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-----
From: owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com [mailto:owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com] On Behalf Of David Mitchell
Sent: 05 February 2006 20:58
To: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
Subject: Sadism and evil
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.