Freedom and evil

Man, free to do wrong ?

In terms of free will, I confess that thinking only of ourselves, we can not estimate independent, but when we think of the infinite power of God, we can not believe that all things depend on him, and, therefore, that free will is not free [ ... ] So that our agency should make us not doubt the existence of God. Since independence we experience and feel, and that is enough to make our praiseworthy or blameworthy action is not inconsistent with an addiction that is of another nature, that all things are subject to God. Descartes. Lettre à élisabeth 1645.

A man can he want evil for evil?

To this question, to me it seems, we can answer in the negative.
Where there is freedom, there is no place for evil. No person whose conscience is sovereign * not generate evil for evil.

* If the human consciousness governed entirely on his impulses, there would be more transgression. Transgression is the victory of the primary forces, the will, morality, free will.

Every bad action towards a similar responds primarily to an inherent demand . A greater awareness of the evil forces . The victim is not the purpose of the executioner but the means. It is subject to criminal to satisfy an internal tension . To quench or unwind an instinctive need . The criminal aims primarily to meet its own requirements. It may feel obliged to obey an order, forced to seek to satisfy a selfish desire. He may want to repair his psycho- physiological balance perceived as broken. It may seek to appease too much hatred felt as pain, etc. .

Pure selfishness

In sum, transgressing not primarily intended to hurt the victim. He aspires primarily to be good to him.
He wants to gloat, feast, enjoy it through evil travail. He wants to satisfy an inner call, ease his discomfort (in the case of revenge for example).

That is why, according to our philosophy, cruelty and injustice resulting primarily narcissism. These pipes carry a lack of empathy, an inability to put in the place of others. And these failures derive from a type of education.

Revenge and vendetta

The art of evil appease his anger

Appease his anger prevails over the suffering inflicted

There is no happiness without freedom, or freedom without courage. Pericles

For Socrates, the man, if he had the means, avoid "evil" . We fully agree with this approach .

The revenge

Take the case of revenge to illustrate the philosophical point of view . A man is mad to someone he considers his enemy or rival . It feels incredible inner pain . Only an act of revenge, he thinks, will be able to restore its balance. In fact, the suffering inflicted on the rival is not the primary motivation for this " cold eater ." This is primarily the end of his own torment. If the man had for example, an instrument able to quell the violence of his frustration, he would use it . If there was a machine to " cleanse his honor " of course he would choose to use the machine. If there was a cathartic pill to avoid the consequences of a purgative * vengeance, who departs ? Most followers of sidestepping the vendetta if they could afford it.

* bad conscience, remorse, regret his ability to act, legal implications, punishment, prison, revenge back, etc. .

Of dishonesty

A thief can afford sensations * brigandage, without committing extortion, avoid abusing its congeners .

* adrenaline, desire for fame and power, greed, risk appetite etc. .

A gangster who could enjoy all that gives it its wrongdoing without realizing, do not pass the act .

Of perversion

This also applies to the most perverse cases. The individual taking pleasure in torturing others, seeks above all to satisfy sadistic visceral calls. If a machine provided him with exactly the same pleasure, the same satisfactions in his perverse impulses, he would use it . If such equipment existed, any perverse choose the substitute, ersatz, to preserve the human being.

The feeling to good

Teaching positive rewards

The responsibilities of the company

Freedom of the individual must be thus limited : it does not render it injurious to others. J.S.Mill

In humans, the intent to commit evil for evil, seems unlikely. Every action is motivated by the search of a property . * The individual dedicating his life to the welfare of others, the fact to feel the positive feelings .

* Abbé Pierre, Sister Emmanuelle, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Father Pedro, enjoy the good they do

The individual dedicating his life to evil, also to feel a sense he considers positive ... It simply makes an error of judgment. Error of assessment as the sum of incurred displeasure is greater than the pleasure obtained .

We can measure by the great intelligence of creation. How evolution takes place, makes it impossible to enjoy quietly through evil. Moral education, social organization, the values ​​of society, ill-gotten spoil any fun . Regret, remorse, prison, revenge, shame, the general contempt, are the pleasures unfair wages .

Voluntary and involuntary harm

If the individual causes harm by ignoring it, it will have the conviction that it is good for himself and the other * .

* This is often the case with narcissistic pervert, persuaded to offer pleasure when he offers dependence (exit the dealer ) .

When an individual creates difficulty in knowing it, he must turn a blind eye . To minimize his act, he used often in bad faith *

* For example by inventing a false morality to justify his transgression : "if it is not abusing me in this or that situation, someone else will."

Evil is the result of an incorrect assessment of transgressing says Socrates in Plato's Meno . Not suspecting anything, I would like to complete this definition. The individual seeks to experience pleasure by "evil" when it is unable to adequately test the "good."

Freedom and evil

The responsibility of transgressing

The evil is the art of turning good into evil . Claude Chabrol

In theory, therefore, the freedom to do good or to do evil is an illusion. Man, if he had the means to spare the suffering it inflicts . It is also a victim of his transgressions. If it finds pleasure through its transgressantes drives, it remains impulses . It is not free.

True freedom can not be confronted with evil. Where there is freedom, there is priority and authority of conscience on the drive. Therefore man is not free to deny the law or act against it . Freedom makes possible the choice of evil. To be fully responsible, it must be absolutely free to choose . In other words, in absolute terms, while transgressing is irresponsible.

Past crimes

The importance of the duty of memory

The past can not be repeated.

The sole purpose of the criticism of past crimes is to protect the future of their resurgence. This task is fundamental to humanity. It is the engine of moral progress. Criticism of past misdeeds, is through the duty of memory, the creation of laws, education ... The duty of memory is essential to gradually disunited and evil man. For him open access to bliss .

Here is a paradox

The freedom we are told, is to choose between good and evil. But when an individual chooses the "wrong", it is likely to end up deprived of liberty .
So the only way to be free is to consistently choose good. Freedom and choice therefore not agree with " evil." So the man has a real choice : good.

Men are different

nequality of moral education

Understand the suffering of others to judge his actions

We are not all equal in our ability to resist the temptation of "evil." The historical background of each human being is unique. Its rate will, empathy and morality depends entirely on its history.

As a result of his education. The opening of awareness of family and educational environment in which it developed . It depends on its derivative, its moral development. It can also be the result of examples that followed. It depends frustrations and violence suffered, love granted, the trauma, etc. . So we again face the wiles of the reason (Hegel) .

Most of the time, the damage is the result of unconscious forces . Human consciousness is still unable to dominate . If evil does not disappear, it is a necessity . There is a need to evolve well in our case. But in parallel, man must consider this unnecessary need to be able to fight . The man is not free to do evil . But he must act as if it had a free will. It must preserve the illusion to change humanity.

2001

injustice

Un esprit libre prend des libertés même à l'égard de la liberté Francis Picabia