Being Good at Being Bad

P

Prince_James

Plutarch (Mickey's Dog)
Registered Senior Member
Is it more morally blame-worthy to be excellent at evil or terrible at evil?

Are Bonnie and Clyde less evil than a guy who gets gunned down by police after his first bank robbery?

The Zodiac serial-killer or Jack the Ripper (both never caught) less evil than Charlie Manson or Son of Sam?
 
I can admire Jack's efficiency just as I can marvel at Charlie's disorganised derangement. I wouldn't 'blame' one more than the other though, or declare one more evil than the other, or seek to spend any great length of time alone in a room with either.
 
So you would not say the excellence of one v. the other makes any different in the moral evaluation of their careers of evil?
 
Prince_James said:
So you would not say the excellence of one v. the other makes any different in the moral evaluation of their careers of evil?
Click to expand...

I think you need drop the moral evaluation and simply look at the craft that has been used in the pursuit of an evil career. The line might be drawn between the two where commitment to the task is evaluated: Was there a plan to do evil or was it simply a misstep?
 
Motivations behind evil come into play, too. Passion, greed, fear, etc... Maybe there are degrees of evil. Maybe it is all the same.
 
Bowser:

So you think one can evaluate the claim of excellence in bad deeds without the moral evaluation of them as bad deeds?
 
Bowser:

It would seem we measure it by how great they accomplish their task. For instance, Jack the Ripper never getting caught is testament to his skill as a serial killer, whereas Charles Manson was caught rather easily.
 
Prince_James said:
Bowser:

So you think one can evaluate the claim of excellence in bad deeds without the moral evaluation of them as bad deeds?
Click to expand...
Well.. yes (I'll be Bowser, by the way). That's how I know Jack is a 'better' butcherer than Charlie. But in no way do their different levels of ability in their common hobby reflect upon their moral character. They're both clearly rotten to the core, and equally so. Surely their intentions, the degree of premeditation involved and similar factors are the key to assessing their characters, rather than how well they carried out their deeds. What makes you think it could be any other way?
 
Prince_James said:
Bowser:

It would seem we measure it by how great they accomplish their task. For instance, Jack the Ripper never getting caught is testament to his skill as a serial killer, whereas Charles Manson was caught rather easily.
Click to expand...

Well, we are walking a dark path here, but I am game to look at the two. C. Manson used others to accomplish his evil. It seems that Jack worked alone. Either way, both accomplished the same end. I would not call their work a 'great accomplishment.'
 
Not every evaluation is a moral evaluation. Jack the Ripper may be admired for his competence, but this evaluation lies along an aesthetic axis. It isn't being primarily considered whether he ought to have been engaging in such behavior.
 
baumgarten said:
Not every evaluation is a moral evaluation. Jack the Ripper may be admired for his competence, but this evaluation lies along an aesthetic axis. It isn't being primarily considered whether he ought to have been engaging in such behavior.
Click to expand...

Okay, if we are to judge genius of evil, I would say that the ability to murder while others applaud your effort would be the pinnacle (or the nethermost) of success where competence of such things are considered.
 
Redarmy11:

Do not excellences make us better people, morally speaking? For surely, we do not say that someone who is "inferior at being courageous" or "inferior at being honest" is better than "superior at being courageous" or "superior at being honest"?
 
Bowser:

Even if we cannot say that being a murderer is a great accomplishment, surely if one is better at it, one is deserving of the title "great murderer"?
 
Prince_James said:
Bowser:

Even if we cannot say that being a murderer is a great accomplishment, surely if one is better at it, one is deserving of the title "great murderer"?
Click to expand...

:shrug: Hitler, Stalin, Bundy, C. Manson, Jack the Ripper, and those with infamous credit in such things?
 
Prince_James said:
Bowser:

Even if we cannot say that being a murderer is a great accomplishment, surely if one is better at it, one is deserving of the title "great murderer"?
Click to expand...

'great' without any of the moral nuances attached, sure.
A great painter can be a horrible person.
A great guy, well, he should be a good person plus.
So then when we compare a 'great murderer' to a poor one, we are just comparing their skills, not their morals. Great murderers can be worse people and probably are in general.
 
Bowser:

In essence.

Grantywanty:

I fail to see how we can distinguish between "exceptional skill" and "moral goodness" if the criteria for judging (superiority v. inferiority at the task) is the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top