Is it evil to feel pleasure if the evil is suffering?

[wynn]

I am reminded of a favorite quote from The Lord of the Rings (the book at least; I'm not sure if it was in the films). Frodo said to Gandalf regarding Gollum "It's a piy Bilbo didn't kill him when he had the chance." Gandalf scolded Frodo saying "It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand!" Frodo replied "Surely a creature such as Gollum deserves death" and Gandalf said "No doubt. Many that live deserve death. But many that die deserve life. Can you give it them? If not, do not be so quick to deal out death in judgement."

This is a good example, since Gollum/Smeagol is a kind of a double personality.
Smeagol was innocent, but Gollum wasn't. However, one cannot be killed without killing the other since they both live in the same body.

To judge someone merely by one (or a few of his actions) is to reduce him to something less than human, something less than a person.
Such reductionism brings in a lot of problems. One of them being - How can one feel any kind of satisfaction or justice in punishing someone whom one considers to be less than a person?
There is no satisfaction in kicking the doorstep on which you stubbed your toe.

 

[wynn]

What if the pleasure at another's suffering is due to justice being served? Such as the pleasure at seeing a murderer of your family put to death?

Punishing a criminal doesn't really solve anything, as there is no guarantee that the criminal will think and feel what the victim has thought and felt, or that by executing him, the problem of crime will be solved.

Consider the case that the murderer of your family is indeed sentenced to be executed - but as they wait to be executed, they laugh, mock you, and generally show no remorse.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Punishing a criminal doesn't really solve anything, as there is no guarantee that the criminal will think and feel what the victim has thought and felt, or that by executing him, the problem of crime will be solved.

The punishment is not dealt out with the hopes that a criminal will empathize with the victim. The punishment is at very minimum a deterrent and at the most a measure to make sure a criminal does not continue to harm society through their actions.

As far as Gollum/Smeagal Bilbo felt compassion because Gollum was a victim of the ring; very few were beyond the rings power as its carrier. Bilbo would not have felt such compassion for say the Saruman who willingly chose dark powers over light for his own advancement. Likewise we may lock up someone who has committed a crime due to a mental illness and is unaware of their actions but dole out a harsher sentence to someone who is aware of their actions but simply didn't care about the consequences.

"Like Gollum, Saruman was the Ring’s slave, but did everything consciously unlike Gollum. But there are forces above insidiousness, and they win. Saruman could be compared with the scales, which pan of Evil outweighs the pan of Good. Saruman’s character as well as his personality are to blame."

http://www.lord-of-the-rings.org/books/saruman.html

 

[kurros]

So you think , those who believe in revenge, which is an extension of hatred (revenge implies hatred), will win
and those who do not think alike are endangered?

If we still lived like primates, or even like tribal humans, then yes, however civilisation has changed things rather a lot and so many of our tribal instincts are not nearly so useful as they once were.
Of course such emotions were evolutionarily useful; if they were not we would not feel them.

 

[Lori_7]

I would define evil as pleased to cause suffering.
I have tried to define good and evil without taking into account the humanity.
If the humanity would not be, what would mean good and evil?
I have not managed to define good and evil in these conditions.
I think the notion of right and wrong is an exclusive feature of humanity.

There are people who to achieve their purpose, hurt others and do not care about their suffering.
Their aim is not to hurt you,to make you suffer, their goal is different, and to achieve their goal they are able to do anything.
That is bad, is wrong,is immoral , is animalistic.

The worst is when they willingly want to make you suffer.When your pain causes them pleasure, satisfaction.
Animals have no mercy and compassion,but they do not want you to suffer and they do not feel pleasure in your suffering.
Such sentiments only humans can have.
Unfortunately almost all people have in them a greater or smaller part of evil.
Who has not wanted, more or less, to get revenge?What is revenge if not pleased to cause suffering?
Revenge is a characteristic for humanity and not for animals.
So,who is evil,the animals or the humans?

i don't think you have to take it that far (to enjoy other's suffering). the bible says that turning away from knowledge is evil (turning a blind eye). iow, you may not like the suffering, so you turn a blind eye to it and the cause, so you can keep doing what you're doing anyway.

 

[Emil]

i don't think you have to take it that far (to enjoy other's suffering). the bible says that turning away from knowledge is evil (turning a blind eye). iow, you may not like the suffering, so you turn a blind eye to it and the cause, so you can keep doing what you're doing anyway.

It is your belief or you just quote the Bible?

 

[Lori_7]

It is your belief or you just quote the Bible?

both. don't you see that in the world? people don't want to know/see the consequences of their actions because they like their actions too much? i see that.

 

[SolusCado]

That's only because Gollum was a clever plot point. I'm against the death penalty, but only because our method of determining guilt is flawed. If I cought someone who raped my mother for instance, I would find it very fufilling to make them suffer. You can say we shouldn't, but that is likely a religiously inspired judgement. To want evil people to suffer comes from the same source as the search for justice.

Yes, it is very much the love in "my heart" that makes me wish nothing but the best for everyone, including redemption for those who have committed evils. This love is most definitely religiously inspired.

The evolutionary point is the elimination of a potential threat, a component of primate society that impedes the harmony of the whole.

Although, arguably, it is also evolutionarily advantageous so submit to the more powerful individual, so that the more powerful traits are the ones that are propagated amongts the females, yielding a more powerful species.

smeagal was also pitiful. anyone could see that unless they were cold-hearted. smeagal is not what would fit the definition of evil but a victim from the ring and also cold treatment from others. but vicious and evil? no

I agree completely.

Just to clarify things. A reputabale court of law does not sentence a murderer to be murdered, it sentence him to death. The killing that eventually takes place is called execution. Murder and execution are poles apart as far as killing is concerned. I'll answer the prolife and animal lovers vis a vis killing in due course. Be blessed.

These clarifications are only applicable because these are the semantics we have chosen to apply in our society. Even Biblically, the Hebrew term used in "Thou shalt not kill" was a word that meant "kill illegally". Laws and terms are as malleable as play-doh. What really matters (IMO) is the psychological root. If you want someone to die (whether they have committed a crime or not) because of anger or hatred, it is destructive to your psyche and "wrong". If you want someone to die because you think it is best for everyone, then you may be misdirected (or may not), but it isn't destructive to your psyche and not wrong in the "evil" sense of the word.

This is a good example, since Gollum/Smeagol is a kind of a double personality.
Smeagol was innocent, but Gollum wasn't. However, one cannot be killed without killing the other since they both live in the same body.

To judge someone merely by one (or a few of his actions) is to reduce him to something less than human, something less than a person.
Such reductionism brings in a lot of problems. One of them being - How can one feel any kind of satisfaction or justice in punishing someone whom one considers to be less than a person?
There is no satisfaction in kicking the doorstep on which you stubbed your toe.

I agree completely.

 

[wynn]

The punishment is not dealt out with the hopes that a criminal will empathize with the victim. The punishment is at very minimum a deterrent and at the most a measure to make sure a criminal does not continue to harm society through their actions.

My response was to what Spidergoat said about the satisfaction of the victim upon seeing the criminal punished.

 

[spidergoat]

Although, arguably, it is also evolutionarily advantageous so submit to the more powerful individual, so that the more powerful traits are the ones that are propagated amongts the females, yielding a more powerful species.

Criminals aren't necessarily more powerful, they are just the ones that break society's rules. And how does one determine what defines "power"? Muscle power alone is not necessarily an advantage, or we would all be as powerful as gorrillas. Evolution figured that out with australopithecus robustus.

 

[SolusCado]

Criminals aren't necessarily more powerful, they are just the ones that break society's rules. And how does one determine what defines "power"? Muscle power alone is not necessarily an advantage, or we would all be as powerful as gorrillas. Evolution figured that out with australopithecus robustus.

Agreed. And evolution is never finished (at least, it isn't finished yet). So we really don't know what is advantageous and what isn't until any given trait is eradicated.

 

[Emil]

You really understand what it means pleasure?
I think you get too personally involved in the answers.
Tries to define good and evil.
The bloody wars when both sides were convinced that justice was on their side and the other is evil.

Those who feel pleasure in the suffering of others (even if they believe the others are evil),
they looked so much to opportunity to feel pleasure that they have been eliminated each other.
That is why I think fighting between "gladiators" formed of death row inmates,would not raise a lot of people like old times.Also, I think because of that, has drastically decreased the popularity of public executions.

I strongly believe that a well-deserved punishment is not associated with the feeling of pleasure.

 

[birch]

The punishment is not dealt out with the hopes that a criminal will empathize with the victim. The punishment is at very minimum a deterrent and at the most a measure to make sure a criminal does not continue to harm society through their actions.

As far as Gollum/Smeagal Bilbo felt compassion because Gollum was a victim of the ring; very few were beyond the rings power as its carrier. Bilbo would not have felt such compassion for say the Saruman who willingly chose dark powers over light for his own advancement. Likewise we may lock up someone who has committed a crime due to a mental illness and is unaware of their actions but dole out a harsher sentence to someone who is aware of their actions but simply didn't care about the consequences.

"Like Gollum, Saruman was the Ring’s slave, but did everything consciously unlike Gollum. But there are forces above insidiousness, and they win. Saruman could be compared with the scales, which pan of Evil outweighs the pan of Good. Saruman’s character as well as his personality are to blame."

http://www.lord-of-the-rings.org/books/saruman.html

perfectly and well explained, both about gollum/smeagol and the differences and gradients of evil as well as true evil.

 

[nirakar]

What is revenge? What instincts are involved? What is the logic?
From an evolutionary point of view, what's the point?

Revenge is the primitive foundation for justice and the deterrence of criminality.

If you were the biggest toughest cave man and you came upon your several of your comrades each holding pieces of meat that they ripped off of a dead animal and were bringing back to feed their children, and you decide to take one of the largest pieces of meat; do you take the meat from your comrade who will bite you in revenge even though he knows you will hurt him badly for biting you or do you take the meat from your comrade who will not bite you in revenge for your taking his meat?

There is a balance between the advantages and disadvantages of being revengeful. The known revengeful are less likely to be targeted as victims by the stronger, but the revengeful may become victims when those that they were taking revenge against seek revenge for the revenge.

Somebody's revenge instincts don't turn off just because they know they started the conflict. The revenge instinct probably is a mutation from older pecking order instincts.

 

[nirakar]

I would define evil as pleased to cause suffering.
I have tried to define good and evil without taking into account the humanity.
If the humanity would not be, what would mean good and evil?
I have not managed to define good and evil in these conditions.
I think the notion of right and wrong is an exclusive feature of humanity.

There are people who to achieve their purpose, hurt others and do not care about their suffering.
Their aim is not to hurt you,to make you suffer, their goal is different, and to achieve their goal they are able to do anything.
That is bad, is wrong,is immoral , is animalistic.

The worst is when they willingly want to make you suffer.When your pain causes them pleasure, satisfaction.
Animals have no mercy and compassion,but they do not want you to suffer and they do not feel pleasure in your suffering.

Sadisticness is the purist form of evil but where does it come from?

Abuse victims trying to medicate their own feelings of weakness?

A caveman instinct to establish a prehistoric version of "street cred" by becoming known as someone who terrorizes others? When people fear you you can have your way. But if your terrorizing is done in secret because you fear law enforcement then only your victim knows that you must be given your way.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ledeen Jonah Goldberg, Ledeen's colleague at National Review, coined the term "Ledeen Doctrine" in a 2002 column. This tongue-in-cheek "doctrine" is usually summarized as "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business," which Goldberg remembered Ledeen saying in an early 1990s speech.[27].

This may have been what the US was doing in Haiti when it overthrew Haiti's democracy. Not exactly sadistic as in enjoying the victims suffering but sadistic as in using the victims suffering as a warning to others as to what happens to people who do not obey or resist you when you want to steal.

Getting off on your own powerfulness comes very close to sadism when you must hurt others to appreciate your own power. In this case the other's suffering only is interesting because it lets you see your own relative power.

I have seen dogs that enjoy hurting other dogs. They have already established their pecking order dominance but they continue to abuse.

I have seen cats playing with mice. This is torture fore the mice but it is play for the cat. "Play" is activities that are instinctually programmed to cause enjoyment because they sharpen some skill that the DNA knows might be a useful skill. Children and young animals play-fight but they usually don't hurt each other much. In many families older brothers do hurt their younger brothers and make them cry.

Torture may be some outgrowth of pecking order.

Such sentiments only humans can have.
Unfortunately almost all people have in them a greater or smaller part of evil.
Who has not wanted, more or less, to get revenge? What is revenge if not pleased to cause suffering?
Revenge is a characteristic for humanity and not for animals.
So,who is evil,the animals or the humans?

The beginnings of revenge can be seen in animals.

Does revenge give pleasure or is it more like the relief form of pleasure that scratching an itch gives or the relief that smoking a cigarette to suppress lack of focus and suppress stress gives. Relief of suffering seems to me to be a different kind of pleasure than enjoying something nice. People are angry at the criminal and can't let go of that anger until they have hurt the criminal. Then after the criminal has lost enough for committing the crime the criminal can be forgiven and the anger against the criminal can be dropped.

Some say that ignorance is the true evil. To not feel the suffering of others and to not see the futility of desire are the ignorances that cause suffering. Wanting things to be other than how is the cause of all suffering but it is ridiculous to expect any but the highest yogi's to be able to accept existence as it is. Being something capable of surviving requires not seeing the suffering of others as equally important to the suffering of yourself.

I heard a story. A ruthless military commander was invading the land of his enemies. He and his troops were making a point by killing and torturing everybody and showing no mercy. Soon everybody had heard of the horror of this commander and every villager would flee to the forest when they heard that the troops were approaching. Town after town village after village the commander would find empty of people. Then he entered one town and by the well in the town square there was a monk calmly sitting. The Commander walked up to the monk and bellowed "Don't you know who I am? I could run you through with my sword without even batting an eye." The monk calmly answered "Don't you know who I am? You could run me throw with your sword without me even batting an eye."

But we are not like that. We can't accept. We can not be calm and we can not accept, and the sadist enjoys his power over us knowing that while we do not accept we are unable to resist. We want revenge when we are wronged and we will be miserable until we either get the revenge or get tired of the issue and just drop it.