The Intentionality of Evil (2005) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Intentionality of Evil (2005)

#31

Post by tarboreus » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 9:28 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #27

aazaa wrote: post #20

> ... Nobody thinks they’re doing evil — maybe because it’s just impossible to be intentionally evil, maybe because it’s easier and more effective to convince yourself you’re good — but every major villain had some justification to explain why what they were doing was good. Everybody thinks they’re good. Could it be that the root of evil lies in failure to recognize this universal truth? In other words, the prerequis…

Distilled down to a pithy saying, I think a good moral foundation is something like: One may never morally commit an evil act for any reason, even if that act will prevent an even greater evil from being perpetrated. That "will" is tricky, because often you don't actually know what the outcome will be, but I think it applies even if you do know with certainty. Forgive my following ramble: This is hardly a new thought…

This is deontological ethics, or Kant's categorical imperative. Just in case anyone wants to follow up on this.

Re: The Intentionality of Evil (2005)

#32

Post by dTal » Fri, Jan 03, 2020, 2:29 AM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #21

colordrops wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many people who intentionally choose to act purely selfishly and not in good faith, to maximize personal gain. I met many of these types in SV, and I imagine they get much worse on wall street and in military industrial circles. Call it what you will, but these people don't have any illusions of being benevolent or fair.

The toughest one is when you see someone who, for instance, is living beyond their means and because of it they 'have to' do something unpalatable at work. They have walked into the trap and pulled the door closed behind them. But I've also worked with many engineers whose actions and self-image don't align. When time is tight they'll participate in hand-wringing over all the tech debt we have, but the moment there's…

> why don't you have a hit list? I don't think they're lying, or evil. They're just deluding themselves about their principles.

I rather think the answer is simply that they aren't very organized. Nobody likes technical debt, but unless you're organized enough to make entries in your 'hit list' while they're bugging you, you'll inevitably forget the specifics.

Re: The Intentionality of Evil (2005)

#33

Post by randallsquared » Fri, Jan 03, 2020, 3:03 AM UTC

rhacker wrote: post #7

This reminds me of the show "The Good Place" (sorry spoiler ahead!!!!!!!) Basically part of the premise of the show is that life has become so complex that you can no longer make a moral choice because macroeconomic structures have forced nearly all of our tiny decisions to be grades of evil.

I don't think that's a good summary of the premise of the show. For one thing, consider the exact number of people we are told have made it, in the last 500-something years, which expands the required explanatory power well beyond the complexities of modern life.

Re: The Intentionality of Evil (2005)

#34

Post by colordrops » Fri, Jan 03, 2020, 3:26 AM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #21

colordrops wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many people who intentionally choose to act purely selfishly and not in good faith, to maximize personal gain. I met many of these types in SV, and I imagine they get much worse on wall street and in military industrial circles. Call it what you will, but these people don't have any illusions of being benevolent or fair.

The toughest one is when you see someone who, for instance, is living beyond their means and because of it they 'have to' do something unpalatable at work. They have walked into the trap and pulled the door closed behind them. But I've also worked with many engineers whose actions and self-image don't align. When time is tight they'll participate in hand-wringing over all the tech debt we have, but the moment there's…

When I mentioned SV, I was referring to investors, many of which are sociopaths. I'm not talking about engineers that subconsciously take shortcuts.

Re: The Intentionality of Evil (2005)

#35

Post by oriettaxx » Fri, Jan 03, 2020, 4:47 AM UTC

I agree.

when a mafioso high boss talks t his son, he would say that thanks to the mafia Italy did not became a comunist country, that the politicians (center, in power) were extremely corrupted and useless.

I am serious.

nobody thinks to be evil (as nobody thinks to be an idiot)

Re: The Intentionality of Evil (2005)

#36

Post by natecavanaugh » Sun, Jan 05, 2020, 5:21 AM UTC

oska wrote: post #18

petermcneeley wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aaron suggests that is childish to think evil people do evil things intentionality. But isn't actually the notion of good and evil completely childish? Arnt bankers just predators and their victims just prey? The banker isn't even thinking "I'm good" they are just thinking "I'm hungry" Realistically adults don't think about the morality of their actions much at all.

> Realistically adults don't think about the morality of their actions much at all. If you're basing this on personal experience then either you or I are atypical because I think of the morality of my actions all the time (and sometimes makes judgement calls which are different to social norms).

I think you're both right here. From the outside, it seems like most people don't consider the morality of their actions, but I believe it's a matter of degrees and instances. For instance, I've been told by many in my social circle that I tend to think more deeply than most about the morality, direct or implied, of my actions/beliefs, than the average person, but when I speak to people, there's always some code they're holding themselves to, even if they don't articulate it as such, but then there are also people who will have sex with anything in sight, but will engage in extreme handwringing over every food choice and environmental impact. Even if someone isn't weighing the morality of their own actions, they're acutely aware of how others' actions comply or contradict their moral code. Practically everyone has some common moral code that they abide by, while ignoring other parts because of convenience, desire, etc. People who are highly morally consistent tend to be seen as ascetics, extremists, idealogues, or the like.

Like intelligence, moral IQ is a spectrum that probably most don't consciously think about until a conundrum comes up, but that generally centers around a mean, and spans multiple areas that overlap across cultures and generations and behaviors.