Is it more morally blame-worthy to be excellent at evil or terrible at evil?

Are Bonnie and Clyde less evil than a guy who gets gunned down by police after his first bank robbery?

The Zodiac serial-killer or Jack the Ripper (both never caught) less evil than Charlie Manson or Son of Sam?

Is it more morally blame-worthy to be excellent at evil or terrible at evil?
Neither. Evil is as evil does. The competencies of the evil-doer aren't really a factor. Why should they be?

Is not excellence held to be superior to mediocrity or ineptitude?

I can admire Jack's efficiency just as I can marvel at Charlie's disorganised derangement. I wouldn't 'blame' one more than the other though, or declare one more evil than the other, or seek to spend any great length of time alone in a room with either.

So you would not say the excellence of one v. the other makes any different in the moral evaluation of their careers of evil?

So you would not say the excellence of one v. the other makes any different in the moral evaluation of their careers of evil?

I think you need drop the moral evaluation and simply look at the craft that has been used in the pursuit of an evil career. The line might be drawn between the two where commitment to the task is evaluated: Was there a plan to do evil or was it simply a misstep?

Evil, whatever that is, must be planned in order to qualify as such. This much I know.

Motivations behind evil come into play, too. Passion, greed, fear, etc... Maybe there are degrees of evil. Maybe it is all the same.

Bowser:

So you think one can evaluate the claim of excellence in bad deeds without the moral evaluation of them as bad deeds?

Bowser:

So you think one can evaluate the claim of excellence in bad deeds without the moral evaluation of them as bad deeds?

I am not certain. Do you measure such against good deeds or the evil of others? Maybe if the goal is to surpass a certain measure of evil.

While we are on the topic...

http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070324/APA/703244104

Bowser:

It would seem we measure it by how great they accomplish their task. For instance, Jack the Ripper never getting caught is testament to his skill as a serial killer, whereas Charles Manson was caught rather easily.

Bowser:

So you think one can evaluate the claim of excellence in bad deeds without the moral evaluation of them as bad deeds?
Well.. yes (I'll be Bowser, by the way). That's how I know Jack is a 'better' butcherer than Charlie. But in no way do their different levels of ability in their common hobby reflect upon their moral character. They're both clearly rotten to the core, and equally so. Surely their intentions, the degree of premeditation involved and similar factors are the key to assessing their characters, rather than how well they carried out their deeds. What makes you think it could be any other way?

Bowser:

It would seem we measure it by how great they accomplish their task. For instance, Jack the Ripper never getting caught is testament to his skill as a serial killer, whereas Charles Manson was caught rather easily.

Well, we are walking a dark path here, but I am game to look at the two. C. Manson used others to accomplish his evil. It seems that Jack worked alone. Either way, both accomplished the same end. I would not call their work a 'great accomplishment.'

Not every evaluation is a moral evaluation. Jack the Ripper may be admired for his competence, but this evaluation lies along an aesthetic axis. It isn't being primarily considered whether he ought to have been engaging in such behavior.

Not every evaluation is a moral evaluation. Jack the Ripper may be admired for his competence, but this evaluation lies along an aesthetic axis. It isn't being primarily considered whether he ought to have been engaging in such behavior.

Okay, if we are to judge genius of evil, I would say that the ability to murder while others applaud your effort would be the pinnacle (or the nethermost) of success where competence of such things are considered.

Redarmy11:

Do not excellences make us better people, morally speaking? For surely, we do not say that someone who is "inferior at being courageous" or "inferior at being honest" is better than "superior at being courageous" or "superior at being honest"?

Bowser:

Even if we cannot say that being a murderer is a great accomplishment, surely if one is better at it, one is deserving of the title "great murderer"?

Bowser:

Even if we cannot say that being a murderer is a great accomplishment, surely if one is better at it, one is deserving of the title "great murderer"?

:shrug: Hitler, Stalin, Bundy, C. Manson, Jack the Ripper, and those with infamous credit in such things?

Bowser:

Even if we cannot say that being a murderer is a great accomplishment, surely if one is better at it, one is deserving of the title "great murderer"?

'great' without any of the moral nuances attached, sure.
A great painter can be a horrible person.
A great guy, well, he should be a good person plus.
So then when we compare a 'great murderer' to a poor one, we are just comparing their skills, not their morals. Great murderers can be worse people and probably are in general.

Bowser:

In essence.

Grantywanty:

I fail to see how we can distinguish between "exceptional skill" and "moral goodness" if the criteria for judging (superiority v. inferiority at the task) is the same.

Bowser:

In essence.

Grantywanty:

I fail to see how we can distinguish between "exceptional skill" and "moral goodness" if the criteria for judging (superiority v. inferiority at the task) is the same.

How do you do it?
I am making an assumption here, but I would say the odds are with me.
How do you distinguish between them?

That's what I am saying: I do not see how we can.

I fail to see how we can distinguish between "exceptional skill" and "moral goodness" if the criteria for judging (superiority v. inferiority at the task) is the same.Good and evil describes the goals one has, what one wishes to achieve. The ability to achieve these goals is something else altogether.

Surely a man with the skills to commit horrendous crimes and get away with it could have put those abilities to a better use. But he chose not to, that moral choice determines whether a man is good or evil.

Competence is an admirable trait. We all enjoy working with competent people. But competence does not set policy, it does not guarantee goodness. The Nazis were quite competent, and quite evil.

Competence, intellengence, strength, etc. All are human characteristics that can be put to use by evil men, or good men. They are tools, nothing more. No more good or evil than a hammer or a gun.

So we can admire the competence even of evil men, but it does not in any way lessen their crimes or the degree of their moral depravity.

Prince_James:

Even if we cannot say that being a murderer is a great accomplishment, surely if one is better at it, one is deserving of the title "great murderer"?

The word "great" has implications of "good". Being a good murderer is an oxymoron.

You can talk about somebody being an efficient murderer, or a skilled murderer, but not a good murderer or a great murderer. Murder isn't great in any sense. It isn't an activity that a moral person pursues.

I fail to see how we can distinguish between "exceptional skill" and "moral goodness" if the criteria for judging (superiority v. inferiority at the task) is the same.

Perhaps this is why you apparently have no moral qualms about being a skilled racist.

It would seem we measure it by how great they accomplish their task. For instance, Jack the Ripper never getting caught is testament to his skill as a serial killer, whereas Charles Manson was caught rather easily.

A bit of a tangent, but it should be mentioned that the police work in the Ripper case was fairly shoddy in a number of respects.

There's a kind of glorification of Jack the Ripper that is probably undeserved when all is said and done.

But I guess this is the difference between fame and infamy. Many noted killers are infamous.

In fact, perhaps this is the word you are looking for. If somebody is "good" at being bad, they are normally infamous.

Infamy is defined as "evil fame" or "a state of extreme dishonour", which pegs the whole issue rather precisely, I think.

Madanthonywayne:

So would you go as far as to say that it is better to be bad at murdering than good at murdering, and less of a moral evil? Or would you say they are equally bad?

James R.:

The word "great" has implications of "good". Being a good murderer is an oxymoron.

You can talk about somebody being an efficient murderer, or a skilled murderer, but not a good murderer or a great murderer. Murder isn't great in any sense. It isn't an activity that a moral person pursues.

Yet if morality is, at least in part, judged by the criteria which judges superiority in every other thing, then it seems we can indeed speak of great evil people in a moral and in a technical sense.

If not superiority in skill at various things, then what do we judge goodness by?

Is not "I am bad at being compassionate" the same as "I am uncompassionate"?

Perhaps this is why you apparently have no moral qualms about being a skilled racist.

I am morally awed by your spineless cowardice par excellence wedded to a similarly as spectacular propensity towards unreason.

Truly, you are the greatest of both.

Infamy is defined as "evil fame" or "a state of extreme dishonour", which pegs the whole issue rather precisely, I think.

True, but infamy is never given to someone who is merely crappy at his evil. We only call someone infamous when he is especially good at what he does.

Madanthonywayne:

So would you go as far as to say that it is better to be bad at murdering than good at murdering, and less of a moral evil? Or would you say they are equally bad?
Sure I would. Why are the Nazis almost universally regarded as the epitome of evil? Because they were so damned efficient at it!

Consider the criminal justice system, why is attempted murder less of a crime than murder? Surely the intent was the same. It's just that the attempted murderer was incompetent. His incompetence diminished his capacity to commit evil. So his punishment is less.

Indeed, part of what makes masters of crime/evil so bad is the wasted potential. We wonder what they might have done if they had "used their powers for good".

The incompetent criminal, on the other hand, is regarded as a figure of contempt and pity. We assume he had to turn to crime since he's such a damned idiot.

Is it more morally blame-worthy to be excellent at evil or terrible at evil?

To be excellent at evil is absolutely more immoral. It implies a commitment to the deed lacking in the casual criminal. On the other hand, some evil things are justified, and, (if you were a moron) perfection in the field could almost be admired.

I am morally awed by your spineless cowardice par excellence wedded to a similarly as spectacular propensity towards unreason.

I have no idea what you're talking about here, except that it appears you want to insult me.

I will await your apology before having any further dialogue with you.

That's what I am saying: I do not see how we can.

But we do.


Morality is about intentions and feelings.
The greatness or goodness at handling a task is something else.
You can feel a good person, sometimes, just sitting there. They don't even have to do something.
Someone judged a great person is probably also skilled at communicating, massaging, listening, etc. But their goodness is not tied up into their skill. It is how we find out about SOME of it.

I can easily distinguish between the great surgeon who is an asshole, sometimes just looking at the guy, without seeing him demean a janitor or telling his wife is a whore; and the good pediatrician who is just mediocre.

Just on vibe. I am not claiming I am 100%, but this goodness is tangible and is not dependent on verbs. At least not verbs science can currently measure or measures with this idea in mind.

And there are plenty of people who are good at being good, but who give me the creeps. Every see Mother Teresa out for a walk. Like an insect looking for prey. I do not care what her verbs say about who she is.

Madanthonywayne:

Is it not peculiar then that we consider someone less evil by being bad at what he opts to do? For in basically all other things we affirm that it is best to be as good as one could possibly be.

spidergoat:

To be excellent at evil is absolutely more immoral. It implies a commitment to the deed lacking in the casual criminal. On the other hand, some evil things are justified, and, (if you were a moron) perfection in the field could almost be admired.

SHouldn't commitment and excellence be admired, though? Rather than sloppy, half-assed work? If you do not even have the desire to truly do well at what you set out to do, you are evil + crappy at it. This seems to me to be a greater moral failure than excellence, no matter to what end.

James R.:

I have no idea what you're talking about here, except that it appears you want to insult me.

I will await your apology before having any further dialogue with you.

I beg you: Please hold your breath. For it shall be a long time and I should like to find you dead.

Grantywanty:

Morality is about intentions and feelings.
The greatness or goodness at handling a task is something else.

Where I shall agree with you that morality is partially about intention, to disregard excellence at any task seems to be blatantly absurd.

We call mother Teresa or Gandhi great because they were exceptional at compassion and such stuff. They'd be less moral, presumably, if they were significantly less skilled at their task. Certainly, we wouldn't call them the epitome of great human beings.

You can feel a good person, sometimes, just sitting there. They don't even have to do something.
Someone judged a great person is probably also skilled at communicating, massaging, listening, etc. But their goodness is not tied up into their skill. It is how we find out about SOME of it.

How can you trust such bizarre intuition? It is often the case that people who know serial killers affirmed how wonderful and kind they were to them and how shocked they were to find out that they were butchers. I think Bundy was held to be so by his neighbours.

I can easily distinguish between the great surgeon who is an asshole, sometimes just looking at the guy, without seeing him demean a janitor or telling his wife is a whore; and the good pediatrician who is just mediocre.

But certainly, the surgeon is more moral by saving thousands of lives, whereas the janitor does nothing whatsoever of importance on that level?

For it shall be a long time and I should like to find you dead.

For this death threat, I could easily ban you. Repeat it, and I will.

Death threat? No. Death -wish-.

The two are both legally and practically different.

I wish you would die. It would please me. But I assure you, I have no intent of killing you, nor otherwise being part of your death. Nor do I really care if you do, simply I would laugh and say: Good riddance for bad rubbish. Or something equal to that meaning.

If you thought I made a public declaration of my intent to kill you, then I apologize for the miscommunication.

Let us get back to the thread topic, shall we?

As G'Kar once said, "does one punish the hand that struck or the heart that guided the hand?"

My answer is, "it is the heart that is at fault".

For that reason, when it comes to judging another, attempted murder and successful murder are of the same magnitude.

I can easily distinguish between the great surgeon who is an asshole, sometimes just looking at the guy, without seeing him demean a janitor or telling his wife is a whore; and the good pediatrician who is just mediocre.

The funny thing is, most surgeons are assholes. I think the training they go thru requires it.

Prince_James:

I wish you would die. It would please me.

Rather an extreme reaction, I would have thought.

You wish I would die ... why? Because you're a right-wing racist and I'm a left-wing pinko commy?

It sounds like this is the first time in your life you've ever had your views challenged. Did mummy spoil you?

madanthonywayne:

Possibly also the emotional hardening of cutting into someone and getting wrist-deep in the blood and guts.

James R.:

Sic semper tyrannis.

You remind me of John Wilkes Booth. Same type, same language.

madanthonywayne:

Possibly also the emotional hardening of cutting into someone and getting wrist-deep in the blood and guts.
Certainly. To have the confidence to cut into someone and fix whatever's wrong requires something of a "god" complex. While this serves them well in the operating room, it serves them less well outside it.

Grantywanty:



[QUOTE]Where I shall agree with you that morality is partially about intention, to disregard excellence at any task seems to be blatantly absurd.

I don't disregard excellence.

We call mother Teresa or Gandhi great because they were exceptional at compassion and such stuff. They'd be less moral, presumably, if they were significantly less skilled at their task. Certainly, we wouldn't call them the epitome of great human beings.
I actually dislike Mother Teresa and there is a serious book THE WHORE OF CALCUTTA that backs up my intuitions about her. Christopher Hitchens is the author.
No I do not think you become less moral.


How can you trust such bizarre intuition? It is often the case that people who know serial killers affirmed how wonderful and kind they were to them and how shocked they were to find out that they were butchers. I think Bundy was held to be so by his neighbours.

So because some people have poor intuitions none of us have good ones.



But certainly, the surgeon is more moral by saving thousands of lives, whereas the janitor does nothing whatsoever of importance on that level?

See, I disagree absolutely. He is a great surgeon, period. If he does it simply for fame and money and loathes people - not that we need this extreme example - the janitor could easily be a more moral person. Or actually a better person (more good).

But certainly, the surgeon is more moral by saving thousands of lives, whereas the janitor does nothing whatsoever of importance on that level?


One could easily draw the conlusion here that surgeons are more likely to be good people. (since their skills at saving people are more likely to have this or that Newtonian effect)

But I do not think that surgeons are better people than janitors (in fact my intuition leans toward the janitors)

And I want it at least noticed that I am very comfortable distinguishing between the two types of goodness: one connected to empathy, humanity, warmth, love, kindness and the other connected to skill and it seems for you outcome.

And I am not alone in this.

Think about how many people have said things like
he's a good ______________, but a real piece of shit (real asshole etc.)
and changing good to great does not stop this. Often the good people have not done anything remarkable, they just feel good to be around, and it is this center of goodness that we love them for, not how nicely they gripped my shoulder when my mother died, but that quality in them that I could feel just being near them.

I don't think you trust your intuition very much.

How can you trust such bizarre intuition? It is often the case that people who know serial killers affirmed how wonderful and kind they were to them and how shocked they were to find out that they were butchers. I think Bundy was held to be so by his neighbours.

this raises problems for evaluating a good person by their acts also. People with poor intuitions were fooled by a facade and good behavior.