Fighting evil

[Joykins]

Let's say an evil thing exists. Let's say that objectively speaking, this thing exploits people and causes harm. Let's also say that it is profitable, economically, for this evil to exist. Slavery, sweatshops, and the like would be an example of a kind of evil thing like this.

What is the best way to fight this evil to end it?

 

[R0D]

Let's say an evil thing exists. Let's say that objectively speaking, this thing exploits people and causes harm. Let's also say that it is profitable, economically, for this evil to exist. Slavery, sweatshops, and the like would be an example of a kind of evil thing like this.

What is the best way to fight this evil to end it?

That would depend on what you mean by "the best way."

If you objectively mean getting the job done and the only concern is focused on immediate results, then force with extreme prejudice would be the 'best way'.

But as a Christian, I try to look down the road a bit more and have a different value system than the cold secular equation system.

That value system is subjective to God and the answer would be to change the heart of the 'people'.
And only God can do that (change hearts).

 

[Joykins]

That would depend on what you mean by "the best way."

If you objectively mean getting the job done and the only concern is focused on immediate results, then force with extreme prejudice would be the 'best way'.

But as a Christian, I try to look down the road a bit more and have a different value system than the cold secular equation system.

That value system is subjective to God and the answer would be to change the heart of the 'people'.
And only God can do that (change hearts).

When we study history, lasting change against economic evils seems to come with changes in economic pressures. After the introduction of industrial and agricultural machinery, slavery made less economic sense. Some of this came from good people advocating (and fighting for!) good things but a lot of it came despite that.

 

[Crazy Liz]

When we study history, lasting change against economic evils seems to come with changes in economic pressures. After the introduction of industrial and agricultural machinery, slavery made less economic sense. Some of this came from good people advocating (and fighting for!) good things but a lot of it came despite that.

I sometimes wonder whether there may be a correlation between these two things. I don't remember ever reading or hearing anything about the personal attitude of Eli Whitney or other inventors of agricultural machinery toward slavery. But ISTM, the economic and social changes (mechanization and the abolition movement) coincided in time to be effective.

I'm sure this coincidence is a complex relationship. Some invention may have been motivated by foreseeing abolition and therefore looking for other means, which in turn, accelerated abolition by making slavery less of an economic advantage.

The same could be said for many movements that have had both economic and social impact. One change accelerates the other. This is not always positive, as people often note the correlation between the women's movement and the divorce rate. Having practiced family law during much of this period, I can attest to the complexity of this coincidence. As marriages became less and less secure for women, women's need for economic equality increased. As economic equality increased, laws based on assumptions that marriage was a woman's primary economic security began to change more and more rapidly, to the point where, for perhaps the first time in the history of civilization, marriage is not viewed primarily as an economic institution.

150 years later, we can view an end to slavery as an unequivocally positive change, but the more recent change in the institution of marriage, we see with a great deal of ambivalence. Fighting the evil of slavery in America led to another great evil - war.

Fighting evil brings great danger of creating more evil. This is why, I think, the wisdom of the New Testament tells us not to fight evil:

[bible]matthew 5:39[/bible]

[bible]romans 12:21[/bible]

 

[Joykins]

I sometimes wonder whether there may be a correlation between these two things. I don't remember ever reading or hearing anything about the personal attitude of Eli Whitney or other inventors of agricultural machinery toward slavery. But ISTM, the economic and social changes (mechanization and the abolition movement) coincided in time to be effective.

I'm sure this coincidence is a complex relationship. Some invention may have been motivated by foreseeing abolition and therefore looking for other means, which in turn, accelerated abolition by making slavery less of an economic advantage.

I'm sure some kind of critical mass may be necessary to really move effective change forward

The same could be said for many movements that have had both economic and social impact. One change accelerates the other. This is not always positive, as people often note the correlation between the women's movement and the divorce rate. Having practiced family law during much of this period, I can attest to the complexity of this coincidence. As marriages became less and less secure for women, women's need for economic equality increased. As economic equality increased, laws based on assumptions that marriage was a woman's primary economic security began to change more and more rapidly, to the point where, for perhaps the first time in the history of civilization, marriage is not viewed primarily as an economic institution.

Interesting observations. This didn't happen in a technology-free setting either. The introduction of low-cost, easily available birth control, no longer meant marriage=childbearing for your fertile years. Coupled with other medical innovations, it made a much lower fertility rate desirable.

Who knows where DNA testing now will lead us? A lot of the older laws focusing so narrowly on female virginity and chastity were intended to assure men that their wives' children were theirs. Now that we can know for sure--will this continue to break down "traditional marriages"?

Is Patriarchy an evil?

150 years later, we can view an end to slavery as an unequivocally positive change, but the more recent change in the institution of marriage, we see with a great deal of ambivalence. Fighting the evil of slavery in America led to another great evil - war.

And the battle was not wholly successful, in that segregation, a system nearly as poisonous and much less profitable, became the status quo for nearly another century.

Fighting evil brings great danger of creating more evil. This is why, I think, the wisdom of the New Testament tells us not to fight evil:

[bible]matthew 5:39[/bible]

[bible]romans 12:21[/bible]

Resist not evil--but we could slam it with technology. Hm.

 

[Steezie]

Am I the only one who's tempted to say "With yellow Spandex on"?

If there was such a thing as an actual evil source in the world, the best way to fight it would be by being an honorable person.

 

[Joykins]

Am I the only one who's tempted to say "With yellow Spandex on"?

No capes!

If there was such a thing as an actual evil source in the world, the best way to fight it would be by being an honorable person.

There are systemic evils that damage people, like slavery and oppression for example. Being an honorable person dose not necessarily make inroads against such a system. Take Robert E. Lee for example. The man opposed slavery. He was an honorable man. He freed his own slaves. He fought for a country founded and economically based upon the premise that a person could own other people.

 

[Steezie]

There are systemic evils that damage people, like slavery and oppression for example. Being an honorable person dose not necessarily make inroads against such a system. Take Robert E. Lee for example. The man opposed slavery. He was an honorable man. He freed his own slaves. He fought for a country founded and economically based upon the premise that a person could own other people.

Honor is not only gained just by having an opinion, but by DOING. If that evil is systematic, like slavery, a person who stands up to fight that evil is an honorable person regardless if they fail or succeede.

 

[R0D]

I'm sure some kind of critical mass may be necessary to really move effective change forward



Interesting observations. This didn't happen in a technology-free setting either. The introduction of low-cost, easily available birth control, no longer meant marriage=childbearing for your fertile years. Coupled with other medical innovations, it made a much lower fertility rate desirable.

Who knows where DNA testing now will lead us? A lot of the older laws focusing so narrowly on female virginity and chastity were intended to assure men that their wives' children were theirs. Now that we can know for sure--will this continue to break down "traditional marriages"?

Is Patriarchy an evil?



And the battle was not wholly successful, in that segregation, a system nearly as poisonous and much less profitable, became the status quo for nearly another century.



Resist not evil--but we could slam it with technology. Hm.

That reads to me as if you find birth control, denouncing Patriarchy a "good thing" and sexual purity would be "a bad thing".

Is the OP based on 'the cure' being technology?
If it is, I hope it isn't going to go the route of doing the technophobia mumbojumbo.

If you want to review "evils", you should look into the relationship to your mentioned birth control, the "Great Society" promises and the like with the explosive rise in illegitimacy, divorce, increased cataloguing of dysfunctions, crime rates, indebtedness, welfare dependency and a long list of other "evils"

 

[Joykins]

That reads to me as if you find birth control, denouncing Patriarchy a "good thing" and sexual purity would be "a bad thing".

I am trying to reserve value judgments on most of this as possible for the sake of this discussion, but if you view "oppression which stifles human development and growth" as a characteristic of evil, patriarchy surely has something to answer for. While I find sexual purity a high ideal, I find controlling others' sexuality to be a negative.

Is the OP based on 'the cure' being technology?
If it is, I hope it isn't going to go the route of doing the technophobia mumbojumbo.

Is that any kin to the Luddite Lambada? The Masochism Tango? The Reformation Polka?

If you want to review "evils", you should look into the relationship to your mentioned birth control, the "Great Society" promises and the like with the explosive rise in illegitimacy, divorce, increased cataloguing of dysfunctions, crime rates, indebtedness, welfare dependency and a long list of other "evils"

All these things are indicators of rapid socioeconomic change, and many of them are at levels far below historic highs (look at some murder statistics from the 18th century if you doubt me).

If most socioeconomic changes are technology-driven, then we'd want to know how to use technology in the best possible way to destroy evil. The only agenda I have here is to get away from the idea that the only way to fight evil is to kill other people.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

End human consciousness, societical bad will always occur as long as we are individual. It happens, sadly.
Never stop helping the suffering though, even if 23,000 murders every year afflict the united states.

Never help solve political differances even though 100 local wars have been fought with unimaginable suffering.

Never stop seeking happiness even though half of worldwide marriages splinter and 2000 husbands beat their wives to death yearly.

Never stop advocating and pursuing reasonable action even though 900 people commited mass suicide at Jonestown...giving poisoned juice to their children...

"Right" and "wrong" are not universal codes but they are the greatest of the human contrivances, agreeds thoughts to enhance life and help prevent pain. What we do may not matter to the universe, but it matters to our fellows and that is all that really matters. Only our individual existence matter, the only thing that matters is ourselves, because we are all we have.

 

[R0D]

I am trying to reserve value judgments on most of this as possible for the sake of this discussion, but if you view "oppression which stifles human development and growth" as a characteristic of evil, patriarchy surely has something to answer for. While I find sexual purity a high ideal, I find controlling others' sexuality to be a negative.

Trying to reserve value judgments?
I don't know how aware you are of what was said, but you have MADE value judgmentes. The OP used the term evil, so something HAD to form.

As for sexuality - I will go for controlling our own sexuality and calling a spade a spade. Let the expected whining begin if decadence doesn't like the verdict.

Answer for? Such finger wagging should prove their Utopia before denouncing those that labored before them. But meh - Petriarchy, Matriarchy, and the anti any -archy are just structures. Some folks like denouncing one or several. Nothing new in that department. Be that as it is, I do find the anti-structure ones are the least likely to have answers.

Is that any kin to the Luddite Lambada? The Masochism Tango? The Reformation Polka?

Funny - but no.

From what I read, you have hoisted the technology flag up to see if anyone is going to salute. But the argument is still young and imo weak.
Imo - technology or advancement in knowledge is like money. It is not good or bad, but increase in that sort with an absence of moral or ethical checks has historically proven far more 'evil' than abstinence or even regression.

I don't claim that a vow of technology abstinence is the way to go, but there are a few things to admire about simple living e.g. Quaker, Mennonite, Amish.

All these things are indicators of rapid socioeconomic change, and many of them are at levels far below historic highs (look at some murder statistics from the 18th century if you doubt me).

Oh yes, I do doubt picking one item and basing it on a selected era.
Could they be down because of an increase in laws, enforcement, organization of intel and practices or any other 'causation'?

If most socioeconomic changes are technology-driven, then we'd want to know how to use technology in the best possible way to destroy evil. The only agenda I have here is to get away from the idea that the only way to fight evil is to kill other people.

Then please define "evil".
btw - you have mentioned 'other evils' that don't fit the killing other people criteria. Just saying...

 

[Caylin]

Well obviously preventing gay people from getting married.

 

[Joykins]

Well obviously preventing gay people from getting married.

I don't follow your reasoning

Maybe we'd do well to define "good" and "evil." Making it simplistic, could we all accept a bottom-line premise that evil causes harm to people and good enables growth and the fulfillment of human potential?

 

[Caylin]

I don't follow your reasoning

Maybe we'd do well to define "good" and "evil." Making it simplistic, could we all accept a bottom-line premise that evil causes harm to people and good enables growth and the fulfillment of human potential?

I was being sarcastic, since a great many Christians I know will excuse a place like walmart for treating their employees badly, but the second they give any kind of benefit to gay people they flip out and call for boycotts.

 

[Joykins]

Trying to reserve value judgments?
I don't know how aware you are of what was said, but you have MADE value judgmentes. The OP used the term evil, so something HAD to form.

Let me clarify, I am trying to make the minimum of value judgments necessary. Birth control isn't good or evil, it just is. Technology can be used for good or evil--for example, lying about your own or sabotaging someone's birth control could be a harmful act.

Hierarchal systems like patriarchy have high adaptive value in many situations. They can also be oppressive. A truly benevolent patriarchy would probably be indistinguishable from no patriarchy at all.

As for sexuality - I will go for controlling our own sexuality and calling a spade a spade. Let the expected whining begin if decadence doesn't like the verdict.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Could you clarify?

Answer for? Such finger wagging should prove their Utopia before denouncing those that labored before them. But meh - Petriarchy, Matriarchy, and the anti any -archy are just structures. Some folks like denouncing one or several. Nothing new in that department. Be that as it is, I do find the anti-structure ones are the least likely to have answers.

I am a creature of self-interest and find patriarchy does not suit my best interests.

From what I read, you have hoisted the technology flag up to see if anyone is going to salute. But the argument is still young and imo weak.
Imo - technology or advancement in knowledge is like money. It is not good or bad, but increase in that sort with an absence of moral or ethical checks has historically proven far more 'evil' than abstinence or even regression.

I don't claim that a vow of technology abstinence is the way to go, but there are a few things to admire about simple living e.g. Quaker, Mennonite, Amish.

Simple living has its benefits. So does a level-3 NICU if you have a preemie. I'll take the latter, any day.

Oh yes, I do doubt picking one item and basing it on a selected era.
Could they be down because of an increase in laws, enforcement, organization of intel and practices or any other 'causation'?

A poor person in the United States these days lives much better than a bronze-age king. Decreases in income inequality would be a big reason for crime rates to fall (historically).

Then please define "evil".
btw - you have mentioned 'other evils' that don't fit the killing other people criteria. Just saying...

See my post above. We can develop the definition as we continue to discuss.