Police. As much as I hate their current incarnation, I. Some form or fashion they are required to handle those that do harm to others intentionally.
Except here's the thing: in every form and fashion, they don't actually do anything to the ones doing the most harm
Money. It encourages greed, but it allows us to scale exchange of goods and services far more than we otherwise could
Killing hitler and the nazis. Not just the top guys. Also the bottom layers of the system.
Killing is bad. But...its nazis.
Same also goes to all other dictators and their helpers. Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Putin, Assat, Lenin
These control freaks keep popping up, and so we’ll have to do it again.
Yes. And maybe also rework all our democracys that its not one person with power* but a council like in switzerland and rework it that these kinds of people have no chance of ever poping up aka ENSURE THAT PEOPLE HAVE NO LIVING PROBLEMS aka make sure everyone has housing, food, water, education no matter how much money it costs. Oooh nooo that would hurt the shareholders. Nawww too bad. LETS HURT THEM MORE!
Maybe the way isn't just killing and incarcerating the past generation of murderers without a demolition of the ideologies and attitudes that led to it, in order to rebuild a society that 'naturally' abhors violence, that enjoys <-> tolerates other tribes while always recognising that people are people, that our differences are basically superficial and nobody is born evil, that life is 'sacred' and money is secondary... Maybe then, we could better prepare for rich fuggs who seek to profit from war and disunity and will use the 80% of unthinking sheep for their benefit. You can't just kill ideas like racism, like vacuous consumerism, like "Crusades good! Lebensraum! God wills it!", people need to give them up willingly before. If not for the sake of doing what's right, at the very least for the sake of long term safety.
We shall see in the next 20 years how this plays out through the decline of the US and EU, and the eventual total collapse of at least one of those.
Tax. Noone wants their money to be taken away. But it's probably a good idea to have at least some government funded stuff.
I mean, corrupted administration aside, is it really even "evil" to fund a institution that forsee the development of your surrounding? If anything it's simply quid pro quo, and people who generally against any taxation is always fishy to me.
For the general masses that lack fucking brain cells. Some people actually comprehend the value of society and central public resources and WANT their money collectively put to good use.
That's conservatives for you, whine about taxes but are total welfare queens. They don't see having no income taxes in their states harm them, no schools no physicians.
Polarization is causing a lot of people to doubt that the collective money actually will be put to good use. In a lot of places (like my country, Israel) they're damn right, it's not.
I might be wrong but I think people would gladly pay 50% of their income as tax if it meant they would get their basic needs met and see the money be put to a good use. Imagine getting just half your pay but be able to fully use it on whatever you want and not have to worry about food and rent. Or at least that's what I'd like to believe.
The Blackfoot nation on which Maslow based his hierarchy of needs would actually have a celebration each year where they'd give everything they'd amassed away.
The actual basis for the "hierarchy" of needs is essentially that a community takes care of each other so that all needs are met, and this is found not just in Blackfoot but along the majority of indigenous cultures. (I write in quotes because it was never really a hierarchy, it was more of a cyclical chain of getting needs met)
There's a really good read on what inspired the Hierarchy of Needs here. Most of the changes that Maslow made to his findings were actually due to him wanting to make it more palatable for his individualistic colonial audience.
Luigi mangione
Surgery, especially on animals.
In any other context, someone cutting you open, slicing bits out or rearranging them, them sewing you shut would be considered horrific, but we do it because we know that the short term suffering out weighs the long term harm of not doing it. When you choose it for yourself it might not be too 'evil', but an animal would not understand, even if you know it will mean they get to live a long, happy life, free of the pain and suffering that issue would otherwise cause.
Violence against fascists.
Prison seems the obvious one. It's obviously (to me, that is) not desirable to deprive anyone of their freedom, but for persistently violent people I don't think there's a better solution, unfortunately.
nah, the justice system is absolutely fucked. in a world where we remake the law around restorative and rehabilitative justice rather than punitive, we're probably not even going to be calling it "prison" anymore
I agree that separating people who do not abide by the contract of society is necessary, but I think we (America) are wrong to make it a punitive experience. Separate them and let them live their lives as comfortably as they can. Causing additional suffering does not seem to be necessary.
Currently trying to lock up as many of the populace all the numbers show cause less crime. At some point we are going to have to question if there is a higher percentage of psychopaths out of prison than in.
Edit: note, a large group of people would say "we need to lock up more people to solve it" and a large group of people would say "we need to let out all the not-psychopaths who aren't a threat to society and then only arrest those who are a threat". And somehow both would think they were humane. And propoganda would role out to convince the first group they should lock up the second group. Because compassion or empathy is a threat
I bought a Pixel so could install a degoogle OS on the phone. This largely removed Google from my life.
Shame they're making that harder going forward by removing pixel specific info from the build tree
Evil that's necessary isn't evil, just painful.
Anyway, my example: a fever? 😅
Lobotomy, electroshock and castration are historic treatments for various extreme mental disorders that were, probably mistakenly, considered necessary evils lacking other treatments.
These days prozac, benzos and lithium fall into a similar category.
Electroshock is still a "treatment" in many countries.
I'm not sure if you're comparing SSRIs to castration but I'm gonna assume you're not.
I dont think any prescriber would consider any of those medicines necessary. a much better example would be steroids like prednisone. it weakens your immune system, but it's absolutely necessary at times.
SSRIs are rarely necessary, but are a useful tool. too much to say on this.
Benzos are a short term solution to enable more longer term treatments. they're absolute monsters of a drug class, but really effective for sure.
fentanyl would be a better example of a necessary evil. it's synthesis revolutionized surgery.
finally, lithium is a funny example -- we still don't even really know how it works!! but it's a mood stabilizer and can be hugely beneficial for managing bipolar disorder. that said, one can attempt to manage bipolar symptoms without medications, but it's certainly going to be harder and possibly less effective
Conscription.
Not sure why anyone's downvoting this. If someone you've never met thinks that you have to put your life on the line, and therefore may possibly die, to further a cause - let them explain that cause. If they can't convince you it's more important than your life, then maybe it isn't.
See: Vietnam, etc.
Edit: My bad, I was thinking, "What's a good example of evil?" - Conscription should never be "necessary". The only thing conscription does is protect the status quo. Keep the upvote - it was an honest mistake on my part.
Vietnam is a good example of a bad example. WWII is a better example of the necessary evil part, especially countries that were invaded.
Necessary for what? The word necessary implies a goal. Evil also implies a religious type objective morality. I don't think though, that for the goal of living a happy life, any harm is theoretically necessary.
"necessary" could mean something that must exist, could not be otherwise. like, uhh, the sun? idk man
"evil" is just the dregs of Abrahamic thought that plague our culture, though
it's definitely a dumb question but fun to play along with if you don't take it too seriously
Jordan Peterson, is that you? 🙃
for real, are you serious? you're gonna call names at the moral relativist dude, saying he's the dude who believes that hierarchies are morally good because they exist??? how inconsistent can you get
Define Jordan Peterson. Define you.
I don’t think though, that for the goal of living a happy life, any harm is theoretically necessary.
Whose happiness are we talking about? Surely if one person's happiness conflicts with someone or something that already exists, they can't both have happiness and harmlessness. (Also, what are you considering harm? Just harm to people? What about animals? Plants? The planet as a whole?)
Modern human life is inherently very harmful to a wide range of things.
When your only option to make people talk about your cause and occupation is comitting attrocities
Mosquitos.
Fuck them. But without them most ecosystems would fail
Is there any evidence for that?
I can't think of a single one.
Go to your room and close door.
