Right Justified
Every once in a while... okay, more like once every few posts... well, maybe every other post, I make some sort of inflammatory statement. Back in March, I was commenting on how much I liked the Hyundai commercial that featured Japanese and German people screaming loudly, sort of like how I would imagine WWII propaganda. I also noted that our Korean friends were notoriously xenophobic. What's cool is that I've been vindicated by a 3rd party source, namely the New York Times, one of the Board Room's regular sources of news.
Potential keeper quote: "...following last year’s financial downturn, 'incidents of xenophobia are on the rise.'”
Translation: Poor people need something to cling to.
In Korea, it seems to be being "pure bred." Obama suggested that it was guns, anti-immigrant sentiment, and religion. Our friends over at IJAB may suggest that in Chicago, it may be gangs and violence.
Now conceptually, this is very much linked to my last post regarding the potential inefficiencies of using a morality-based mode of thinking. When we start thinking about issues in terms of morality, we get emotionally charged, and reinforce our world-view. And if death enters our thoughts, we become even more entrenched in those views. This makes for an awesome combination: not only do we start to think less effectively, we're more convinced that we're correct, and are more willing to lash out at others based on those beliefs. How cool is that?
I've never been one to need a reason to commit evil. However, I am of the belief that if you're going say that you have a reason for committing evil acts, that the reason should at least be based in sound logic and theory.
-Chairman
3 comments:
Name someone who committed evil based on sound logic and theory.
Huh? Are you suggesting that an evil act can't be one that is logical?
I would propose that most sociopaths (people w/out any regard for social convention) commit evil acts all the time, but the logic is sound: I care more about me than I do about you, thus, I will (insert act here), which may harm you, but will benefit me. So long as they consistently act that way, then their actions are consistently based on their logic and theory.
Are we talking about having sound logic, or is your comment more to the point of what "evil" is? Whether an act is good or evil, it can be committed within the flow of a consistent, sound rationale, or it can be committed on the something less than that.
To follow up, I'd argue that someone that Judas committed his act, but it was inconsistent with who he wanted to be.
On the other hand, someone like the serpent in the Garden of Eden seems to commit his acts on sound logic and theory.
Post a Comment