Quirk (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
pastwatcher) wrote2012-09-15 03:48 pm
pastwatcher) wrote2012-09-15 03:48 pm
Injustice Part B: "evil"
Injustice Part B: Good and Evil
This is a chunk of my moral philosophy. It's informed by plenty of lessons and discussions, but nobody has told me these things in so many words. If something is too abstract I would be glad to try to clarify.
I've said before that I think humans are basically capable of empathy towards each other. Most people are "good people" and "mean well", as we often say: they want to live their own lives, but they can understand that others do too, and they act accordingly. We know that there are the rare people have little or no capacity for empathy, who actively wish harm, though I don't know if I've met any; and we know that desperation and fear can make one override empathy and act for survival. We're familiar with the qustions "what is 'evil'? Does 'evil' reside in one's mental state, one's willful desire to do harm to others? Is it synonymous with "bad", is it just about the consequences to its victims rather than the intent of the doers?" I know there are philosophical terms for the pieces I'm mixing together, in this proposed start on "where is the evil in most people?"
In social justice we often talk in consequentialist terms: "good" people do terrible things (this post is a good example). That viewpoint is extremely useful: we can identify harm, warn against it, help its victims heal from trauma, and so on. But even in that article, there's a big focus on what is actually going on in the minds of the evildoers. Whether your tools are friendship, subcultures, laws, protests, economic incentives, advertising, or spreading information, change is achieved through the fundamental attitudes that determine the meaning of our social constructs. So, important as it is to focus on helping "the victims", again and again we find ourselves considering the minds of "the oppressors"; or rather, the widely held attitudes that perpetuate common injustices. When one is focused on changing the world for the better, a working definition of "evil" is something that can be changed, can be "fought" against--rather than rare fictions or immutable aspects of human nature.
To this end, I count intent as part of the definition of "evil". Suppose Doe has a reasonable capacity for empathy, so that they're a "decent" or a "good person", someone you could be friends with, and who does not willfully decide to do bad things. Then, I define evil to be that which interferes with one's empathy for the person one affects. I'll focus on when that effect is "harm" or "hurt", but not too tightly, because I don't know how to define "harm" without context.
When Nat interacts with Doe, when Doe knows about Nat's life, Doe won't want to hurt Nat and will understand how not to. But many things can interfere with that empathy.
There is ignorance: Doe has done something that affects Nat, but has never met them.
There is distance: Doe knows Nat's name, but they've interacted too little.
There is warping: Nat and Doe develop strange perceptions of each other over long periods of interaction, and so make exceptions to respect they'd show others, take their own hurt out on each other, and so on.
There is the mental distance known as Othering: Doe thinks that Nat is so fundamentally unlike Doe, that Doe cannot imagine being them. This takes many forms we talk about in social justice. Perhaps Nat does not move the way Doe does, talk the way Doe does, wear the clothes Doe does, so Doe does not understand Nat easily, or starts with stereotypes and goes from there. Perhaps Nat has done something Doe thinks is bad, so Doe considers Nat to be morally inferior and less deserving. Or, most insidious perhaps, Doe tries to imagine being Nat but fails badly, because there are key things about Nat's life that Doe does not and has not tried to understand. In that last case, Doe does not think of "harm" to Nat in the way that Doe would if they understood Nat.
Othering is by far the easiest evil to stop doing. If you perceive someone to be different than you, you could think of them as inherently unlike you, or if you find that happening, you could wonder what their whole lives are like, and try to empathize. Our culture tells "all people are equal", but it says it like an ideal, like we shouldn't really mean it. We also get lessons like "poor people are criminals" and "criminals deserve jail" and "white people are the main characters, the history and future of the USA" and "women are less intellectual than men", et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. These things often set up cognitive dissonances in our minds, and many people find it easier to drop "all people are equal", in order to think (to varying degrees) that people deserve to be where they are, in order to avoid imagining a change in the system. That's a copout, and it helps people do evil to each other, increasing the mental distance between them. It is much more interesting, to keep "all people are reasonably like me" in mind and really question the things that would tell you otherwise. (I'm not talking about ignoring individual identities and personality, that would be a twisted extreme.)
The best thing about reducing Othering is that people can tell you directly how most people do it, how you're likely taught to do it. Friends tell you if they trust you to listen, speechwriters and poets tell you if they feel safe, people tell you if you look up their writing on the Internet, you'll be able to observe for yourself, you'll know what questions it is useful to study statistically. So many times I've had my questions of "why do X people act like Y" answered with some combination of "because they are treated like Z, over and over again" and "why shouldn't they? Y isn't bad". It may be impossible to purge all your own biases, but it is easy to decrease them. As long as you're willing to admit you may have been wrong in the past, or your friends or family or teachers may be wrong. I admit, that part can be hard and isolating.
But another big factor besides Othering are the systems and social constructs we depend on to live, which place the distance of machinery between us and those we affect. Perhaps Doe sets off an organized chain of events that harms Nat, or harms Nat and a thousand others, or Doe and a thousand others combine to harm Nat. Perhaps Doe could find out the consequences of their actions but does not try to. This could be because Doe doesn't have time or energy, or because Doe is afraid of challenging the way things are. (The second link above is fascinating).
It is at this point where one must divorce the ideas of "being a good person" from the ideas of "not doing evil". The vast majority of humans now live our lives depending upon systems that people have created and we perpetuate. We can't act in a vacuum, without affecting anyone else, and I have no admiration for people who try to do so (7 billion hermits, or people living in independent small societies? Probably a pretty low standard of living). It is likely impossible to remain in the system and avoid doing evil. But that doesn't mean "evil" stops having moral force. We absolutely should and can tap our own capacities for empathy, learn about the other people we have the most power to affect, and try not to let evil come from us. I have great admiration for people who try to change systems, to work against them directly, when it is hard even to think about doing so. To live we need money, and access to resources. We are interdependent, and US culture often tells us not to admit even that.
While aware of our interdependence, we should always take responsibility for our own actions. Your conscience is your own; you decide how much good and evil you do, and it is not for me to judge how you choose to care. But there is no "I'm just doing my job" or "I'm just doing what everyone does". There is always a choice, when you know the consequences of your actions, and a choice to ignore them. These choices are weighted, coerced; there are costs to oneself, and one is perpetually choosing between evils; nevertheless, when you make an evil choice, you should be willing to know it. Willing to consider if "someone else would take my place and be worse" is true, and know that it might not be. Think of historical evil: how many people there were actively intending bad things, and how many were "just doing their job"? How many terrible injustices have been done by a couple of decision-makers and a whole lot of people choosing to follow orders? How many people take jobs where they are given too much power over others, and gradually resolve the dissonance of "I'm a good person" with "I'm doing evil" by finding ways to believe the evil is not there?
If we weren't so good at social organization, we might not have the capacity for this many people on the planet. We would have more people who are desperate, so we could keep our simple ideas of "good" and "evil" about the most obvious violence and fear, and I'd say the world would be a terrible place. But our social systems have a cost, and there is evil in them.
This is a chunk of my moral philosophy. It's informed by plenty of lessons and discussions, but nobody has told me these things in so many words. If something is too abstract I would be glad to try to clarify.
I've said before that I think humans are basically capable of empathy towards each other. Most people are "good people" and "mean well", as we often say: they want to live their own lives, but they can understand that others do too, and they act accordingly. We know that there are the rare people have little or no capacity for empathy, who actively wish harm, though I don't know if I've met any; and we know that desperation and fear can make one override empathy and act for survival. We're familiar with the qustions "what is 'evil'? Does 'evil' reside in one's mental state, one's willful desire to do harm to others? Is it synonymous with "bad", is it just about the consequences to its victims rather than the intent of the doers?" I know there are philosophical terms for the pieces I'm mixing together, in this proposed start on "where is the evil in most people?"
In social justice we often talk in consequentialist terms: "good" people do terrible things (this post is a good example). That viewpoint is extremely useful: we can identify harm, warn against it, help its victims heal from trauma, and so on. But even in that article, there's a big focus on what is actually going on in the minds of the evildoers. Whether your tools are friendship, subcultures, laws, protests, economic incentives, advertising, or spreading information, change is achieved through the fundamental attitudes that determine the meaning of our social constructs. So, important as it is to focus on helping "the victims", again and again we find ourselves considering the minds of "the oppressors"; or rather, the widely held attitudes that perpetuate common injustices. When one is focused on changing the world for the better, a working definition of "evil" is something that can be changed, can be "fought" against--rather than rare fictions or immutable aspects of human nature.
To this end, I count intent as part of the definition of "evil". Suppose Doe has a reasonable capacity for empathy, so that they're a "decent" or a "good person", someone you could be friends with, and who does not willfully decide to do bad things. Then, I define evil to be that which interferes with one's empathy for the person one affects. I'll focus on when that effect is "harm" or "hurt", but not too tightly, because I don't know how to define "harm" without context.
When Nat interacts with Doe, when Doe knows about Nat's life, Doe won't want to hurt Nat and will understand how not to. But many things can interfere with that empathy.
There is ignorance: Doe has done something that affects Nat, but has never met them.
There is distance: Doe knows Nat's name, but they've interacted too little.
There is warping: Nat and Doe develop strange perceptions of each other over long periods of interaction, and so make exceptions to respect they'd show others, take their own hurt out on each other, and so on.
There is the mental distance known as Othering: Doe thinks that Nat is so fundamentally unlike Doe, that Doe cannot imagine being them. This takes many forms we talk about in social justice. Perhaps Nat does not move the way Doe does, talk the way Doe does, wear the clothes Doe does, so Doe does not understand Nat easily, or starts with stereotypes and goes from there. Perhaps Nat has done something Doe thinks is bad, so Doe considers Nat to be morally inferior and less deserving. Or, most insidious perhaps, Doe tries to imagine being Nat but fails badly, because there are key things about Nat's life that Doe does not and has not tried to understand. In that last case, Doe does not think of "harm" to Nat in the way that Doe would if they understood Nat.
Othering is by far the easiest evil to stop doing. If you perceive someone to be different than you, you could think of them as inherently unlike you, or if you find that happening, you could wonder what their whole lives are like, and try to empathize. Our culture tells "all people are equal", but it says it like an ideal, like we shouldn't really mean it. We also get lessons like "poor people are criminals" and "criminals deserve jail" and "white people are the main characters, the history and future of the USA" and "women are less intellectual than men", et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. These things often set up cognitive dissonances in our minds, and many people find it easier to drop "all people are equal", in order to think (to varying degrees) that people deserve to be where they are, in order to avoid imagining a change in the system. That's a copout, and it helps people do evil to each other, increasing the mental distance between them. It is much more interesting, to keep "all people are reasonably like me" in mind and really question the things that would tell you otherwise. (I'm not talking about ignoring individual identities and personality, that would be a twisted extreme.)
The best thing about reducing Othering is that people can tell you directly how most people do it, how you're likely taught to do it. Friends tell you if they trust you to listen, speechwriters and poets tell you if they feel safe, people tell you if you look up their writing on the Internet, you'll be able to observe for yourself, you'll know what questions it is useful to study statistically. So many times I've had my questions of "why do X people act like Y" answered with some combination of "because they are treated like Z, over and over again" and "why shouldn't they? Y isn't bad". It may be impossible to purge all your own biases, but it is easy to decrease them. As long as you're willing to admit you may have been wrong in the past, or your friends or family or teachers may be wrong. I admit, that part can be hard and isolating.
But another big factor besides Othering are the systems and social constructs we depend on to live, which place the distance of machinery between us and those we affect. Perhaps Doe sets off an organized chain of events that harms Nat, or harms Nat and a thousand others, or Doe and a thousand others combine to harm Nat. Perhaps Doe could find out the consequences of their actions but does not try to. This could be because Doe doesn't have time or energy, or because Doe is afraid of challenging the way things are. (The second link above is fascinating).
It is at this point where one must divorce the ideas of "being a good person" from the ideas of "not doing evil". The vast majority of humans now live our lives depending upon systems that people have created and we perpetuate. We can't act in a vacuum, without affecting anyone else, and I have no admiration for people who try to do so (7 billion hermits, or people living in independent small societies? Probably a pretty low standard of living). It is likely impossible to remain in the system and avoid doing evil. But that doesn't mean "evil" stops having moral force. We absolutely should and can tap our own capacities for empathy, learn about the other people we have the most power to affect, and try not to let evil come from us. I have great admiration for people who try to change systems, to work against them directly, when it is hard even to think about doing so. To live we need money, and access to resources. We are interdependent, and US culture often tells us not to admit even that.
While aware of our interdependence, we should always take responsibility for our own actions. Your conscience is your own; you decide how much good and evil you do, and it is not for me to judge how you choose to care. But there is no "I'm just doing my job" or "I'm just doing what everyone does". There is always a choice, when you know the consequences of your actions, and a choice to ignore them. These choices are weighted, coerced; there are costs to oneself, and one is perpetually choosing between evils; nevertheless, when you make an evil choice, you should be willing to know it. Willing to consider if "someone else would take my place and be worse" is true, and know that it might not be. Think of historical evil: how many people there were actively intending bad things, and how many were "just doing their job"? How many terrible injustices have been done by a couple of decision-makers and a whole lot of people choosing to follow orders? How many people take jobs where they are given too much power over others, and gradually resolve the dissonance of "I'm a good person" with "I'm doing evil" by finding ways to believe the evil is not there?
If we weren't so good at social organization, we might not have the capacity for this many people on the planet. We would have more people who are desperate, so we could keep our simple ideas of "good" and "evil" about the most obvious violence and fear, and I'd say the world would be a terrible place. But our social systems have a cost, and there is evil in them.
no subject
Unfortunately, as you point out, in a complex modern society like ours, the consequences of our actions are often so remote and removed that it's difficult to perceive them. Like, sure, lots of Iraqi children and coastal wildlife have died as a result of our dependence on oil, but most folks don't think "Oh gosh, I'm murdering a child," every time they get gas. They think, "Gotta get to the grocery store, drop Bobby off at ballet class, pick up a new hammer..."
Internal ignorance is when someone just lacks the empathy to understand that they did something harmful. "What do you mean that was racist? That wasn't racist. You're just trying to make me look bad!"
But on the plus side, that same complexity of society allows us to have the communication technology to talk to people on the other side of the planet and see pictures of them and understand that our actions do have effects. So I still have hope for society as a whole, that we have been and will continue, in general, to improve.