. Moralities also fall into everyone's own circle of viewpoints and opinions. What's moral is up to you, there is no way to define something as moral or immoral. It just depends on the person expressing their opinion.

      Delete
    2. I like how your blog post was brief while still pin-pointing your opinion on evil. I agree 100% with all your supporting ideas listed. Initially, I thought evil was evil but once I researched different events and figures in history along with reading Mr. Gehm's post, I realized evil is not evil and it is based on interpretation. It is true that "evil" and "good" go hand in hand to some degree because everyone has different view points on their considerations of good or evil. I included in my blog how we had a talk in class about what we deemed intelligence was which compares to this situation. Along with many other of the blog posts, you included the example of the Holocaust and Hitler which is a prime example that perfectly explains this situation. Time passing also plays a factor as we gain or lose knowledge effecting our perspectives.

      Delete
    3. Akshay, firstly your statement about how not all immoral are evil was brilliant. I'd never realized that immoral and evil could be two different classifications. I'd also never thought about society changing their thoughts on what was evil or good throughout history, to be honest I thought evil and good (for the most part) were set in stone. Lastly, I realized that what people think as good, and what their actions do, (as you showed with your example of Hitler) can be drastically different.

      Delete
    4. Akshay i like how you stated that events that are inhumane cannot be classified as evil. I agree 100% with you on this topic . The word evil is too broad and like i mentioned earlier there is so set base that determines if something is evil or good so it makes it hard to classify things. I believe it is not our job to classify them but rather to learn from them. Also your use of hitler as an example was excellent.

      Delete
  14. When I think of "evil", I tend to think it is too strong of a word to label on one people or a person. Similarly, "hate" is one of those words that is scringing to use, it's very strong and deep. Not one person throughout history was actually "evil" in their actions. Sure, it may seem that way for many people, usually. Take for example Christopher Columbus who used to chop his seamen's hands off if they were to disobey him or act out. You would instantly ponder about how "accurately" evil that is. However, this tactic did work and is disciplined his workers and in the big picture led to positive things. Moreover, there are ALWAYS two sides to a story. I feel in any happening, somebody had a good reason in their mind to act instinctively yet carefully. There are always people that do morally unjust things, but they are never evil, nor the person doing that thing. Some people throughout history were not in their right mind, or insane, and doing some bad acts does not label them evil, for it is not necessarily their fault anyhow. I believe you cannot label someone evil, even if there were to be a worldwide unanimous concensus "justifying" that they were evil, it would not work because evil is all based on opinions. Opinions cannot set the backbone for proving an idea, everyone knows that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I strongly agree with you argument, I too believe that to every story there is more than one side.It is not easy or humanly possible to justify someones actions and brand that person either evil or good. This topic is very controversial but i believe there is no true way to determine if someone is good or ad. An example would be the bombing Japan during WWII

      Delete
  15. Evil, a term as broad as life itself. Though the definition of evil varies from person to person, we all carry a general understanding of what it truly means. Therefore it is my firm belief that we can and should characterize people and events as "evil". This is because of the reason as to why we study history. That is, to learn from our previous mistakes and ultimately aspects of humanity. What is the point of studying history, if we do not ultimately learn from those who were evil and try to prevent their thinking from popularizing (a prime example of this would be Adolf Hitler). However, getting to the portion of this topic that asks if we can judge evil effectively, I'd say that as the most dominant and intelligent species we indeed can. As I stated earlier in my post, we all carry a general understanding of what evil truly means. With that, we leave room for independent interpretation. But again, interpretations cling to the original meaning of the subject (in this case evil).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe the word evil is to broad and we have no base to determine if something is good or bad. I like the example about hitler that you used it was very clever. I believe that historians are to blame for saying that hitler was evil and what not. It is their jobs just to provide the information not to determine wether people were good or bad

      Delete
  16. I believe one cannot qualify as a person being evil or good. The main reason being what determines if something is good or bad. Maybe what one person thinks is good is actually evil. This lack of understanding is what cause historians to demonize people such as Adolph Hitler for the actions he committed. I am not defending hitler all I am saying is that we can judge him because we were not alive during that time period, furthermore we do not know what he was truly thinking so who are we to judge him. Another person like that is Joseph Stalin who believed communism was the best form of government for the Russians. All in all we as humans are not able to determine wether some one can be considered evil or not. These sort of things are very complex and that is why this topic is so broad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps this subject is too broad, but perhaps we should take in "morals" into account. Without a basis of what is right or wrong, there is no definite decision. As you stated, Hitler cannot be judged because we do not know his morals or how he felt during his reign. we would have had to been there. in order to judge, but even then we would not be able to say it was good or evil,

      Delete