Hello Jeb. As to your first comment, if you would please offer an example or examples of an individual "doing good" yet "doing evil".


Thanks,
William

Assuming that there is such a thing as evil, do evil people necessarily know that they are evil? Can a person that does not know that s/he is evil still be called evil? Can a person be evil if s/he doesn't believe there is such a thing as evil? Well you get the point.

For this discussion please assume provisionally that there is such a thing as evil.

I think we judge such and such an act, action or event as "evil". I do not think we can judge a person as "evil".

I think we judge such and such an act, action or event as "evil". I do not think we can judge a person as "evil".

The evil is impossible to think himself as evil.
The evil only thinks himself as good,

But even when I was a child, I stole cookies, and I believed that was wrong. Didn't you? How is the desire to prove you incorrect justification for the view that people cannot do what they believe to be wrong?

For a more serious matter than stealing cookies read, Crime and Punishment by Dostoievsky. Raslolnikoff is punished by his own feelings of guilt for having murdered an old woman. It is clear that he knew (not only believed) it was wrong when he did it.

I keep wondering why philosophers keep saying thing they know are false like that no one does what is wrong knowingly. I suppose Wittgenstein explains some of it when he says that they are "in the grip of a theory".

Let's see if I can simplify it :sarcastic: ...

1.) you have been taught and accept that something is wrong

2.) something happens that your reaction to is to go against that which you believe to be wrong -- before you can react you first have to make it okay to do so before you can act.

You actually had to make it okay to steal the cookies ... "I don't care, or okay mom says it wrong but the reward is worth the punishment..."

3.) After the fact you will, sometimes, feel guilt for going against that which you believe to be wrong.

See #2 above -- you can not act without making it okay to do so, correct?

Lost1

Except that there seem to be people (psychopaths, or sociopaths) who admit that what they are doing is evil (or wrong) but do not care. And, of course, there are kleptomanics who have a compulsion to steal, and do steal, but realize what they are doing is wrong. Now these are facts. (I didn't make it okay that I stole cookies. And even if I had, my mother wouldn't have).

So, I am afraid that your conclusion is false. And since your conclusion is false, there is something wrong with your argument. For a sound argument cannot have a false conclusion.

My mama always said evil is as evil does.

You must mean think they are doing good, yet doing evil. Maybe Michael Jackson's physician thought he was doing good, yet did evil. Or even Hitler thought he was doing good, but did evil.

Except that there seem to be people (psychopaths, or sociopaths) who admit that what they are doing is evil (or wrong) but do not care. And, of course, there are kleptomanics who have a compulsion to steal, and do steal, but realize what they are doing is wrong. Now these are facts. (I didn't make it okay that I stole cookies. And even if I had, my mother wouldn't have).

So, I am afraid that your conclusion is false. And since your conclusion is false, there is something wrong with your argument. For a sound argument cannot have a false conclusion.

However, if they do not care, it is just as wrong or just as right to do the act as to not do it, and that makes it ok to them.

If someone has a compulsion to steal, then they have a justification even if they admit it is wrong. In the same way an addict has a compulsion to take what they're addicted to even though they may know it is harmful on the long or even short term. It is ok to them, even if it is wrong.

It may make it ok to them to do evil, but how does that mean they do not know it is evil?
A compulsion to steal is not a justification for stealing. It is a cause of stealing. But having a compulsion to steal does not make it all right to steal. If a compulsion to steal made it all right to steal, kleptomaniacs would not feel guilty because they stole, and they do.

I did not say it means they do not know it is evil.

It is one justification for stealing, it may not be a good one, but I did not say it made it right to steal.

So what is the point of the example?

"before you can react you first have to make it okay to do so before you can act."

I was pointing out that even though it is wrong in some way to them, they still make it ok first, which makes your reply to the quote above not matter. Since all Lost1 was saying is that they make it ok first, not that they make it right or fully justified.

But it is an example of that, only if it is an example of that. But how do you know it is an example of that? Why do you think they made it ok first? Maybe they didn't and knew it was evil and did it anyway. If you suppose they made it ok first, then you are just begging the question, since that is exactly what is under dispute. You cannot simply suppose what is under dispute.

Now that's more relevant. Perhaps they are evil people and did it because it was evil. It is disputable that they took the time to justify their actions, but is it not necessary that some thought or impulse was the cause of their actions, the effect?

I suppose so. And so?

Then maybe it comes down to how you define what it is to "make something ok"...? Is it a conscious thought process? Or is it a natural urge or action? Or both? Or something else?