/feels/ - personal experiences

>>875
I think we're just machines, some of us are broken, either at birth, or learned/taught to be broken over time. Broken is a tough word here, because that's subjective, so broken according to the majority of other machines.

I realize that this is a sad way of looking at things, but good and evil are subjective, something you find good, I could find evil, these are things you've figured out from observing other humans. Would you kill a dying dog? If your life was full of physical pain, you've learned to hate it, you might be inclined to end its life quickly. If your life was a more positive one, part of a society who appreciates life above all else, you might have hugged the pupper tight and let it die slowly in the warmth of your embrace. You could have spent your life in a society believing in dog valhalla, and since that dog was battle wounded, you'd sit in front of it and chant some prayer for dogs and be on your way. Bunch of things all considered good by the doer, but you, would be inclined to side with a specific action, because that's the way your mind was arranged throughout your existence. So to you, your friend saying "hey dude let's blow up the school, lmao" might sound a little insane, but to someone else, that makes a lot of sense.

Perhaps the vegas shooter had a mind that would seek novelty, disregarding morality, shooting up a concert is a pretty novel experience. Maybe the columbine guys really hated their school more than they loved living, so shooting it up made a lot of sense. They could think everyone else was evil, and they're the good guys.

tl;dr yeah I think it's "mental illness", I'd rather call it incompatibility with society, we're just fucking robots running on organic matter instead of silicon (soon) though so who cares

I would have thought the evil people are the ones who turn the despair of others into their own little entertainment, who lived off the long working hours of foreign proles, who support the bombing of far away civilians to defend the imperialistic politics that make all of the former possible, and who still dare to call themselves innocent while lumping their own crappy skin with every children who come across. But only acts are evil, men are only cowardly or mediocre.

At least a long time ago, religion taught us that we are all sinners. Unless you live with eccentrics in your family, it doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

Now, mass shooters are people who are, for reasons good or false, disgusted by society to the point their bond with it broke, making their empathy an irrelevant matter, while they consider it to be the main culprit for their own personal misery and they don't want to let it go without a bang. This is the reason that links both mass shooters and terrorists. They are not "evil", they are sociopaths and the children of failed societies.
Modern criminal law, with Beccaria, rejects the idea of evil and of punishment. Every criminal has to be considered as socially ill. Calling their acts "evil" would drift them further from society, make us even more mediocre by protecting ourselves through smug moralism, while giving us not tools to solve the question of crime. But calling them clinically crazy also allow us to cross out their existence by claiming they are absolutely irrational, brushing aside our obvious need for reform.

>>877
I am religious myself, but that's not what I mean exactly, and I don't want this to be about myself or my religion. I'm not trying to say that school shooters are evil while "normal people" are not, but that the acts they perform and the behaviors they live out are evil. They're not just sick. They just pushed the envelope farther than the rest of humanity.

I do believe we're all sinners, just as you said. That means we all commit evils and fall short of what we should be. But what I'm trying to get at isn't about my personal beliefs or the word "evil" itself. What I'm saying is that a lot of the worst atrocities of mankind aren't as simple as societal influence or mental illness, effectively absolving the perpetrator's responsibility for their actions. That the horrors of the Holocaust, or Soviet Russia, or Sandy Hook aren't just the results of a sick mind or sick society. They're most certainly affected or even pushed to the point they were because of them, but at the heart of it lies the corrupt nature of humanity itself, I think.

I don't wish to get the thread hung up on something as trivial as my choice to use the word "evil" because that's not the point. It's the word I chose to describe human malevolence, not an uncontrollable mental illness or birthed solely by societal circumstance.

I think it comes down to the same principle that's made communism return in vogue lately. People have convinced themselves that a utopia is possible in this world, as long as people are just taught the right things or educated the right way they're inherently good and will help each other. It's our flawed system outside of us individually that's to blame for our criminality or "evil". Our societal ills, as you say. And I think that's one of the core issues when thinking about "evil", as it were. It means admitting that we are all capable of it. And that disturbs people. They'd rather dream of a utopia no matter what the cost has proven to be for such a dream time and time again. Maybe they're willing to sacrifice everything as long as they can see themselves as good

I fear the question might hinge then also on the definition of mental illness. in its use in my experience this phrase is often used simply for individuals who do not conform to the speaker's expectations of normalcy, hence to the average individual, any mass killer is implicitly mentally ill, its quite simply impossible to voluntarily do certain actions without mental illness.

that said, this is more a definitional take than was hoped with this thread…

'society' sadly seems to have a rather messy definition on what is 'evil' and what is sanctionable. in war, many acts against ones enemies are tolerated or even celebrated, these actions would not be tolerated in peace. How are people able to commit such acts in war? This is doubtless the same answer as how they can commit them ever.

>>881
That's precisely what I was getting at. I think we're both on the same page there. Mental illness has become the scapegoat that we sacrifice in order to feel humanity isn't really so bad after all. All they have to do is make such extreme manifestations of evil into mental illness, and then those evils just become an anomaly, something we can write off as having nothing to do with ourselves and our own nature.

As for war, that's one of the ugliest and messiest areas of morality humanity has to deal with. What could justify war? What responsibility does a soldier bear in an unjust conflict? What responsibility does the citizen bear for refusing to help a just conflict?

The truth is we have to make decisions that conflict with the natural order as a means to combat the worse offenders. It's wrong to kill, but not when that means stopping that individual from killing or raping. There are certainly evil choices to be made, but when the option is kill or be killed, which should you choose? The same goes for soldiers. The top brass are the ones that declared war, and becoming a quaker to get out of combat is just ensuring someone else takes your place anyway, and when you're on the battlefield the reality is that there are people actively trying to kill you. Neither side has the luxury of judging the conflict as just or unjust - they do what they can to remain honorable even in the disturbing circumstances they find themselves in.

Touching on the subject of war actually isn't as much a digression as I was afraid it would be, now that I think about it. What we find permissible in war is actually a good I sight into what we define as good and evil, and the atrocities that can be performed and thought of as justified when we convince ourselves that all is fair in love and war

>>878
Correcting societal ills isn't communism it's from the Enlightenment and the founding stone of criminal law since two centuries. But it isn't about finding scapegoats such as "intolerant society", which is a low-brow use of morals to feel power, which ironically is itself deviant. Anyway the perfect society can't exist since nothing is permanent (including society, which makes it ephemeral on at least two levels). And don't worry because despite capitalism selling soviet keychains for a quick buck, pure communism is dead except on the internet, social democracy is back at the spotlight it deserves. Now yes, I think finding excuses for mass shooters for instance is a case of dehumanization because you can't have worth without responsibility. These men want to be hated. But it's up to us to avoid thinking what they wanted us to think and falling in their trap, and to understand WHY they wanted it in order to prevent the next Rodgers to act according to the same behavior.

>What I'm saying is that a lot of the worst atrocities of mankind aren't as simple as societal influence or mental illness, effectively absolving the perpetrator's responsibility for their actions. That the horrors of the Holocaust, or Soviet Russia, or Sandy Hook aren't just the results of a sick mind or sick society. They're most certainly affected or even pushed to the point they were because of them, but at the heart of it lies the corrupt nature of humanity itself, I think.

In a way, yes. When you don't go up, you fall down. Men are sick and sadistic when they feel no connection to their subject. Industrial states like Nazi Germany used overregulation, fear and gregarism to keep their scarred (two "r") citizens in this primitive state, and used them to serve their political power. The best example was the atrocities against civilians in WW2 in Europe and Asia, because soldiers didn't categorize the civilians they murdered as human. There is another illustration more relatable that I feel is not so innocent: in videogames, the glee with which people usually play around with and kill NPCs. We could think this is just because they aren't alive and thus but if it would be the case, people wouldn't get mad while taking a free hit from some mob (and games would be way more boring).

In a way, I would say that without consciousness, men are the epitome of evil, if you understand it as everything coming down from violence, sloth and animal lust. One man, aware of his individuality, can relate to others, understand love and selflessness and attain "good", but masses, every unit which is more than one man, are fundamentally unable to go beyond that savagery. They can't even feel actually real pain, anger or any negative feeling since it isn't theirs, and thus can't learn from it.
This is why dehumanization is both spiritual/moral/civilization scarring, and a crime way worse than what may come after.

>>884
>NPCs
this is also well manifested in many many other areas, hunting, animal agriculture, no small number of young children have made a game of torturing and killing small insects. a person who kills a goldfish by accidental neglect is perhaps absent minded and shouldnt have pets. a person who kills a human by accidental neglect, is likewise regarded as a criminal.

>>883
>the top brass are the ones that declared war, […] and when you're on the battlefield the reality is that there are people actively trying to kill you

yes totally.

it seems a large part of running a war is making your soldiers fear the consequences of not fighting, that putting your own life at risk, and that murdering other individuals, is able to be construed as a logical path.

but this creates a very sticky situation I feel like, in unjust conflicts, and with many soldiers.

a random conscript who was told they were either going to become a felon, and face a long prison term, fines, and the stigma and misery that goes with that, or to fight for some cause they find troubling, is perhaps somewhat justifiable; they know this war will happen with or without their cooperation, perhaps they can try to do some good even in the chaos, and their life is ruined in either outcome.

A soldier on a battle field, is also justified perhaps in killing; they are standing in a place of extreme danger. there are people nearby with the means and intent to kill them. And they have the means to defend themself, and their friends, from this immediate danger.

but what of say, a professional soldier or mercenary? A person who has made a career of participation in wars, who has joined a military out of perhaps a bit of patriotism, and a mix of economic strategy, or simply interest in the area of work?

It seems a far harder class of person to grapple with, to me in any case.

on one hand, well, there is lways the argument that wars aren't the fault of the individuals, and the individuals could not stop the war through their absence. They need an income just like anyone else, and frankly some militaries offer some very nice boons to people who work for them.

yet the premise of this is so troubling to me. the same goes of course for the manufacturers of weapons, and other items for war. In some instances, it seems that perhaps it could be justified, but looking at the actions of many modern western militaries it seems that there are an awful lot of corporations, and individuals, profiting off of violence, not for self defense, not out of desire to protect other people, but for profit and personal advancement.

sorry, that got a little ranty I fear.

>>887
>Sorry, that got a little ranty I fear
No worries. It's a lot to unpack for sure.

Obviously it's easier to justify an unwilling conscription, be because they were - well - unwilling. But the thing is even a willing soldier is there to help their nation and their community, and they don't take it upon themselves to feel above it all and decide whether or not it's justified. I think their is a sense of fighting for your loyalties and I can understand the idea that responsibility lies in the governments at war as opposed to the soldiers on the ground. I bring this up because I wasn't just talking about forced conscription, but a very real hierarchy of responsibility.

A decent parallel I think would be attorneys in the field of criminal law. The prosecutors prosecute and the defenders defend, regardless of whether they feel the accused is innocent or guilty. There's a very real sense that it simply isn't their place, and they're simply fulfilling the roles that must be played with as much honor and dignity as they can manage in the situation.

At the end of the day, someone has to decide whether the war is justified or unjustified, and maybe it's for the best that each soldier isn't making that decision themselves and leaving the military force in disarray.

As for mercenaries, I think that's a pretty murky area. There are certainly right and wrong reasons for becoming one, but that doesn't make it entirely good or entirely evil. Since you mentioned patriotism, I'm assuming you're also talking about career soldiers in their own country as opposed to just those selling their services to the highest bidder. To which I'd say there's a certain respectability in dedicating your life to furthering your status in the military of your own country, because it allows you to gain competence and influence over how your country conducts its war efforts.

It means you can actually change the outcome for the better when a war is unjust, and be of utmost competence when it most certainly is necessary. The belts and pullies of the machines of the world we live in will continue to spin and whir with or without us, and sometimes I think it's better for one to participate in the messy nature of war in order to do good than to turn up our noses in disgust in order to show the world how "righteous" we are.

I've always been sympathetic to characters or even people who try to change things for the better from the inside instead of the out. A soldier fighting an unjust war not because he's convinced it's just but because he thinks he can help it be not quite as bad as it would be, or a judge who took up the position that would force him to sentence individuals for laws he may find unjust, for the sake of the few people he could save via his authority as judge.