Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The outbreak of war is a consequence, nothing more. A collective concept.
But this doesn't change the question's correctness. “Evil” and “good” are subjective and vague categories. Their purpose is the same – to move the event to a simple one-dimensional coordinate system – a segment with a “plus” at one end and a “minus”at the other. But the world is a little more complicated. And one of the main problems is that it is subjective. And here we come across that everyone has their own system of values – there will also be those who really have only a “good-bad” slider.
The next criterion for incorrectness is generalization. Yes, it is somewhat similar to the previous one, but it means something different. It all depends on the situation. Will the outbreak of war necessary to open a second front and reduce the end result of human losses be unacceptable? And the war for totalitarian domination? It is unacceptable from our point of view.
However, then take the situation when the parties to the conflict were initially at peace, until one of them made an open attack on the other. Immediately the question is “Why?”. In fact, there are not many options here – war is a costly entertainment. One of the most possible options is either an erroneous preemptive strike, or unleashing a war for the purpose of world domination. Although, both of these scenarios are not so likely today – both because of modern equipment, and because of the higher literacy of the population than a hundred years ago. But let's say someone started a war. And here we see a direct answer to the question asked.
In the realm of the “unacceptable”, there are those things that allow wars to happen: lust for power, prejudice, hatred, greed, ignorance, intolerance, and, of course, reducing the complexity of the world to simple concepts (which, in fact, is part of ignorance, right?).
So now “evil” is divided into six concepts. It's already harder, but it's still pretty simple, right? Not really. Do not forget that this is still a simplification, an attempt to bring similar events together in one category. But in the end, each of these concepts is decomposed into many more specific ones to such an extent that some of them cannot be unambiguously evaluated. The same desire to lead people to a “brighter future”, dictated by leadership and a share of altruism, does not fall under the definition of the love of power? Just imagine a gradient of many colors – we can take a specific point and say what color it is, but we can't exactly determine the moment when one color flows into another. It's the same with similar concepts. Everything is blurry and ambiguous. So, “evil” in one case is “good” in another. Although, neither “evil” nor” good ” exists.
That's all (not really). I hope I was able to clarify the situation at least a little. And even if you don't, remember that the answer is subjective.
And finally, remember that the world is more complicated than it might seem.
This is not considered a crime against humanity, so no, it is not evil in itself: “there are more important things than peace.” Genocide is a crime, but war is not: perhaps it was started to prevent genocide?
Evil and good are strictly subjective concepts, so it is very difficult to clearly judge what is what and to what extent, at least. That's the first thing. Secondly, wars are organized by states (think of them as politicians) and are most often organized out of national interests. Is this a good thing from a historical perspective ? Perhaps. But for the individual, this is most likely very bad and for him it is absolutely evil. After all, who wants to die ? I mean, in order to determine what can be worse than war, it is necessary to first determine whether war is evil ? Let's say war is evil. Next, you need to determine why war is evil and build a response based on this. Because people are deprived of many material benefits ? The capitalist system allows you to rob a much larger number of people than the war. Because people are dying ? “Well, then, war is the worst of all evils, for I do not know of a greater number of people who have died by unnatural means, except in war.”
We have already noted that evil and good are subjective categories. And everything that depends on a person's perception is easily and naturally changed, distorted, distorted. Take the Third Reich, Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the conquest of new territories is a proper, obligatory behavior for such a great nation as the Germans. Moreover, without the implementation of such conquests, the nation simply cannot exist. Thus, the Germans perceived the outbreak of war as the greatest good (sorry for the rough generalizations, of course not by everyone, not always, not unambiguously). However, the war ended and only then did it become clear that this was the greatest evil. Everything can change, our perception and assessment of what is happening is extremely unstable.
Well, for example, the complete destruction of tens of thousands of biological species. And if we talk about the destruction of people, then war is still, if you can say so, “a civilized way to kill”, people know about it. But the genocide.. so the Turks took it and slaughtered 1.5 million peaceful Armenian neighbors in one night. Or Stalin – how much did he destroy without any war, based on his paranoia?..
In my opinion, the evil is greater than unleashing wars – the systematic destruction of their own people by politicians, covered up with slogans of building a prosperous society. We saw this, for example, in Cambodia (Kampuchea) under the rule of Pol Pot-Ieng Sari. It wasn't the regime's opponents or political rivals who were being destroyed, it was the senseless total destruction of all groups of the population. Only there the cabal did not feed the destroyed with promises of heaven on earth… I can't figure out in which modern state we see about the same thing?
The desire to prove your case, other people suffer from this, this is the most cruel evil in the world, and this attitude will always be with people to each other, you will come up with a stupid question, they will start to hate you, why not ignore or explain what you are doing wrong�
(here it is also necessary that the receiving party is also adequate, and if it is inadequate, it must also be ignored or explained what is wrong), no, everyone will always be angry.