The problem of evil has been banned. In politics, it only involves totalitarianism. It is simplified and ritualized, making it hard to think about it. Though evil is most unthinkable, it appears as an uninvited, unpleasant guest.
Utilitarianism as a origin of Suffering
After many centuries – after the awakening of modern hopes of overcoming elements of human condition, those dependent on man and his products (technology and institutions) and developing the concept of security, as Michel Foucault described during lectures in 1978 – in the 19th century utilitarianism returned to establish happiness with the measurement of human life. This time it was even more linked to maximization of happiness, both individual and social. And here was the problem, due to the fact that what does it mean to maximize happiness, pleasure, to avoid unpleasantness, harm, suffering, not putting your hand to misery? How do you calculate or count? Even for a peculiar person, this is not easy. The dilemmas mentioned earlier return. Is it the amount or the strength? Or are they being corrected for the importance of an area for a peculiar person? For example, although extraordinary happiness can be experienced after winning the beloved basketball team, the events of household or professional life are more significant. However, they do not origin specified a surge of euphoria. How can we deal with what he sees as happiness while at the same time accepting sacrifice and unpleasantness? But what if the goal is yet not achieved, or if it does not bring the desired happiness, or even becomes a origin of sorrow? How do our calculations affect our cognitive errors, misjudgements and decisions on their basis? Also, there is the engagement of crucial others or cultures that can besides distort our desires, which are to bring happiness. Nor does the Freudian drive of demolition or the rule of repetition facilitate matters. What if Nietzsche was right to say that pleasance or unpleasantness is simply an impression to which it is not essential to put besides much weight, not to become besides attached to them, all the more so that 1 can frequently influence them by changing attitudes by taking a different position or a life attitude?
Here we come to an even greater challenge, or maximizing happiness in the social dimension. How do we combine individual calculations with the social perspective? How do we know if, and if so, how will our choices or happiness affect others? What if the happiness of 1 individual means the misfortune of another? After all, it does not should be the same force in each case – for individual employment in a given position will be a large happiness, possibly the only in a longer period, for the another much smaller, 1 of many fresh successes. individual else may see or feel a sad necessity. Knowing these difficulties does not aid to calculate. erstwhile again, there are pitfalls of thinking, factors affecting the designation and assessment of the situation, including attitudes in all those straight involved. All of this transcends the ability of concept, accurate discernment and analysis, so we are relying on our cognitive errors, personality preferences and languages-worlds to find ourselves, frequently makeshift, in the given situations. Utilitarianism is thus permeated by large uncertainty, an unpleasant situation in itself, although our head tries to destruct it through the strategies mentioned, to make it invisible and insensitive.
Bentham, 1 of the creators of utilitarianism, pointed out that the government should besides follow the rule of utility and be judged itself. This task for the same reasons described is not easier. Politicians and their elected citizens execute a brief, makeshift calculation of good and evil, especially in terms of minimising the misfortunes or sufferings in their power. This puts themselves in charge, and they leave the pursuit of happiness and its maximisation in individual hands. Even this attitude, taken from Hobbes to modern liberal democracy, does not solve and endure problems of utilitarianism. Moreover, it creates fresh ones that are not highlighted by critics.
Who will let you die in the road?
Road transport is simply a good example of this. For years, state authorities and global organisations have been fighting to increase road safety. As the number of cars increased, the problem became increasingly pressing. More drivers are more likely to be accidents, more victims and even victims. Unless something changes in traffic. Driver training system, road rules, with velocity limitations, towards inevitability and tightening of penalties, better labelling, the usage of increasingly advanced technology to improve vehicle safety and reduce the hazard of passenger injuries (from headrests, airbags, to advanced traction control systems or hazard detection). And yet it inactive seems not adequate from a utilitarian perspective. In the 1990s, a concept was developed in Sweden to accomplish a zero level of fatal accidents. Its creator was Claes Tingvall.
In this setting of matters, we can see an additional presumption regarding the calculation of good and evil. The death that can be avoided is the main determinant of harm and suffering. At the same time, it is assumed that the overall number of victims, including those resulting from little dangerous events, will besides be reduced in order to destruct it. This is what the velocity limit or the technology utilized in cars is for, even if it involves unpleasantness, specified as slower driving in places where you would like to drive faster, higher penalties to pay or failure of a driving licence for breaking regulations, and even their own spectrum, plus higher vehicle prices. However, this, even if more common, is considered little crucial in the overall account of traffic suffering. It's worth it to maximize happiness. Following Augustin’s lead, it can be said that the joy caused by the experience of the accident, its associate and its surroundings outweighs even the inconvenience of others.
But that wasn't adequate for Tingvall. He felt that the possible of reasoning about road transport should besides be changed. In it, unlike in collective transport (air, rail or sea), moral and legal work for accidents is mainly on the side of individual traffic users. Only by moving it more to the authorities is it possible to mark the complete elimination of fatalities. People make mistakes, not only related to thinking, but besides erstwhile performing seemingly schematic activities, including those well taught. The tragedy – specified as in aviation – does not gotta lead to large mistakes, but tiny ones, inconspicuous ones. According to William Kramer of the BBC, describing the past of the erstwhile road safety manager in the Swedish Road Administration, it emerged from the analysis of fatal accidents on the roads that these were insignificant average mistakes, not deliberate violations of the law (including alcohol driving) most frequently led to misfortune. Although sure, if you asked about this in a survey akin to that carried out by Kahleman and Tverskiy, many people would answer differently. The reason for this is to a large degree the environment system, where there is not adequate area for simple mistakes.
This is no longer the work of the driver, but of officials and politicians who are taking or not the subject and creating a legal framework. In this way, the thought of mounting railings between lanes was born. They were meant to limit death on roads as a consequence of leading collisions. As Tingvall admitted, they will lead to accidents. They are yet to be driven into cars in situations of driver error. But it will besides happen at moments erstwhile there is nothing coming from across the street, and so there would be no collision if there were no barriers. However, their plan should guarantee that they are safe and lead to insignificant harm erstwhile driving in a prescribed way. Even for this reason, a damaged car, possibly besides a harm to the wellness of the driver or passengers, is the price for happiness that did not happen the top tragedy, even if potential. Calculation of happiness resulting from failure to do greater evil, the probability of specified a situation complicates utilitarian calculations, adds even more uncertainty to them. Ultimately, however, officials and officials, vehicle manufacturers and drivers and their passengers are liable for the happiness on the roads.
Road accidents, especially those in which injuries occurred, combine another dimension of maximising happiness by combating suffering – saving lives and restoring wellness to victims. This is to facilitate the improvement of medicine and the technologies utilized in it and the cognition and experience of doctors, so everything that modern times have seen in improving human condition and human fate. From the minute it was observed that doctors were doing worse in diagnosis than algorithmical models, they began to wonder how to deal with it. Sunnybrook infirmary from Toronto has set a path. It was formed as a war hospital. There were wounded soldiers during planet War II. After that, however, he lost any importance until a immense 401 motorway was built nearby. There have been many accidents. So they began to specialize in post-accident injuries. They are frequently complicated, complex, require comprehensive diagnosis and hard decisions, frequently in a short time, in a crowd of another cases. This opens the space to possible errors. To help, you may not decently admit the patient’s condition, choose the incorrect treatment path, and thus not only not only reduce suffering but even enlarge it. So it is no wonder that, in order to avoid mistakes, the infirmary authorities created a position in which the individual employed was to deal with medical errors, or more specifically to prevent them, controlling and talking to doctors about their way of reasoning during diagnosis and decision. This reduced the likelihood of painful errors.
Superega cultures – what is good and what is bad
These are examples of utilitarian calculations in practice. Amalgamation of the will of power – control over nature, as well as unpredictable events, i.e. errors, safety management, in which all component of the strategy besides has part of the power and the resulting work – with happiness, partially resulting from these victories. And it can only surprise you how this description fits both liberal democracy, capitalism, communism, fascism or Nazism. Systems so different, and yet possible, erstwhile everyone, or at least a large part of a given society shares the preferred and distinguishing way of thinking, fundamentally agrees with it, does not give it peculiar opposition both intellectual and physical, submits to it, people admit their place in it and the place of others. And possibly most importantly, they perceive good and evil according to his perspective.
For Nazism, what was good was what according to the "laws of nature" defined by the explanation of races (in Europe and America from the 2nd half of the 19th century, various versions of it were rather popular, they were taken from the climate of evolution), at least akin to the 1 presented by Alfred Rosenberg and the purity of the Aryan race raised by Hitler, in which he did not think only representatives of another races, but besides sick, weak, people with disabilities. The evil was what opposed these concepts, which resisted, which led to uncleanness. These elements had so to be eliminated. specified reasoning drove and pushed to action. In the end, it would lead to triumph and happiness – dominance of the race of masters over the world, the race of superhumans, a peculiar nation – Germans.
In communism, what was considered good was what was liable for the "rights of history", namely to bring about universal equality of people, to release them from the necessity of non-natural needs, but the will of fewer people, owners of means of production and capital. Those who opposed it or delayed the march of history—capitalists, kułas, opponents of collectivization or of the planet state, organization opposition, people perceived as reactionaries—were regarded as evils to be removed. erstwhile that happens, after reaching the communist goal, happiness will prevail. However, due to the fact that belonging to a peculiar group, social position or views and manner of reasoning depend on a person, or at least can be influenced, (as opposed to origin or circumstantial biological features), it was assumed that out of 2 totalitarianisms—criminal states where force was sanctioned legally as a regulation alternatively than an exception in emergency situations— Nazism was inferior. Whatever the number of victims. This is the utilitarian balance between them. Even in liberal democracies, communism which renounces revolutionary force as its tool of gaining and maintaining power is considered an acceptable view and political strength. It has more universal criteria of good and evil and message.
More problem with the indication arche – the rule of distinguishing, specificity of good and evil, justifying decisions which from another perspectives are not only incomprehensible, but above all considered evil – is in the case of fascism and its variety, modernist nationalism. This is for respective reasons. First, due to the fact that there has been a multitude of interpretations of the concept of Fascism. It already demonstrates the difficulties that researchers have encountered to realize the phenomenon of this movement, political organization and ideology. To make matters worse, any of them were exclusive, specified as those that saw the modernization movement in it and those that saw the reaction force in it. Neither did it make it easier for him to execute in many countries, each with its local characteristics. He had no global reference, although the most emblematic variety from which the name was derived was born in Italy. Sometimes fascism was confused or confused with Nazism. However, it was not only found in different countries but besides in different times. Rob Rieman writes about the eternal return of Fascism, recognizing that it is simply a sewn-up tendency in modern societies that can be released at any time. It is simply a destructive trend for him, not an upbuilding trend that his supporters point to. This is why you can read quite a few press articles all decade, announcing the emergence of fascism, its manifestations, the danger of fascist recidivism. So there is simply quite a few sound around him, that in terms of Kahleman-Sibony-Sustein. 1 thing is certain, it is simply a characteristic phenomenon in democratic and mass societies. It is so something peculiarly modern. In the same way as liberal democracy, and due to the disturbing similarities, which can be misidentified and assessed, undistinguished sufficiently accurately and even unconsciously identified. And thus, it can unwittingly turn into 1 another, especially for not very insightful, though even attentive, public observers.
Fascism vs Liberal Democracy
Fascism assumes that the aim should be to strengthen the community, to dominate it, in the region or in the world. Everything that serves that intent is good. So it could be an economic, military, political or cultural position. The second is to be served by national myths, which respond to the crisis of conventional society, creating social ties and transforming or strengthening the spirit of members of the nation, more than citizens – concepts relating to the same people, sometimes utilized interchangeably, another times making a large difference. But this desire for a strong community is not unusual. Even among democratic and liberal states. All the more so, that everyone is in a position, whether they want it or not, and he wants to be able to mean as much as possible, to accomplish his or her goals, aiming to improve the well-being and quality of life of his or her citizens. The criteria can be different again. Not only in the material dimension, but besides in the spiritual dimension, crucial to Fascism. Liberal democracies recognise their political culture and values over others, they want to spread them, while acknowledging the uniqueness of local cultures, their contribution and importance to universal civilization.
In fascism, as well as democratic-liberal societies, the theoretical and ideological attitude of members of the community is put before activism. That's why they're accusing each another of ideological attitudes to be a charge. Since the discovery of psychology has shaken the story of rationalism, so crucial to classical liberalism, each strategy recognises the power of irrationalism in social life and seeks to manage it. In both cases, modernity is sought, while fighting its degenerate versions, i.e. each other. Both are based on the mediate class. The idealism underlying social activism – civilian or national – besides clashes with a legal approach aimed at capturing or closing society in an unchanging legal order. possibly these similarities make fascism and liberal democracy a nemesis for each another and see each another as evil.
So what distinguishes fascism? What makes him a rival and a threat to liberal democracy? According to Italian historian Emilio Gentile in The beginnings of fascist ideology – a book in which the listed features of the fascist strategy have been pointed out – it is not about pure negativity: anti-democratism, anti-parlamentism, anti-liberalism. In the end, it was a dream that everyone would be incorporated into the movement and clashed in it to include all members of the community – hence, it included both syndicalists and capitalists, modernists and antimodernists, revolutionaries and reactionaries, as well as all who abandoned incompatible ideas specified as communism or liberalism, against which the fascist movement utilized physical force in the first period. In liberal democracies, parties and rulers besides want to include as many social groups as possible to find their place in the state. Otherwise, they are forced to usage force against them, though not physically, as a political means.
In the case of the fascist movement or party, however, specified an idea-social palette gave birth to interior conflicts and, consequently, the uncertainty of members, what they belonged to, where they would go, whether it was a good or a bad direction. That is why a individual was needed to justice and mark the identity. Hence the cult of the individual, which endures uncertainty, but besides in fact anti-democratic, identifying the will of the leader and his surroundings with the will of the people. And yet besides mass parties in liberal democracies, frequently contain people with very different views, different positions and leaders play a akin role, although they effort to care and show intraparty democracy. frequently the entities that form the government besides represent a broad spectrum of ideas, and the individual at its head must reconcile and set directions. He besides wants to represent the people – all citizens or the full nation, not the chosen part. Liberal democracy, however, must emphasise the strength of diversity, the attitude towards minorities and their support – those who would not fit in the fascist strategy and its culture. However, this means acting on the reasoning of citizens who are guided by the principles of representativeness, accessibility and anchoring, while at the same time providing a feed for enemies of liberal democracy.
They frequently appear to be disadvantaged, those against whom equal democratic-liberal principles are not applied. It is crucial to separate between the conflict for designation of those who recognise themselves as unequally treated – especially due to the fact that they are independent of their will, and at most due to the fact that they are restrained by it, e.g. to support the desire to meet social expectations – or otherwise harmed, from the conflict for designation of those who consider themselves representatives of the full or even the majority and who recognise the tyranny of the majority, and thus force as a political tool. 1 ambaras in this may appear for 2 reasons. First, erstwhile the values of liberal democracy are shared by the majority and fought by its hostile organizations—a number who considers themselves to be unequally treated due to the way they think, even if it is due to emotion, and having a set of values which is not the consequence of an amoral will, but which they reasonfully, and thus besides with the aid of emotional conditioning of reasoning have come to. This will be a kind of tyranny of the majority, though not fascist. Second, the issue of violence. True, liberal democracy, as we have understood it since the 1970s. In the 20th century she renounced physical force as a political tool, but on her way to her present-day form she applied revolutionary force – as Giorgio Agamben presented, writing about the limits of force – whether during the French Revolution or in the fight for social rights. So her enemies can reprove hypocrisy by means of which she wants to take distant certain tools from her enemies. For this reason, peaceful democratic-liberal revolutions are besides sought, which Poland can be an example of.
By choosing between the continuation of the violence-based movement and the creation of the party, wanting to enter parliament, Mussolini chose a second option. Parliamentarianism, however, has been widely criticized since the early 20th century for its talk and inconclusiveness of endless discussions, bringing more confusion than those helping to make decisions. And in the end, it is the debate and belief in it that makes sense for parliamentaryism. That's why republicanism puts hope in it for the best solution. In the case of liberalism, it is recognised that by confronting different views a rational, only possible and right choice can be made. With the decline of religion in these myths, parliamentaryism began to lose its importance. Even in modern liberal democracies, there is simply a greater burden of decision on executive power, which brings it closer to the fascist model. Discussions take place inside mass parties, and arguments are frequently little crucial than the distribution of forces. In better cases, it is discussed on parliamentary committees with experts, activists or force groups. There is besides no real public discussion. Due to besides much diversity of citizens – their preferences, mistakes of thought, individual or collective experience – it is hard to lead, and it is more frequently reduced to awakening or suppressing emotions, which is far from ideals of parliamentaryism, based on rather different assumptions than fascism, which willingly sought this method.
Thus, antiliberalism remains a negative distinction. It is identified with individualism and selfishness. They are to be liable in his position for the degeneration of modern societies, their weakness. Liberal democracy besides does not place individualism and selfishness for its own arche. He recognizes them, respects them, and any of their manifestations only tolerate. It besides sees a threat to itself – whether it is due to the breakdown of the community which democratic-liberal society is and which it needs, or for their possible excessive growth and dominance, which in turn can consequence in the triumph of Fascism. So individualism and selfishness – yes, but healthy behaviors related to self-love, self-respect, philautia and individualism, which unites and manifests itself besides in community, action and activity for the benefit of others and others. For fascism, the only healthy selfishness is national selfishness. Man must devote himself to the national community, to the culture of the nation, thereby building up his power and the power of the state. Surrender to him through discipline. But does liberalism not presume that working individuals, guided by liberal values, will not service society in this way, will not increase their strength, and thus besides the community they are part of, even if they are reluctant to belong to it? In liberal principles, discipline is besides crucial – it is liable for the capitalist ethos – but first to increase its happiness, and only as a result, as if accidentally, Community happiness. Again the difference is very discreet, so it can be unnoticed or easy confused by uninstrumental people.
Fascism besides has an aversion to hedonism. Instead, he's betting on heroism. While liberalism has nothing against heroism – he may even like it and encourage it, if it is the choice of an individual, and in liberal democracies to be promoted erstwhile it concerns the fight against harm, although subject to besides taking care of his safety and happiness – his willingness to do so is simply a key component in human life and upbringing in fascist society. Fascist modernization takes place by imposing on individuals what they are expected to think, and thus besides by denying freedom, the anticipation of experimentation. Man is to quit the pursuit of individual happiness in the name of the primacy of the nation and the collective happiness expressed in the power of a state fulfilling the will of power of the national community. Individual happiness, on the another hand, is advanced in the hierarchy of the value of liberal democracy. It's a definite good. As for hedonism and following pleasures, besides in liberal democracy any of its manifestations are not welcome, specified as besides far-reaching consumerism, but a healthy level of it contributing to maximizing happiness, both individuals and society is considered, and even considered necessary, even for economical reasons. The approach to individual happiness, its understanding, could be the most apparent difference, if not for the fact that it frequently combines its own happiness with the happiness of others, or at least the ability to prosecute it. For this reason it can be confused that what is defined as the happiness of the community is besides the happiness of the individual.
Fight suffering
Capitalism – society or capitalist state – besides has its own good and evil. It identifies them as promoting or slowing down the economical growth of the enterprise, the state, the world. This involves rewards, sorrows or even suffering – material, physical or intellectual – but nobody intentionally wants to deprive people of their lives, as was the case with communism or fascism. If there was already a death resulting from the functioning of this system, it was involuntary, due to indifference, indifference, fear of launching processes that would slow or destruct economical growth. Overwork, harmful working conditions frequently affected the wellness of workers, their intellectual health, their satisfaction with life, the level of human happiness and its immediate surroundings. This was frequently translated by natural laws or by historical necessity. “It must be so”, “it has always been so”, “it’s a natural turn of things” — it could be heard as if a universal explanation for the hard situation of people, the form of force they experienced in the name of individual productivity, plant or workplace (those that did not produce added value, as bureaucracy expanded beyond needs, were not only regarded as unnecessary but besides harmful, and its workers as freeloaders), home productivity and even the planet economy. "It is natural that there are those who do not cope and have nothing to worry about, due to the fact that it only harms those who do so." "The focus must be on those who draw the economy – entrepreneurs, efficient workers, producers of prosperity". By multiplying their wealth, the wealth of the nation is multiplied, and this yet flows to all its members, preached since the 1970s in the West.
All hands on deck, then. It is essential to sacrifice ourselves to make money, or to make society richer, even if it is not the consequence of this happiness, or even of sorrows that do not yet turn out to be the way to happiness. But specified a phase on the road to universal prosperity must be passed. "The 1 who failed came to live in a time erstwhile the nation or the planet is not wealthy adequate to get a part of cake to him, they should trust on charity alternatively than state, systemic, bureaucratic solution" – in the sense of their own humanism they preached to those for whom capitalism was besides its measure. They did not announcement that until they created a strong adequate economy in which people would feel assured adequate that they would not be peculiarly afraid about their fate. In capitalist society, individualistic tendencies of satisfying one's own needs and happiness unrelated to the happiness of others, alternatively than charity, are growing.
Liberal democracy has thus put yet another, further-reaching criteria of good and evil. Evil is all the suffering that can be avoided. It should be removed from society. Unpleasants, if they are the consequence of a man's decision, which are stages to increase or even maximize his happiness, are acceptable. However, if there is no consent from the individual concerned, they are besides unacceptable. specified reasoning is subject to the utilitarianism of liberal democracy. It took longer than fascism or Nazism. possibly as long as communism. Its current mainstreams have been formed since the 1970s. She's been through different periods. Better and worse, victorious and the ones where she lost. She besides changed her accents – the importance of electoral rights, the regulation of law, freedom, equality, recognition. The last transition is about prosperity. So after the Second planet War, there has been a shift from the welfare state to the capitalist state, and late from the welfare state to the welfare state.
For this reason, the criterion of evil in liberal democracy has become contributing to the suffering of others and allowing them to do so. If not directly, then indirectly. If you don't do it, you don't do anything to prevent it. Here. superego Today's liberal democracy. And as specified it is rejected by those for whom it is besides advanced moral requirements, who think that people are incapable to meet them. Or for those who feel besides restrained, for it is impossible to accomplish its will of power, for those incapable to see another possibilities of fulfilling it. From this may arise a resensity, a desire to destruct specified a liberal democracy. Disgrace for those who – whether from the level of emotion or reason – accepted it arche, they have rooted in her superego and are guided by it, recognizing the power and the ability to realise within it their individual wills of power. Even if opponents or enemies see in this signs of weakness and decadence, inability to dominate, including destruction. If there are many specified critics, they are a serious social force at a given moment, it shows that they are right. However, erstwhile the number of critically inclined individuals declines and loses meaning, the will of publishers and representatives of liberal democracy, which are a wide, heterogeneous group, a community of communities that perceive and describe the world, utilizing different languages-worlds for which there are different emotional experiences, frequently conflicting, shaping their ways of reasoning and thinking, passed on to their members, both voluntarily and by birth, by destiny or by accident.
Belonging to the democratic-liberal community – in addition to seeking to remove the suffering possible (according to their judgment) to destruct – besides means sharing another ideas circumstantial to it: the 1. universal designation (even if graduated in the order of love – from silent tolerance by smile, kindness or tiny gestures to spiritual-body unity); 2. Freedom (aware that it is divided, without the anticipation to realize its fullness, manifested in experimentation, without certainty whether it will bring pleasance or unpleasantness); and 3. the pursuit of happiness (which manifests not only in the realization of the will of power differently directed, but besides associated with fine, hedonistic pleasures). All 3 are relative, which introduces a bit of confusion and leads to uncertainty, thus forcing constant thinking, rethinking them, making them theoretically.
In liberal democracy, uncertainty is an apparent condition of man and society. You admit her, you don't effort to destruct her. There are adequate treatments to control nature, as far as possible at the moment. Recognizing uncertainty as inevitable and an component of human condition, 1 must consider the anticipation of making mistakes. Even in situations where freedom is consciously exercised by experimenting. It's not about admiration for mistakes. Especially about building a full policy on them, but taking them into account erstwhile creating it. Since Hobbes' time, the state has accepted the task of reducing uncertainty. In liberal democracy, this means, above all, minimizing the suffering and harm of humans, but besides animals and harming nature. Of course, the suffering and harm that can be avoided, those dependent on man's will, even if it is arbitrary, capricious, enigmatic, unexplored and impenetrable. This is the will of the builders of liberal democracy who shaped it superegoWho and who appointed her arche, not necessarily with full awareness, guided by their own mistakes of thought, emotions, experiences, utilizing certain languages-worlds.
The Tragism of Life’s Tragism
What can their concepts mean in practice, we have seen traffic. What dilemmas are active in specified an approach, on which assumptions are based, what kind of utilitarian calculations it contains, and what possible mistakes can be made, what noises must be measured. In addition, ethical dilemmas specified as the reverse dilemma (trollley problem) where a individual is faced with the request to choose between 2 bad decisions – sometimes having bigger, another times smaller information, 1 current, the another obsolete, another potential. And yet this always plays a large function in a precarious situation, without a single, clearly good solution, which besides depends on the preferences of the individual or circumstantial culture.
In liberal democracies, specified situations would be most desirable. For he deals with them worse than fascism or communism. In their case it is frequently a substance of naming the situation correctly, including it in the model. This makes it easy to answer what to do, what to condemn. The answer is all time a certain imagination of society. In the case of democratic-liberal thinking, geared towards all peculiar individual and their incorrect dilemma, it is harder to solve. The utilitarian calculations are becoming even more shabby. The problem is that, according to judgment, even the incorrect one, suffering cannot be avoided or ruled out in the future. In which there is not only a simple answer, but besides an apparent and certain consequence of calculation. They exacerbate uncertainty, they are an component of the tragedy of life, requiring all individual to judge—moral, described by Arendt, and political, as presented by Berlin. A judgement based on shaky foundations and not realizing it can give you confidence.
In liberal democracy, tragic situations are taken reluctantly. She prefers to keep quiet about them, possibly due to her helplessness in the key issues. Or possibly due to the fact that tragicism is willingly utilized against it by its opponents and enemies, boasting of this dimension of life and presenting themselves as a acquainted solution to all complex problem. They pose as those who can destruct uncertainty and unpredictability, as well as mistakes in the lives of individuals and societies. They are happy to present ready - made prescriptions for them. In democratic and liberal societies, however, life should alternatively be tamed in specified conditions, taught how to decision in them, build opposition to them and their acceptance. Showing that happiness and pleasance can besides be achieved in the face of uncertainty.
One component of uncertainty, but besides the tragedy of life, is that people decision in terms of good and evil, admit them and clearly separate them, although they realize them differently, perceive them, imagine them. They do not feel not only degenerated, confessing certain values, but see themselves as moral entities. Moreover, for this reason they have a sense of rightfulness, superiority, and power. That is why they frequently find it so hard to see the harm done to them. Even if they see it, they admit that it is committed for a good purpose, for the right reason. After all, in common thinking, good cannot lead to evil. Good can only produce good. These are slogans or assumptions that can frequently be encountered, but which do not take into account a peculiar knowing of good and evil, either accepting them as obvious, the only right, understandable by itself, or not reasoning them out to the end and not drawing consequences from it. Even by judging good and evil not by intent, and by results, we would gotta find that good and evil are dangerously intertwined. Good measures do not warrant good results and do not counteract evil. Sometimes good results require actions that are not good. This is simply a situation already described by Machiavelli, who saw that good from a Christian position does not always lead to good political community and vice versa – what good politically from a spiritual position may seem immoral. This is an example of conflict between different spheres in which good is otherwise understood. And due to the fact that they penetrate, both can be crucial to a peculiar person, they can be in a tragic situation, e.g. a Christian citizen or a Christian politician. But besides within religion or politics there is simply a conflict of values in which 1 good is sacrificed in the name of another, contributing to any evil. In the case of politics, this may be a choice between the good of the individual and the community, especially in reasoning systems where man can always be sacrificed in the name of a common, greater cause.
Another case of doing or applying ourselves to evil is the conscious resignation of reasoning and its associated power of judging, as Arendt presented it, describing the banality of evil. They want to be just a cog in a well-functioning larger mechanism, especially a self-claiming and receiving a monopoly on violence. Giving yourself – your time, your abilities, including reasoning in a specific, narrow area – to this end and seeking within it the best place for yourself. It is besides possible to deny the arendt judgement due to the excessive uncertainty of the situation, its complexity, the emerging noises around it. Sometimes, however, you can see a silent assumption, and possibly besides the anticipation that his expression is not always the best course of action, especially erstwhile it leads or can lead to what is considered wrong, and that it is better to quit judgment, power of judgment. Whatever forces us to usage them, it is to find whether a given case, phenomenon or situation requires our judgement and expression. By deciding whether or not to judge, and besides judging, we are exposed to reasoning errors. They are good to be theirs and their ability to be conscious, due to the fact that they can lead to evil, and so they can be good to them in always unstable and uncertain calculation. Yet, alongside those who neglect to see not only the mistake of their thinking, but besides the ability to yield to them, there are besides those who are afraid to make a mistake, precisely so as not to harm them.
All these cases show the tragedy of life. In order to cope with uncertainty, they request to increase it, not artificial levelling. Her removal served to blame evil on ignorance, intellectual laziness, stupidity, superstition, prejudice, dogma, as well as interesting mistakes and bad will. This calculation of the causes of evil is frequently shared by people who realize right and incorrect differently, so although they agree that they are liable for it, for example, stupidity, they see it and accuse each another of it. Therefore, Isaiah Berlin, who was eagerly critical of the litany, considered it to be a misdiagnosis, or at least insufficient. John grey in Beyond fresh Right He noted: “Political life is not a task to improve the planet in which transcendental hopes of a faithless age are invested. Rather, it is the almost desperately modest task of infinite improvisation, in which 1 good is sacrificed in the name of others, a balance is sought in the midst of the inevitable evil of human life, and the constantly present possible of disaster shifts to the next day." And it does not even change that sometimes, in order to accomplish this modest task, large hopes request to be awakened. Hope for the good, even not necessarily very precisely defined, but not necessarily for the large good. due to the fact that evil always does. It may uncover itself, even if it is thought to be doing good – whether in accordance with its own judgment, or in accepting the position of 1 or the another community to which it belongs, in which 1 lives, to which 1 aspires. It can besides appear as a consequence of others' reaction to our approach and action, which we consider to be good and spreading good. In both cases, reasoning errors, emotional attachment, personality preferences, as well as the languages-worlds in which the individual or group in which he finds himself, recognizes himself as his own, let us to realize the surrounding reality, reducing uncertainty, but which can lead to misunderstanding or misunderstanding, unconscious or conscious.
