To: thames_sider who wrote (6868 ) 4/2/2003 8:44:09 PM From: epicure Read Replies (2) | Respond to I think you understand what I was trying to say. I thought it was clear in context. This took place in a larger discussion of "evil"- which is why I kept evil in quotes. While I certainly think Saddam does things that he should not do, and which are painful to humanity, I do not see the utility in the word "evil". Not because I wouldn't think he was evil if I believed in using that word- but that word is too much like religion- it can be anything you "believe" it is. It is unnecessary- and of course leaves open the opportunity for other people who believe in a different concept of evil to do things solely because "something is evil and must be disposed of"- like the US. I prefer a more neutral concept. If something doesn't seem to work out to the benefit of a majority of humans in a given area, I think of that as inutile. That is subjective, I admit, but does not have the emotional content of "evil". Of course one ALWAYS thinks that the things one thinks are really really awful are "evil"- but what good is that really? There are always other people in the world who will think what I think is really really awful, is actually good. It is easier to present a case for the utile. I can argue quite handily that keeping crime down has more utility for society at large than allowing a free for all.
