Nairobi terrorist attack

[scottycelt]

If you have a fundamentalist view of the existence of 'evil', you won't need to understand anything else, other than that God works in mysterious ways and has made some people 'evil': in this case a whole group of them in the same place at the same time.

Well that is not my view. I have already said men and women are capable of both good and evil, not that some are all good and others are all evil. It is not about God, it's about people.

Whilst striving to 'understand' the motives of mass murderers, is the simple understanding of the existence of good and evil a particularly problematic concept for members?

[ahinton]

Would the 'understanding' of Adolf Hitler's Nazis have prevented the Holocaust?

Had it been sufficiently and widely developed early enough and addressed accordingly, very possibly so, yes.

[Mr Pee]

Had it been sufficiently and widely developed early enough and addressed accordingly, very possibly so, yes.

I'm always wary of asking for more from Al, but I think that statement could do with some explanation. Because I don't see how it would have done so.

[ahinton]

I'm always wary of asking for more from Al, but I think that statement could do with some explanation. Because I don't see how it would have done so.

Which is it to be, Mr Pee? Do you wish to prioritise your wariness of asking anything from me (whom I presume you are addressing here) or your apparent desire for some explanation? I will do nothing until I hear from you as to your decision on that.

[MrGongGong]

Because I don't see how it would have done so.

(you wont read this anyway but ......)

Surely not being able to imagine how something could have been isn't the same as saying that it couldn't have been
(I'm sure i could put that better !!)

There are many things I can't imagine, but I wouldn't assume that they weren't possible

[french frank]

is the simple understanding of the existence of good and evil a particularly problematic concept for members?

In the way you express it, yes. As if there are two disembodied principles which have some sort of 'existence': some forms of human action may be described as 'evil' (like this attack); others may be described as good. But if you believe that they are committed by human beings with a psyche, then of course the reasons why they act as they do is "relevant" to their actions.

Speaking of 'good' and 'evil' in the way you do is redolent of medieval Manichaeism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-24358473

[amateur51]

In the way you express it, yes. As if there are two disembodied principles which have some sort of 'existence': some forms of human action may be described as 'evil' (like this attack); others may be described as good. But if you believe that they are committed by human beings with a psyche, then of course the reasons why they act as they do is "relevant" to their actions.

Speaking of 'good' and 'evil' in the way you do is redolent of medieval Manichaeism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ngham-24358473

One of the more remarkable stories to come out of this dreadful event is that of the four-year old boy who confronted a gunman and told him "You are a very bad man!". The man apparently apologised to the boy and gave him a Mars bar, saying "Please forgive me, we are not monsters".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430044/Kenyan-Mall-gunmen-gave-2-children-Mars-bars-sparing-lives.html

Clearly the boy felt that they were monsters; and the gunman felt that he needed to explain that he and his colleagues were not.

This suggests to me that perhaps the gunmen had a rationale for what they did, and that the world would be
well advised to establish the nature of this rationale and what lies behind it, if we are to prevent similar atrocities from happening.

[scottycelt]

In the way you express it, yes. As if there are two disembodied principles which have some sort of 'existence': some forms of human action may be described as 'evil' (like this attack); others may be described as good. But if you believe that they are committed by human beings with a psyche, then of course the reasons why they act as they do is "relevant" to their actions.

Speaking of 'good' and 'evil' in the way you do is redolent of medieval Manichaeism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ngham-24358473

That's quite a different matter. Of course it is only right that individuals who commit unfathomable evil acts are tested for their mental health as in the case of the Norwegian mass murderer who, incidentally, was found to be perfectly sane.

The idea that all those involved in causing the Nairobi massacre might be (have been) clinically insane stretches credibility to its outer limits so we can already reasonably assume their sanity.

No. What we are being urged to do is to try and 'understand' the Nairobi mass murderers and their motives.

The organisation to which the killers belonged had already clearly expressed their motives so, I repeat, what is there to understand, apart from the obvious fact that they sank to the very depths of human depravity and evil for some obscure political goal?

I can understand the problem for those who deny the existence of Evil. The very fact they don't believe it exists means they search frantically for some alternative 'rational' explanation why some people do some very bad things.

The 'rational' explanation has already been explained by the killers but it would appear that some members cannot bring themselves to the realisation that human beings can be so cruel without some sort of alternative explanation.

The more 'medieval' among us are well aware that, sadly, there simply isn't one, never has been, and never will be.

[french frank]

That's quite a different matter. Of course it is only right that individuals who commit unfathomable evil acts are tested for their mental health as in the case of the Norwegian mass murderer who, incidentally, was found to be perfectly sane.

The idea that all those involved in causing the Nairobi massacre might be (have been) clinically insane stretches credibility to its outer limits so we can already reasonably assume their sanity.

You're too literal. I wasn't suggesting that THEY were insane, but that it is worth probing the reasons why people do evil acts. If you think of the child killers of James Bulger - they weren't insane, but one at least, as I remember, had an absolutely appalling background. That doesn't excuse what he did, or mean that he shouldn't be punished. But understanding the background behind what he did is important if one wishes to try to prevent similar cases.

People who deny that in this case are, presumably, those who dismiss the possibility that the Western powers have done anything whatsoever to stir up hatred among Muslims. Again, assuming that they have, it still isn't excusing what was done. But it might suggest that if the West continued to intervene, similar things might happen again and the families of those who are then massacred will not place the entire blame on the perpetrators, monstrous though they will be admitted to be.

I can understand the problem for those who deny the existence of Evil. The very fact they don't believe it exists means they search frantically for some alternative 'rational' explanation why some people do some very bad things.

I would have thought that those who believe in a God who takes an interest in the personal lives of those who pray to him would have a bit of a problem too.

"Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?"

The families of the massacred might just prefer a 'rational' explanation: a form of retaliation. You don't, apparently.

[scottycelt]

You're too literal. I wasn't suggesting that THEY were insane, but that it is worth probing the reasons why people do evil acts. If you think of the child killers of James Bulger - they weren't insane, but one at least, as I remember, had an absolutely appalling background. That doesn't excuse what he did, or mean that he shouldn't be punished. But understanding the background behind what he did is important if one wishes to try to prevent similar cases..

Yes, but that ignores the fact that rich kids with excellent backgrounds have committed appalling acts too. Which seems grossly unfair to suggest it's only underprivileged kids who are capable of such acts.

People who deny that in this case are, presumably, those who dismiss the possibility that the Western powers have done anything whatsoever to stir up hatred among Muslims. Again, assuming that they have, it still isn't excusing what was done. But it might suggest that if the West continued to intervene, similar things might happen again and the families of those who are then massacred will not place the entire blame on the perpetrators, monstrous though they will be admitted to be.

One might as well argue that the UK and France should have continued to appease Nazi Germany as that might have prevented WWII.

I would have thought that those who believe in a God who takes an interest in the personal lives of those who pray to him would have a bit of a problem too.

"Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?"

The families of the massacred might just prefer a 'rational' explanation: a form of retaliation. You don't, apparently.

Oh dear ... the seemingly inevitable Biblical lecture from a non-believer. <smile>

I don't understand your last sentence at all. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever, at least to me.

[amateur51]

You're too literal. I wasn't suggesting that THEY were insane, but that it is worth probing the reasons why people do evil acts. If you think of the child killers of James Bulger - they weren't insane, but one at least, as I remember, had an absolutely appalling background. That doesn't excuse what he did, or mean that he shouldn't be punished. But understanding the background behind what he did is important if one wishes to try to prevent similar cases.

Interesting that you should cite the case of James Bulger, french frank. Not only did both the killers have a troubled background but the experts also identified a strong instance of folie à deux in their murderous relationship. Add to that the apparent lack of interest amongst the hundreds, if not thousands, of adults who saw them leading their victim away but who chose to do nothing, for whatever reason, and we have an explicable but not excusable tragedy unfolding with disastrous consequences.

People who deny that in this case are, presumably, those who dismiss the possibility that the Western powers have done anything whatsoever to stir up hatred among Muslims. Again, assuming that they have, it still isn't excusing what was done. But it might suggest that if the West continued to intervene, similar things might happen again and the families of those who are then massacred will not place the entire blame on the perpetrators, monstrous though they will be admitted to be.

Exactly so, and thus we as an global human community have a responsibility to continue to try to understand the forces that create such actions and seek to close down whatever paths lead to these outrageous acts.

[french frank]

Yes, but that ignores the fact that rich kids with excellent backgrounds have committed appalling acts too. Which seems grossly unfair to suggest it's only underprivileged kids who are capable of such acts.

The word 'underprivileged' is yours, not mine. Rich kids can also have 'appalling backgrounds', psychoses: in the case of the original story I linked to (the random bus killing), the culprit apparently needed mental treatment and wasn't getting it. How often have we heard that?

One might as well argue that the UK and France should have continued to appease Nazi Germany as that might have prevented WWII.

Godwin!!!! There are certainly actions which are against international law, such as the Nazi invasions of other countries. If you take Iraq, the invasion of a neighbouring sovereign power (Kuwait) was against international law. The Kuwaitis asked for help to eject the Iraqis and the UN supported them. It would have been legitimate and would probably have caused no problem if the West had limited action to pushing the Iraqis back, but they didn't stop there and created an even bigger mess. Just as they appear to be doing little/no good in Afghanistan.

Oh dear ... the seemingly inevitable Biblical lecture from a non-believer. <smile>

I take it that's your response. Thank you.

I don't understand your last sentence at all. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever, at least to me.

The families of the massacred might make more sense of the 'rational' explanation of what happened: that this was Muslim retaliation for Western interventions. You don't, apparently. You appear to prefer the irrational explanation that some people are just 'evil' because they're born evil. They just are,Satan incarnate.

I've just been investigating the legal concepts of 'proximate', or immediate causes and more remote causes in a chain of events, and where the blame falls. The 'but for' test. But for X, Y would not have occurred. But it is necessary to 'understand the 'but for' circumstances.

[amateur51]

Had it been sufficiently and widely developed early enough and addressed accordingly, very possibly so, yes.

And certainly, now that we know what we know. That's why it's so important that we stay in the EU, to influence and be influenced; and that's why it's important that countries send signals to each other that certain sorts of behaviour are simply unacceptable (Rhodesia, South Africa, Israel, Russia).

[scottycelt]

The families of the massacred might make more sense of the 'rational' explanation of what happened: that this was Muslim retaliation for Western interventions. You don't, apparently. You appear to prefer the irrational explanation that some people are just 'evil' because they're born evil. They just are,Satan incarnate.

It's not myself who has introduced God, Satan and the Bible into this discussion. If you had actually read my posts you would see that I have been at some pains to point out that I do not believe that some people are born evil but that all people are prone to evil (as well as good).

Can't you please respond (if you so wish) to what I'm actually saying and not what you continue to insist I'm saying?

[french frank]

It's not myself who has introduced God, Satan and the Bible into this discussion.

But you spoke of the concept of the 'existence' of evil as if it was disconnected from the acts themselves, which is indeed a concept of (some) religions. And you see no need to 'explain' or 'understand' it.

If you had actually read my posts you would see that I have been at some pains to point out that I do not believe that some people are born evil but that all people are prone to evil (as well as good).

Which, to my mind, says nothing at all: all people are prone to falling down, but why does an individual fall down? What explains that fall? What makes some people who are 'prone' to evil perpetrate atrocities while most people don't?

I don't insist you're saying anything: I used the words 'appear' and 'apparently' to indicate how it seemed to me.