I actually wasn’t taking sides on which definition of “evil” to use. I usually try to avoid that word anyway because of its propensity to stir emotion.
It could be a matter of degree. Indeed, wedrifid seems to be using it that way. But JoshuaZ seemed to be interpreting it differently: to mean that the Kerchers didn’t in fact sincerely believe that Knox and Sollecito murdered their daughter.
In other words, to wedrifid “evil” describes the act and its potential consequences, but to JoshuaZ it connotes their state of mind. The whole “disagreement” is nothing more than a miscommunication. Or so I have been arguing.
But now wedrifid is talking about an entirely new term: “moral”. I have no pet definition for this term, and he seems to be making a good point in saying, “considering a species which is capable of constructing sincere but false beliefs for pragmatic purposes basing a morality entirely around whether individuals ‘believe’ they are doing something wrong is outright absurd”, so I agreed.
I interpreted Wedrifid’s usage of the term “evil” as roughly, “very, very immoral”. I would be surprised if anyone would disagree that one has a moral duty to know as much as possible the true facts of a matter before going about destroying someone else due to those facts. So in so far as the Kerchers have failed to know what is going on (completely failed) they have (completely) failed to be moral.
So you agree their behavior is immoral but not that it is “evil”? Isn’t this just a matter of degree?
I actually wasn’t taking sides on which definition of “evil” to use. I usually try to avoid that word anyway because of its propensity to stir emotion.
It could be a matter of degree. Indeed, wedrifid seems to be using it that way. But JoshuaZ seemed to be interpreting it differently: to mean that the Kerchers didn’t in fact sincerely believe that Knox and Sollecito murdered their daughter.
In other words, to wedrifid “evil” describes the act and its potential consequences, but to JoshuaZ it connotes their state of mind. The whole “disagreement” is nothing more than a miscommunication. Or so I have been arguing.
But now wedrifid is talking about an entirely new term: “moral”. I have no pet definition for this term, and he seems to be making a good point in saying, “considering a species which is capable of constructing sincere but false beliefs for pragmatic purposes basing a morality entirely around whether individuals ‘believe’ they are doing something wrong is outright absurd”, so I agreed.
I interpreted Wedrifid’s usage of the term “evil” as roughly, “very, very immoral”. I would be surprised if anyone would disagree that one has a moral duty to know as much as possible the true facts of a matter before going about destroying someone else due to those facts. So in so far as the Kerchers have failed to know what is going on (completely failed) they have (completely) failed to be moral.
I agree with all that.