Iraq in ruins

[AN_Inkling]

[sixpoints]

[watt price tully]

[Mugwump]

[Mugwump]

Dp

[AN_Inkling]

^^I don't disagree with that. But I think more care needs to be taken than we often see. This is because the kind of rationalisation you've just made is not possible for those actively affected by the attacks and will almost always lead to further resistance. For those closer to the action killing just looks like killing. One side will see their killing as justified the other will see it as barbarism or opportunism (eg. America involved in Iraq for oil or to purposely foment unrest in the Middle East so it can be remade. If we accept this, then the war does become evil).

And that's even without muddying the waters by getting into the relativism you warned against. Isn't the "clean" war only open to the rich and powerful nations? Do these smaller groups have much of an alternative? If you don't have powerful airstrikes for your shock and awe, do less savoury options become legitimate?

[David]

I think this is a good discussion, but I'd go further and just dismiss the use of the word "evil" altogether. It's a purely emotive concept, and tells us nothing about the psychologies or motivations of the people that comprise IS. It's just more of this kind of thing, really:

http://originalvintagemovieposters.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Beat-back-the-hun-LB.jpg

People are not "evil". It may be near impossible for us to comprehend the actions of these militants, but we have to remember that the vast majority think that what they are doing is necessary and good. These beliefs originate from a terrible delusion, but delusion itself is not evil; it is simply a natural, frighteningly common human trait.

I don't know if all this should alter our approach�I want IS out of Iraq as much as anyone else here, and if that requires a military campaign then I'm not sure I'd oppose it. What it should alter is the extent to which we allow ourselves to engage critically with the situation.

Exaggeration and caricaturing only serve to dull our critical faculties and allow issues like these to be exploited by cynical interest groups�just like our government is doing now.

[Mugwump]

^ so Himmler was not evil ? I think the words describes sadism and cruelty very well.

[David]

I think we all have the capacity for cruelty. It's a natural human trait, even perhaps a natural animal trait.

Personally, I don't think a) exercising that capacity, b) being in a position of power where one can exercise that capacity on a huge scale or c) being in a societal context where that cruelty is seen as 'good' and 'necessary' makes a person evil. It's a judgement call about the psychology of the person, and the scary thing there is that Himmler and the Nazi leadership probably weren't that psychologically different from the rest of us. Just people who abided by the status quo of the time and place, as abhorrent as it was. Who knows what you or I might have done in those circumstances?

On the flipside, if you assign the label of 'evil' based on consequences as opposed to motivation, you'd have to call earthquakes and meteors 'evil'. You'd also have to conclude that Harry Truman was about 1000 times as evil as Anders Breivik. I don't know many people who would argue that.

[Mugwump]

Ah, I see your point. I have a lot of sympathy with it, though I suspect it's a slightly theological argument, where the answer depends more upon faith than any evidential proof. I think the important point, though, is that some ideologies marshal human cruelty and sadism, and these are evil. Churchill got this point about Nazism quickly and clearly. Many people are alive and living in democracies today because he did.

[Pa Marmo]

Excellent discussion guys, but it think David has hit the nail on the head in relation to evil. If were all evolved (as 99.9% of you are sure we are), then we are all only animals anyway, so all this killing is just what animals do, no need to cite evil. Who are we to determine what is right and wrong, animals have no moral code.

[Mugwump]

I think calling an individual evil is really just a language device by which we we mark their consistent propensity to act in a certain way. Acts can be evil, and an ideology committed to acts of that type can be evil. An individual who follows such acts can be reasonably said to be evil at that time. Himmler, Breivik - both evil. It may be that the soul of an evil actor can re rehabilitated over time, but that's another issue.

Most of us, but not all, probably have the potential for evil, given the right conditioning. But as some people resist it despite pressure, and others act badly only up to a limit, and others will die for the sake of avoiding harm, it's hard to say anything very conclusive about it.

[swoop42]

[Culprit]

We took most of the weapons from Iraq and now we will do air drops and give them weapons back. This is going around in circles and the winner is the people building the weapons.

[David]