Jim, "evil" is too metaphysical a term for me. One person's
"evil" is often the perpetrator's self-preservation,
patriotism, or expedience. If a person makes the
determination that "justice" (another word I have problems
with) is impossible through "the system," (not exactly a
stretch of imagination to decide that!) one may take it upon
one's self to meet out discipline personally. For example,
was it "evil" for the US Government to forge documents about
nuclear arms to back up their decision to go to war in Iraq
and to impose this fraudlent information on the US Senate at
a time when the country was in a mind-set of abject terror?
My argument is that it's insane to do this, but evil? No,
they believed the end justified the means. As it turns out,
they were wrong even about that! Just as the perpatrators of
the 9/11 attacks, whoever they were, were "evil." They
apparently believed that The United States was imposing on
their governments and who's to say? The word "evil" belongs
in horror stories and theological texts, not in reasonable
discussions of real-life problems. It's too prejudicial; an
absolute negative. No one, however bad they may seem,
actually starts their action to do
"bad," because inevitably the bad returns to them, and they
know it however crazy they may be. They reason they're doing
"good," but come up against a problem in which they feel
justified in making an extreme act. Like the bankrobber who
appologizes politely while holding the teller at gun point,
"I've never done anything like this before, but I'm so
strapped for cash." That's why Ripley, Hannibel Lechter and
most of the fictional villians become more and more the
protagonist as we get to know them better and understand
their motives.
Patrick King
--- jimdohertyjr <
jimdohertyjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Patrick,
>
> Re your comments below:
>
> > Jim, with all due respect: evil? What does
that
> mean?
> > Are foxes "evil" for stealing
chichens?
>
> Foxes are not capable of making moral
judgments.
> People are.
>
> As for the definition of evil, I would have
thought
> that was self-
> evident, but since you're apparently hazy on
the
> concept, one who is
> evil is one who continually, willfully,
and
> deliberately chooses to
> act immorally.
>
> Murdering people, just in case it's not clear, is
an
> immoral act.
>
> > Ripley is not
> > able to control himself when he becomes
enraged.
> His
> > first 3 murders are all rage killings. After
a
> while
> > he gets to enjoy murder. It's a challenge for
him.
>
>
> Rage is not the same as an inability to
control
> oneself. It's
> failing to exert control, not an inability to
exert
> control. And
> it's not a legal defense against a
criminal
> homicide. You MIGHT, I
> say MIGHT, be able to argue that a
homicide
> committed in an act of
> rage was manslaughter, but not that it was
insanity.
>
> And if he's committing his subsequent
murders
> primarily because he
> enjoys it, that's a textbook example of
deliberate
> evil.
>
> > You mention that insanity is a legal
concept.
> Under the
> > legal definition, the lawyer that Ripley
can
> afford
> > can certainly make an insanity argument for him
if
> he
> > ever gets caught, which, of course, he never
will
> be
> > now. I doubt that that's the tact that
lawyer
> would
> > take, however. He'd argue innocent and make
the
> > prosecution prove it's case which he would
riddle
> with
> > holes.
>
> Whether or not a prosecutor could prove he's
a
> murderer or not
> doesn't make him any less a murderer.
>
> We KNOW he's a murder. We're "eyewitnesses," so
to
> speak. Highsmith
> lets us "see" the murders "on-stage," so we
know,
> without question,
> that Ripley's a murderer. Whether or not
a
> prosecutor could prove
> it, given the chance, is irrelevant. We
already
> know the objective
> truth.
>
> Your original assertion wasn't that he could
get
> away with it even if
> he was brought to trial. It was that he was
insane.
> And, based on
> the evidence of the books, that's just not what
he
> is. He knows what
> he's doing and he knows the nature and gravity
of
> his actions.
> Moreover, he's not in some kind of fugue state
where
> he's not
> cognizant of his actions at the time he commits
them
> and is therefore
> powerless to resist the impulse that causes him
to
> kill. And if he's
> not either of those, he's not insane. He may not
be
> normal, but he's
> not insane.
>
> He's just a guy who likes to murder
people.
>
> Which means he's evil.
>
> JIM DOHERTY
>
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in
45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 07 Apr 2007 EDT