Evil, part one: how can we think about evil? | Clare Carlisle | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Evil, part one: how can we think about evil? | Clare Carlisle | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

I find the concept of 'evil' an intriguing and important one, since I think in the modern world, aware of the how environment and genetics influence, and yet do not determine, our behaviour, it is important to debate whether such a term can is usable, or useful.

While this is something I need to think about and write on in greater length, my first thoughts are that 'evil' is often used as a way to give up thinking about, or seeking further, the causes of action. To consider someone evil is to render them unknowable and unchangeable - almost to strip them of their humanity, and I have an instinctive revulsion something which so stinks of over-simplification. Given that the worst inhumanities we are capable of generally have their roots such a dehumanizing of other groups or people, then it has to be an approach we should be wary of using. With us or against us may be psychologically soothing, we have to be careful and justified when choosing such dichotomies.

That said, I also think that it is highly likely that there are some people that technically are not human in moral respects - psychopaths for example. Without dealing with the cause or curabily of this condition, at the very least it can be said that there are cases of psychopathic behaviour which is not just chosen, but firmly ground in differeng brain states - blindness to the emotions of others etc. In such cases, these people would seem indeed to qualify as 'evil' - beyond the pale of reason or (social) redemption, uninfluenced by either deterrent or punishment.

However the problem is 'evil' while on the one hand removing people from the moral sphere, is itself a moral judgement. While we may consider evil people as acting like animals, we don't judge them as animals. Since morality implies choice, then it is as if they choose to be animals, choose to not be human. But to me this raises a fundamental question - what is the difference between having the biological setup which makes one choose to be act like psychopath, than having (the presumably morally neutral) misfortune to be a pyschopath. What is the difference between being born as somone who is evil, and someone who is born as someone who chooses to be evil? If there is responsibility, there is a character,, but whence the blame for the character?

So  it seems to me that the term 'evil' is not something which has a place in the modern world. It is a moral sop, a relic of a religious heritage. The point of course is that this might practically make no difference - we will still need to protect from and punish those who 'do' evil, but there is no place in moral judgement for horrific nature, even if it's human.

Social Psychology: What are some mind-blowing facts about social psychology? - Quora

Social Psychology: What are some mind-blowing facts about social psychology? - Quora

Tories go back to basics on burglars | Politics | The Guardian

Tories go back to basics on burglars | Politics | The Guardian
Of all the recent policy announcements, there are few that can be as primitive or populist than the latest 'batter a burglar' (as the Sun put it) policy from the UK Conservatives.

Currently householders are allowed use  'proportionate' force, but now the Tories are pushing for (literally) 'disproportionate' force to be acceptable as well. The very language itself highlights the lack of logic - if the law is there in general to prescribe suitable, i.e. proportionate actions and reactions, how can it be validly used to justify unsuitable actions as well?

Of course the standard argument is that people confronted by a burglar are afraid to react with force at all, in case they are later judged to have overreacted, but since there are presumably still some limits as to what can be meted out to an intruder (I think the phrase will be 'grossly disproportionate') then surely the same abiguity remains, just shifted to the more violent end of the spectrum. And in fact the consequences for homeowners could be then much worse, since if they overdoing a severe beating is always going to be a more serious offence (with risk of death, permanent injury) than overdoing a minor one. And of course if burglars can expect to be attacked, then they will be prepared for it, either by bringing weapons, attacking the homeowner first, and being more vicious when they do so.

And what all of this misses is the moral argument. If a homeowner can use (again literally) excessive force, then it moves from the realm of defence and prevention and into punishment and vengeance. Is it then a fair punishment for the crime of trying to steal an xbox to be severely beaten or injured? Or killed? Surely it is this reasoning that is behind non-US prohibitions on a free for all against home invaders - a realization that having your house robbed while upsetting, annoying and possibily in some way traumatizing, is still in the great scheme of things not the worst of crimes, and hence to be treated reasonably by the courts, and not be dependent on the inflamed passions of a scared homeowner?

Of course it would be nice to think that the mere deterrent would put burglars off, but the sad fact is that most are probably driven by situation or addiction to resort to it, and are not going to make such a rational decision. To see this is the case, one only needs to look at the US, where death sentences and gun toting homeowners don't seem to have resulted in some calm paradise where break ins and robberies have been eradicated. As somone who shouldn't have been famous might have said 'how's that shooty fry-ey thing working out for y'all?'