Consistency of Character and the Character of Evil

Daniel M. Haybron
{"title":"Consistency of Character and the Character of Evil","authors":"Daniel M. Haybron","doi":"10.1163/9789004496057_007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We can distinguish the evil person in two ways. One is to pick out some trait, or narrow cluster of traits, and argue that individuals are evil if they possess those traits to a sufficiently extreme degree. Call theories that characterize evil in this manner extremity views. The second method takes evil to consist in being vicious, not just in one respect, but thoroughly or consistently. Call this the consistency approach. Thus understood, evil persons lack any significant moral virtues, having no “good side.” According to stronger versions of the consistency theory, evil persons lack morally redeeming qualities of even the most modest sort. They are moved and motivated little or not at all, or even perversely, by morality and the good. In this chapter I will defend such a view of evil character. Naturally, even consistency theories grant that evil involves a kind of extreme viciousness. But this is not the sort of extremity that requires having particular traits to an extraordinary degree, beyond those needed to lack virtues or redeeming qualities. Consistency theorists could require extreme vices in addition to those implied by the consistency requirement, but I will not do so. What about extremity views? Extremity of vice in the present sense concerns the degree to which someone possesses a given vice. If a person’s viciousness consists in cruelty, then that individual earns the title of evil by having cruel propensities to the highest degree: tending to perform many cruel acts, and tending to perform the cruelest acts. The extremity method appears to be the standard approach among commentators in this area. For example, Laurence Thomas claims that to have an evil character is to be “often enough prone to do evil acts” (1993, p. 82). Someone commits an evil act if the individual “delights in performing a harmful act that has a certain moral gravity to it . . . and if the person is not animated by understandable considerations” (p. 77). Similarly, John Kekes has argued that evil persons are those who are","PeriodicalId":164245,"journal":{"name":"Earth’s Abominations","volume":"73 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Earth’s Abominations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004496057_007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

We can distinguish the evil person in two ways. One is to pick out some trait, or narrow cluster of traits, and argue that individuals are evil if they possess those traits to a sufficiently extreme degree. Call theories that characterize evil in this manner extremity views. The second method takes evil to consist in being vicious, not just in one respect, but thoroughly or consistently. Call this the consistency approach. Thus understood, evil persons lack any significant moral virtues, having no “good side.” According to stronger versions of the consistency theory, evil persons lack morally redeeming qualities of even the most modest sort. They are moved and motivated little or not at all, or even perversely, by morality and the good. In this chapter I will defend such a view of evil character. Naturally, even consistency theories grant that evil involves a kind of extreme viciousness. But this is not the sort of extremity that requires having particular traits to an extraordinary degree, beyond those needed to lack virtues or redeeming qualities. Consistency theorists could require extreme vices in addition to those implied by the consistency requirement, but I will not do so. What about extremity views? Extremity of vice in the present sense concerns the degree to which someone possesses a given vice. If a person’s viciousness consists in cruelty, then that individual earns the title of evil by having cruel propensities to the highest degree: tending to perform many cruel acts, and tending to perform the cruelest acts. The extremity method appears to be the standard approach among commentators in this area. For example, Laurence Thomas claims that to have an evil character is to be “often enough prone to do evil acts” (1993, p. 82). Someone commits an evil act if the individual “delights in performing a harmful act that has a certain moral gravity to it . . . and if the person is not animated by understandable considerations” (p. 77). Similarly, John Kekes has argued that evil persons are those who are
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
性格的一致性和邪恶的性格
我们可以用两种方式来区分坏人。一种是挑选出一些特征,或一小群特征,并认为如果这些特征达到足够极端的程度,那么个人就是邪恶的。把以这种方式描述邪恶的理论称为极端观点。第二种方法认为邪恶是邪恶的,不仅仅是在一个方面,而是彻底的或持续的。我们称这种方法为一致性方法。因此,邪恶的人缺乏任何重要的道德美德,没有“好的一面”。根据一致性理论的更强版本,邪恶的人缺乏道德上的救赎品质,即使是最谦虚的那种。他们很少或根本不受道德和良善的影响和激励,甚至是反常的。在本章中,我将为这种关于邪恶性格的观点辩护。自然地,即使是一致性理论也承认邪恶包含一种极端的邪恶。但这并不是那种极端,除了那些缺乏美德或可取之处的特质之外,还需要拥有特别的特质。除了一致性要求所暗示的那些之外,一致性理论家还可以要求极端的恶习,但我不会这样做。那么极端观点呢?在现在的意义上,极端化是指某人拥有某种恶习的程度。如果一个人的邪恶存在于残忍之中,那么这个人就会因为拥有最高程度的残忍倾向而获得邪恶的称号:倾向于做出许多残忍的行为,并倾向于做出最残忍的行为。极端方法似乎是这一领域评论员的标准方法。例如,劳伦斯·托马斯(Laurence Thomas)声称,拥有邪恶的性格就是“经常倾向于做出邪恶的行为”(1993年,第82页)。如果一个人“喜欢做一件具有一定道德重要性的有害行为……如果这个人没有被可理解的考虑所激励”(第77页)。同样地,约翰·凯克斯认为,邪恶的人是那些
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Plato’s Devil Responsibility, Punishment, and Wickedness Consistency of Character and the Character of Evil Toward a Theory of Evil Acts: A Critique of Laurence Thomas’s Theory of Evil Acts Moral Luck and the Sources of Evil
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1