|
I wonder
if sadism is what Wittgenstein would have considered a problem of language. Let
me explain through a thought experiment. In our
society, at the present time, sadism is considered bad. But does the person
conducting the sadistic act do it because it is “bad”. I suspect they would
still do it if they moved to a country where such acts were acceptable or even
encouraged. Would a sadist in that instance become a non-sadist simply because
society disapproved of non-sadism? I don’t think so. I suspect sadists carry
out sadistic acts through a desire to satisfy power and pain complexes. The old
joke comes to mind here. Masochist:
Hurt me, pleeeeeaase ……. Sadist:
No. A more
general explanation/thought experiment. A society
determines what is culturally good or bad (evil has too many religious
connotations for me). For example homosexuality, slavery, universal suffrage,
eating meat – things where different societies, at different times, have taken
different stances. An
individual has a personal stance, which is different to that of the society he
lives in. That
person consistently carries out bad acts – consistent with his own conscience,
but at odds with the values of his society, and is therefore categorised as a
bad person. If that person moves to another society where his conscience is in
line with his society he is re-categorised as a good person. This indeed
explains much of the migration of political refugees, or those who are subject
to religious persecution. I think it
wise to question any statement that is based upon a concept of the absolute
ethic. History has shown that ethics are a moveable feast, thankfully. Bernie Doeser Sandiway,
Cheshire, UK. -----Original
Message----- I think that
an argument can be made for the existence of 'evil' persons, even though I
would still maintain that Hitler was not one of them. An interesting case on
this score would be people who are admitted to be sadists; that is people
who derive pleasure from inflicting pain on others. I believe the
case of the sadist is interesting, because their enjoyment derives in part from
an awareness that what they are doing is morally wrong. As such sadists are not
people who just happen to enjoy inflicting pain, in the same
way someone might enjoy say cycling, but are rather individuals who find the
activity pleasurable because it involves violating moral norms. This aspect of
sadism has a certain parallel with elements of sexual activity,
where excitement is derived from some imagined 'immorality' or transgression
being enacted. Conversely where sex enters a legitimised or
accetped domain in t! erms of societal 'moral' norms it may be
thought to lose some of its interest, which explains, to some
extent, why sex after marriage for certain people becomes boring. The point is
that in the case of genuine sadists we have people who are doing evil for it's
own sake, since their pleasure is bound up with acknowledgement of an action
being prohibited or immoral. In a similar way a good person may derive pleasure
from doing good but this is not the reason they do it, and that pleasure is
itself tied up with an awareness of having done what is right.
Consequently if sadists like this exist it may be said that we
do have properly 'evil' people, people who, like the characters in De Sade
novels or Satan, do evil for it's own sake. David. To help
you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. |