But then someone’s gonna sweep in with a moral relativistic argument about how “evil is a social construct” and “there’s no such thing as absolute evil” and that labelling something as evil is “essentialist”
I don’t get it. I thought moral relativism, anti-essentialism, and critiquing social constructs are all elements of post-modernism?
Or are you saying I would rant against postmodernism? Cause while I find deconstruction to be useful in certain contexts, denying the existence of evil as a concept seems like an absurdity.
Instead, I find the challenge to be in defining precisely what constitutes evil in a way that’s both narrow enough to not be overextended, while being comprehensive enough to avoid letting certain things slip through the cracks.
For instance, some things are objectively evil. Slavery, rape, genocide, torture, bombing civilians, child abuse, etc. It would be ridiculous to make a moral relativistic argument against that.
Some things are not so clearly defined, however. Is capital punishment inherently evil, or does it ever have justified cause? Is eating meat inherently evil? Does that mean everyone who eats meat is an evil person? Another one is this: does circumcision count as child abuse, therefore making it evil? Is modern capitalism literal wage-slavery, making the entire system evil?
Some people might have firm convictions about the answer to these questions, but if many people have diametrically opposite yet equally firm convictions, does that make the issue in concern a morally relativistic one?
So defining evil certainly isn’t a simple task. But if we had to throw out every concept that’s hard to define, we’d have to abandon use of the term “fascism” as well (you know what they say about nailing jelly to the wall).
Another question about defining evil: is it a property of actions, of agents (actors; i.e., people who do evil things), or of dispositions (tendencies, habits, attitudes, etc.; things that are consistently held properties rather than isolated incidents), or some other thing?
In other words, if a person tortures a civilian, would you say “He’s an evil person,” “He did an evil thing,” or “He has evil dispositions.” Or perhaps some combination of the above?
Outright rejecting the existence of evil, however, is a flaw of post-modernism. And a true post-modernist wouldn’t take that to mean that all of post-modernism is flawed, but simply that it has flaws.
I’m saying that the people currently holding a farcically post modernist take on the idea of evil, are often also ideologically opposed to post modernism. You may say this is contradictory, but to that theoretical you, I say, “yeah, but the main ideology that does this is fascism, and they don’t care if they’re self contradictory”
Honestly, I didn’t think the average fascist was smart enough to know what post-modernism is. But then again, there is that weird cohort of fascists that likes to co-opt philosophical-sounding jargon to make themselves seem intelligent while they propound insane and inane theories (such as Curtis Yarvin 🤢). So I think I see your point. Those types would certainly complain about post-modernism because it conflicts with their notion that we need to return to a feudalistic social order because “the past is always better” or something.
But then again a lot of fascists do believe in absolute evil (as opposed to relativistic evil); only instead of basing their metric on how much intentional, unnecessary, and unjustifiable harm something causes, they base it on whatever their pastor tells them to hate.
And then there are the ones who say “Yeah, evil exists. It’s me, I’m evil.” But those are rare. More often I think those are the types who propound quasi-post-modernist perspectives of evil (such as misusing “moral relativism” as an excuse to justify heinous atrocities) in order to obfuscate the moral vacancy and deplorability of their actions and intentions, while simultaneously claiming to be against post-modernism because, like you said, they’re self-contradictory and ideologically inconsistent, and post-modernism conflicts with their end goal of establishing neofeudalism…
But then someone’s gonna sweep in with a moral relativistic argument about how “evil is a social construct” and “there’s no such thing as absolute evil” and that labelling something as evil is “essentialist”
This person may also rant against postmodernism
I don’t get it. I thought moral relativism, anti-essentialism, and critiquing social constructs are all elements of post-modernism?
Or are you saying I would rant against postmodernism? Cause while I find deconstruction to be useful in certain contexts, denying the existence of evil as a concept seems like an absurdity.
Instead, I find the challenge to be in defining precisely what constitutes evil in a way that’s both narrow enough to not be overextended, while being comprehensive enough to avoid letting certain things slip through the cracks.
For instance, some things are objectively evil. Slavery, rape, genocide, torture, bombing civilians, child abuse, etc. It would be ridiculous to make a moral relativistic argument against that.
Some things are not so clearly defined, however. Is capital punishment inherently evil, or does it ever have justified cause? Is eating meat inherently evil? Does that mean everyone who eats meat is an evil person? Another one is this: does circumcision count as child abuse, therefore making it evil? Is modern capitalism literal wage-slavery, making the entire system evil?
Some people might have firm convictions about the answer to these questions, but if many people have diametrically opposite yet equally firm convictions, does that make the issue in concern a morally relativistic one?
So defining evil certainly isn’t a simple task. But if we had to throw out every concept that’s hard to define, we’d have to abandon use of the term “fascism” as well (you know what they say about nailing jelly to the wall).
Another question about defining evil: is it a property of actions, of agents (actors; i.e., people who do evil things), or of dispositions (tendencies, habits, attitudes, etc.; things that are consistently held properties rather than isolated incidents), or some other thing?
In other words, if a person tortures a civilian, would you say “He’s an evil person,” “He did an evil thing,” or “He has evil dispositions.” Or perhaps some combination of the above?
Outright rejecting the existence of evil, however, is a flaw of post-modernism. And a true post-modernist wouldn’t take that to mean that all of post-modernism is flawed, but simply that it has flaws.
I’m saying that the people currently holding a farcically post modernist take on the idea of evil, are often also ideologically opposed to post modernism. You may say this is contradictory, but to that theoretical you, I say, “yeah, but the main ideology that does this is fascism, and they don’t care if they’re self contradictory”
Oh, I think I understand now.
Honestly, I didn’t think the average fascist was smart enough to know what post-modernism is. But then again, there is that weird cohort of fascists that likes to co-opt philosophical-sounding jargon to make themselves seem intelligent while they propound insane and inane theories (such as Curtis Yarvin 🤢). So I think I see your point. Those types would certainly complain about post-modernism because it conflicts with their notion that we need to return to a feudalistic social order because “the past is always better” or something.
But then again a lot of fascists do believe in absolute evil (as opposed to relativistic evil); only instead of basing their metric on how much intentional, unnecessary, and unjustifiable harm something causes, they base it on whatever their pastor tells them to hate.
And then there are the ones who say “Yeah, evil exists. It’s me, I’m evil.” But those are rare. More often I think those are the types who propound quasi-post-modernist perspectives of evil (such as misusing “moral relativism” as an excuse to justify heinous atrocities) in order to obfuscate the moral vacancy and deplorability of their actions and intentions, while simultaneously claiming to be against post-modernism because, like you said, they’re self-contradictory and ideologically inconsistent, and post-modernism conflicts with their end goal of establishing neofeudalism…