Question

You argued in your lecture series on Platonism that Hamas are not wicked, since just like us they believe they are doing what is good.
First, did you see the interview with the terrorist who said that “the devil entered him” when he raped? It seems that he fully understands that what he did was evil!
Second, it is not clear to me why you defined good and evil that way. Personally, it seems to me that a wicked person is someone who overcame his natural inclination (whether you relate to that as biological development or as the soul from above) in order to realize his selfish desire; in other words, he performed an act of “chesed” (according to Maimonides’ interpretation of the word).
There are others who would say that a wicked person is someone who acts out of certain traits (say hatred, anger) and gives them expression in his actions.
These two definitions are not relativistic, fit what most human beings would define as “wicked,” and more importantly, avoid the complication of the problem of free choice.
In other words, the avoidance of calling a terrorist wicked is, to the best of my understanding, because he makes the same choice I do. He chooses what he believes in, and I choose what I believe in. This approach is problematic because it assumes that he and I believe in the same way, but I can claim that the terrorist chooses to believe what is convenient for him because that is what he wants (and of course he can claim that about me). In sum, the approach that defines good and evil according to a person’s belief seems puzzling to me; it tries to define something while not knowing how to say how it works out (belief and desire).
By contrast, the approach I presented avoids this problem, doesn’t it?
The approaches I presented also fit, in my opinion, the Torah’s use of the word “wicked” (for example, Abraham regarding Sodom). According to your view, what does the Torah mean when it uses this word?