Why are wicked people no longer wicked?
You argued in your lecture series on Platonism that Hamas is not evil because, just like us, they believe they are doing what is good.
First, did you see the interview of the terrorist who says that “the devil entered him” when he raped? He seems to fully understand that what he did was evil!
Secondly, it’s not clear to me why you defined good and evil this way. Personally, it seems to me that evil is a person who has overcome his natural inclination (whether you refer to it as biological development or the soul from above) in order to realize his selfish desire, in other words, he has performed an act of “kindness” (according to the Rambam’s interpretation of the word).
There are other people who would say that evil is someone who acts from certain qualities (say, hatred, anger) and gives them expression in his actions.
Both of these definitions are non-relativist, correspond to what most people would define as “evil” and, more importantly, avoid the complication of the problem of choice.
That is, the avoidance of calling a terrorist evil is (as far as I understand) because he makes the same choice as I do. He chooses what he believes and I choose what I believe. This approach is problematic because it assumes that he and I believe in the same way, but I can argue that the terrorist chooses to believe what is convenient for him because that is what he wants (and he can of course argue that about me). In conclusion, the approach that determines good and evil according to a person’s belief is puzzling to me, it tries to give a definition to something that it does not know how to say (belief and will).
On the other hand, the approach I presented avoids this problem, doesn’t it?
The methods I presented are also appropriate (in my opinion) for the Torah’s use of the word wicked (for example, Abraham over Sodom). What do you think the Torah means when it uses this word?
It is unlikely that I said this because I do not think so. What I argued is that if a person does what he sees as the right and good thing, he cannot be blamed. The question of whether Hamas members are like that or not is a factual question that I do not know how to answer, and certainly not in a blanket way regarding everyone.
A person’s judgment should be made according to his own system. I explained this in column 372, see there.
The Torah’s use of the term ‘wicked’ is a different matter (=one who has committed a crime for which he is punished), although I don’t see where you derive your argument from regarding that either (one who is reckless in his mind is not liable to punishment, and is certainly not wicked).
If we prove that a certain Hamas member believed in his actions that he had to kill the Jews, should he be acquitted?
See the above columns.
If I understood correctly, it can be said that Hamas is simply wicked and cannot be blamed.
In your opinion, a wicked person is not guilty of his wickedness?
Against this, I no longer have an argument, I have no ability to decide guilt or a similar divine reckoning.
Another thing, where does the Torah attribute the word wicked to someone who deserves lashes? (Or is it the other way around, the Sages decreed lashes for someone who is written as wicked)
I explained everything in the column there.
The Sages learn this from the verse “And it shall be, if the wicked man be beaten”. This is the rule in Halacha regarding the wicked man being disqualified from testifying. And the Sages do not prescribe whippings. The Torah requires whippings.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
