Is there any contemporary philosophical writing that deals with a tendency in our culture to "humanize evil?" I'm referring to actions like giving "evil" people "rich inner lives" and similar qualities in media.
When I mean evil, I mean evil in the cultural context i.e. being a greedy asshole, killing people, etc. not an exploration of what "evil' really is.
Maybe Bataille's "Literature and evil". See if you can get some info about it, honestly I haven't read it but it could be relevant.
There's a book about serial killers which attempts to de-romanticize them and instead point to their cultural and philosophical significance: Serial Killing: A Philosophical Anthology. Also other random books on serial killers, especiall those written between the 80s and 90s. I'm reading a book on Dahmer now and while the author tries to paint him as a Dionysian figure trapped in an Apollonian world, he still concludes that Dahmer was an unremarkable person and the end-game of the "smart, but lazy" archetype, an under-achiever.
Serial Killing is cool, have been thinking about picking it up for a while if just for the fact that I like Shipley's writing a lot. How is it?
Isn't that just realism? I mean it's pretty hokey when antagonists are literal supervillains chasing nothing but evil for its own sake.
to avoid any historical examples, i mean something like "bullying" for instance.
there's a trend to empathize with the child's turbulent home life to absolve him/her of "evil," which in turn deflects responsibility onto the parents, who in turn are claimed to be part of the same vicious cycle.
you have a never-ending chain of victims with no accountability that are seen as being victims just as much as the person who is being initially bullied. the person initially being bullied, however, has to bear the burden of the psychological effects and so on.
but that's still ultimately a more realistic approach to the issue. it sounds like you're just uncomfortable with the broader implications of that.
i don't mean it in the sense that history can mistakenly view "extraordinary" people as having some unique set of qualities.
to use your example, i would want a philosopher to comment on why someone who is a serial killer should be condemned/held accountable despite developmental/environmental factors based on "evil' actions.
i'm just interested in explorations of a desire/duty to "humanize" wrong-doers to the point that they become victims e.g. why it should be desirable over punishment and so on.
Apparently you weren't listening to the other user. Because that's boring and uninspired, there's no need to write a manifesto about why a bad deed needs to be punished, philosophers have already done that and culturally it's instilled in everyone. However, in the post modern realm, people also realize that there's two sides to every coin and rarely is anyone evil for no reason. People are more interested in "why" than consequence. Furthermore, despite humaninzing villains, there's still a clear "good" and "bad" side, antagonist and protagonist to plots.
All of this is relatively obvious and you don't need a book describing it (although I'm sure one will come if not already existent), you only need to think critically for yourself.
1982
yeah it seems obvious when you reduce the statement to something self-evident that is not at all in line with what i'm saying. no where did i indicate this was my viewpoint either.
"people also realize that there's two sides to every coin" is a good example an ideological lens and of your own inability to think critically.
I didn't imply it was your viewpoint.
And you aren't going to get anywhere believing my observation, grounded in discourse, that people have reached a consensus, is not an inability to think critically. It's merely again, discourse and observations. If you're not looking for either, why do you ask for a book? You're very clearly upset that literature has no function to describe punishing bullying (something you probably experienced).
I doubt you understand literature which has to appeal to people first and foremost beyond the esoteric (you). But again, philosophers have heavily tread over what and why some actions need be punished. Reread Plato's "The Apology" and then advance towards your favorite philosophers that pander your bias.
You've asked why people humanize humans. The answer is clear. I expressed it to you, others in the thread have, authors immemorial have. That you cannot grasp the answer is no skin off my nose.
Because it's ethically and intellectually easy. It doesn't require genuine value judgements or self accountability, it just requires the assumption of a vague "goodness" inherent in every person and blames any abbreviation from that on some inhuman evil, of which individuals are simply the victims.
Not only does it require a complete lack of actual effort on the part of the moralizer, it also allows them to take an intellectual/ethical upper hand in the case of and , and claim that "it's just too complicated to be understood", while failing to understood that philosophy is only applicable to reality if it both makes a real effect on the world (rather than waving it away) and can be followed in spite of the innumerable complexities of daily existence.
Evil wouldn't be evil if it weren't humanized. It would be blind if people were simply born malevolent - then they couldn't be held accountable. Only if you give an evil person humanity can they not be excused.
Reducing a person to their environment is the opposite of humanizing them. The richer the inner life of an evil person, the more evil they are.
Furthermore, if evil characters are interesting or even likable, that is because evil itself is interesting, (likable if you live vicariously through the character and have an evil side). If there's a moral commandment, it's to not do evil, not to not be honest about the fact that it's interesting.
it's weird how serial killers are portrayed in media as being meticulous geniuses and shit because in reality they usually have IQs of around 90 or lower and are basically sub-human
Don't pretend notions of 'personal accountability' aren't intellectually lazy as fuck too. The whole cycle of resentment and punishment only benefits those powers entrusted with dealing out punishment. There is no moral system that is purely objective and apolitical, each moral system presents a picture of society as it ought to be, even if it's not explicit.
Lol nobody's waiving away accountability you fag. The main idea is that if you want fictional characters to have even a modicum of nuance you have to humanize them, because they are fucking human, probably anyway. Your understanding of humanization as an "inherent goodness" only demonstrates you lack of understanding of the concept btw.
To show that a bully had also been bullied by his parents is not to absolve his sins, it's to fucking explain them in a believable manner.
I think the reason for this is that we typically view murder as a difficult crime to get away with. Therefore, anyone who can get a large number of people without getting caught must be some kind of genius.
However, as far as I can tell, the reason why serial killers can kill so many people and not get caught has more to do with the way that police and detectives conduct murder investigations; not because the killer is some kind of mastermind. When someone is murdered it's typically done by a relative, friend, or someone else that the victim was acquainted with. Because of this, police and investigators will start with the victim and then branch out and investigate everyone that the victim knew until they find the right guy. This works fine for the vast majority of murders but it makes random killings difficult to solve (assuming that the killer isn't a dumbass who brags about the murder, which is how a lot of these guys get caught).
>To show that a bully had also been bullied by his parents is not to absolve his sins, it's to fucking explain them in a believable manner.
1. Everyone can demonstrate to have been, to some extent, bullied by their parents. That's a very large part of what parents do.
2. You seem to imply that the one causes the other, whereas we can only hypothetically claim that they both exist (the bully and his past experiences), if that is at all the case
3. It isn't always the case. I'm sure there are a great many cruel and unlikable people with absolutely ordinary and even wonderful upbringings
4. There are also many victims of abuse who deal with that abuse in a reasonable way, and don't end up unleashing pain on other people
It's very easy to say "X person did Y for A,B, and C reasons", but it's far from the truth. Don't act like it's some great intellectual feat to make up excuses for shitty people.
You're talking about legality. I'm talking about personal morality. And why do moral systems have to be purely objective and apolitical? This seems like your aim more than anyone elses, which is probably why you insist on finding social reasons for personal failures.
>1. Everyone can demonstrate to have been, to some extent, bullied by their parents. That's a very large part of what parents do.
Sure, though obviously it varies greatly by degree
>2. You seem to imply that the one causes the other, whereas we can only hypothetically claim that they both exist (the bully and his past experiences), if that is at all the case
Ok Hume I'll concede to that one too, but even so, what's wrong with fiction that shows both to exist?
>3. It isn't always the case. I'm sure there are a great many cruel and unlikable people with absolutely ordinary and even wonderful upbringings
Of course it's not always the case, but there always is a reason for someone's cruel (or kind) action, as multifaceted or beyond our grasp as it may be, and fiction that deals with cruelty (or kindness) should address this. Or should address this if it's dealing with characters and their psychological states, rather than merely the fallout of an action; for example something examining how humans would react to life in a aftermath of nuclear war seems like it doesn't necessarily need to look at the motivation behind the bombings because the focus lies elsewhere. On the other hand a character study of a bully and his victim should strive to show us realistic psychological motivations.
>4. There are also many victims of abuse who deal with that abuse in a reasonable way, and don't end up unleashing pain on other people
Obviously true but also totally irrelevant to this discussion.
>It's very easy to say "X person did Y for A,B, and C reasons", but it's far from the truth.
Hell of a lot better than outright ignoring their reasons for action and attributing it to the mysterious power of pure evil, no?
>Don't act like it's some great intellectual feat to make up excuses for shitty people.
You miss the most important point. It isn't about 'making excuses,' it's about explaining behavior in a reasonable manner. Will we ever find a perfect method to do so? Unlikely, but it's at least worth the effort.
>explaining behavior in a reasonable manner
Actually let's change that to 'examining' to keep in line with your Humean observation.
>"it's just too complicated to be understood"
>It's very easy to say "X person did Y for A,B, and C reasons", but it's far from the truth. Don't act like it's some great intellectual feat to make up excuses for shitty people.
Except that's the truth. Actions have causes and the network of causes is infinitely complex. No one is saying it's too complicated but failing to consider the network of causes is worse. The best path is to acknowledge that it's very complex and try to figure it out anyway.
>2017
>he still hasn't got beyond good and evil
Top laff tbqh
>Actions have causes and the network of causes is infinitely complex
>tries to find a simple cause for them anyways, in order to sympathize with the wrong-doer and craft a narrative of victimization
what an egregiously bad post. how about you try reading the two sentences that succeed the one you tried to strawman?
This is not what your asking for but this is what Game of Thrones does and I'm almost positive plebs are internalizing these viewpoints and projecting them onto the real world.
Are those Gilgamesh and Enkidu?