I thought it would be nice to get you to blog on the reading. When you have completed the reading I set (Vardy and Arliss - 'What is Evil?') then you can respond here to what you have read. You could use the stimulus questions at the end of the chapter. For example:
How would you define evil? We were discussing this at home (try raising the question at dinner with your family and see what they say?) and I thought that evil seems to be ascribed to a person who is responsible for the deaths of a great many innocent people e.g. Hitler is always one of the first people who are named when this question is posed. Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden are two other examples that people seem to name as 'evil'. How else can evil be defined?
The second question the chapter raises is, 'Name two actions and two people whom you would consider evil and explain why.' I have touched on this above. One evil action could be being responsible for the deaths of a great number (1000s let's say) of innocent people. How do you define 'innocent' in this scenario? Who is innocent? How do you persuade others to help you in your aim to wipe out a people group or destroy the lives of 1000s of other people, be they the same culture and nationality as you or belonging to another nation?
One of questions at the end of the chapter asks you to think of anything you may have done that you may describe as evil!! I cannot think of anything I have done that I would say is 'evil'. But then I would say that wouldn't I?!! I may have committed some of acts described on page 19 of the reading, but are they evil?
Does evil lie in intent, in motivation? As the chapter says, Hitler probably wouldn't have thought that he was evil or that what he was doing was evil. He thought his motivation was right. We consider him evil. If he had done everything he did but not built the concentration camps or try to wipe out the Jews (and gypsies, gay people and those with mental health issues) would we still call him evil?
Just some thoughts.
What are your thoughts on this?
Hi Miss,
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting chunk of reading, but the last point puzzled me about an action only being considered 'evil' if it was intended on being so, when hitler thought he was doing the right thing in mass murdering all those people. Does that excuse him, because he thought it was right? or does it just give him an even more evil edge the fact he believed it was the right thing to do?
Really enjoying the blog :)
Jess D
I'm not entirely sure what my thoughts are but i shall hope to of reached a conclusion for tommorows lesson :D
ReplyDeleteellen :)