Being Good at Being Bad

[Grantywanty]

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.

How do you do it?
I am making an assumption here, but I would say the odds are with me.
How do you distinguish between them?

 

[Prince_James]

That's what I am saying: I do not see how we can.

 

[madanthonywayne]

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.

Good and evil describes the goals one has, what one wishes to achieve. The ability to achieve these goals is something else altogether.

Surely a man with the skills to commit horrendous crimes and get away with it could have put those abilities to a better use. But he chose not to, that moral choice determines whether a man is good or evil.

Competence is an admirable trait. We all enjoy working with competent people. But competence does not set policy, it does not guarantee goodness. The Nazis were quite competent, and quite evil.

Competence, intellengence, strength, etc. All are human characteristics that can be put to use by evil men, or good men. They are tools, nothing more. No more good or evil than a hammer or a gun.

So we can admire the competence even of evil men, but it does not in any way lessen their crimes or the degree of their moral depravity.

 

[James R]

Prince_James:

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"?

The word "great" has implications of "good". Being a good murderer is an oxymoron.

You can talk about somebody being an efficient murderer, or a skilled murderer, but not a good murderer or a great murderer. Murder isn't great in any sense. It isn't an activity that a moral person pursues.

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.

Perhaps this is why you apparently have no moral qualms about being a skilled racist.

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.

A bit of a tangent, but it should be mentioned that the police work in the Ripper case was fairly shoddy in a number of respects.

There's a kind of glorification of Jack the Ripper that is probably undeserved when all is said and done.

But I guess this is the difference between fame and infamy. Many noted killers are infamous.

In fact, perhaps this is the word you are looking for. If somebody is "good" at being bad, they are normally infamous.

Infamy is defined as "evil fame" or "a state of extreme dishonour", which pegs the whole issue rather precisely, I think.

 

[Prince_James]

Madanthonywayne:

So would you go as far as to say that it is better to be bad at murdering than good at murdering, and less of a moral evil? Or would you say they are equally bad?

 

[Prince_James]

James R.:

The word "great" has implications of "good". Being a good murderer is an oxymoron.

You can talk about somebody being an efficient murderer, or a skilled murderer, but not a good murderer or a great murderer. Murder isn't great in any sense. It isn't an activity that a moral person pursues.

Yet if morality is, at least in part, judged by the criteria which judges superiority in every other thing, then it seems we can indeed speak of great evil people in a moral and in a technical sense.

If not superiority in skill at various things, then what do we judge goodness by?

Is not "I am bad at being compassionate" the same as "I am uncompassionate"?

Perhaps this is why you apparently have no moral qualms about being a skilled racist.

I am morally awed by your spineless cowardice par excellence wedded to a similarly as spectacular propensity towards unreason.

Truly, you are the greatest of both.

Infamy is defined as "evil fame" or "a state of extreme dishonour", which pegs the whole issue rather precisely, I think.

True, but infamy is never given to someone who is merely crappy at his evil. We only call someone infamous when he is especially good at what he does.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Madanthonywayne:

So would you go as far as to say that it is better to be bad at murdering than good at murdering, and less of a moral evil? Or would you say they are equally bad?

Sure I would. Why are the Nazis almost universally regarded as the epitome of evil? Because they were so damned efficient at it!

Consider the criminal justice system, why is attempted murder less of a crime than murder? Surely the intent was the same. It's just that the attempted murderer was incompetent. His incompetence diminished his capacity to commit evil. So his punishment is less.

Indeed, part of what makes masters of crime/evil so bad is the wasted potential. We wonder what they might have done if they had "used their powers for good".

The incompetent criminal, on the other hand, is regarded as a figure of contempt and pity. We assume he had to turn to crime since he's such a damned idiot.

 

[spidergoat]

Is it more morally blame-worthy to be excellent at evil or terrible at evil?

To be excellent at evil is absolutely more immoral. It implies a commitment to the deed lacking in the casual criminal. On the other hand, some evil things are justified, and, (if you were a moron) perfection in the field could almost be admired.

 

[James R]

I am morally awed by your spineless cowardice par excellence wedded to a similarly as spectacular propensity towards unreason.

I have no idea what you're talking about here, except that it appears you want to insult me.

I will await your apology before having any further dialogue with you.

 

[Grantywanty]

That's what I am saying: I do not see how we can.

But we do.


Morality is about intentions and feelings.
The greatness or goodness at handling a task is something else.
You can feel a good person, sometimes, just sitting there. They don't even have to do something.
Someone judged a great person is probably also skilled at communicating, massaging, listening, etc. But their goodness is not tied up into their skill. It is how we find out about SOME of it.

I can easily distinguish between the great surgeon who is an asshole, sometimes just looking at the guy, without seeing him demean a janitor or telling his wife is a whore; and the good pediatrician who is just mediocre.

Just on vibe. I am not claiming I am 100%, but this goodness is tangible and is not dependent on verbs. At least not verbs science can currently measure or measures with this idea in mind.

And there are plenty of people who are good at being good, but who give me the creeps. Every see Mother Teresa out for a walk. Like an insect looking for prey. I do not care what her verbs say about who she is.

 

[Prince_James]

Madanthonywayne:

Is it not peculiar then that we consider someone less evil by being bad at what he opts to do? For in basically all other things we affirm that it is best to be as good as one could possibly be.

 

[Prince_James]

spidergoat:

To be excellent at evil is absolutely more immoral. It implies a commitment to the deed lacking in the casual criminal. On the other hand, some evil things are justified, and, (if you were a moron) perfection in the field could almost be admired.

SHouldn't commitment and excellence be admired, though? Rather than sloppy, half-assed work? If you do not even have the desire to truly do well at what you set out to do, you are evil + crappy at it. This seems to me to be a greater moral failure than excellence, no matter to what end.

 

[Prince_James]

James R.:

I have no idea what you're talking about here, except that it appears you want to insult me.

I will await your apology before having any further dialogue with you.

I beg you: Please hold your breath. For it shall be a long time and I should like to find you dead.

 

[Prince_James]

Grantywanty:

Morality is about intentions and feelings.
The greatness or goodness at handling a task is something else.

Where I shall agree with you that morality is partially about intention, to disregard excellence at any task seems to be blatantly absurd.

We call mother Teresa or Gandhi great because they were exceptional at compassion and such stuff. They'd be less moral, presumably, if they were significantly less skilled at their task. Certainly, we wouldn't call them the epitome of great human beings.

You can feel a good person, sometimes, just sitting there. They don't even have to do something.
Someone judged a great person is probably also skilled at communicating, massaging, listening, etc. But their goodness is not tied up into their skill. It is how we find out about SOME of it.

How can you trust such bizarre intuition? It is often the case that people who know serial killers affirmed how wonderful and kind they were to them and how shocked they were to find out that they were butchers. I think Bundy was held to be so by his neighbours.

I can easily distinguish between the great surgeon who is an asshole, sometimes just looking at the guy, without seeing him demean a janitor or telling his wife is a whore; and the good pediatrician who is just mediocre.

But certainly, the surgeon is more moral by saving thousands of lives, whereas the janitor does nothing whatsoever of importance on that level?

 

[James R]

For it shall be a long time and I should like to find you dead.

For this death threat, I could easily ban you. Repeat it, and I will.

 

[Prince_James]

Death threat? No. Death -wish-.

The two are both legally and practically different.

I wish you would die. It would please me. But I assure you, I have no intent of killing you, nor otherwise being part of your death. Nor do I really care if you do, simply I would laugh and say: Good riddance for bad rubbish. Or something equal to that meaning.

If you thought I made a public declaration of my intent to kill you, then I apologize for the miscommunication.

Let us get back to the thread topic, shall we?

 

[Blue_UK]

As G'Kar once said, "does one punish the hand that struck or the heart that guided the hand?"

My answer is, "it is the heart that is at fault".

For that reason, when it comes to judging another, attempted murder and successful murder are of the same magnitude.

 

[madanthonywayne]

I can easily distinguish between the great surgeon who is an asshole, sometimes just looking at the guy, without seeing him demean a janitor or telling his wife is a whore; and the good pediatrician who is just mediocre.

The funny thing is, most surgeons are assholes. I think the training they go thru requires it.

 

[James R]

Prince_James:

I wish you would die. It would please me.

Rather an extreme reaction, I would have thought.

You wish I would die ... why? Because you're a right-wing racist and I'm a left-wing pinko commy?

It sounds like this is the first time in your life you've ever had your views challenged. Did mummy spoil you?

 

[Prince_James]

madanthonywayne:

Possibly also the emotional hardening of cutting into someone and getting wrist-deep in the blood and guts.