load.of.crap.

[idlechic]

from the first book i've had to read for my class, "integrity" by stephen l carter:

"the distinction that the person of integrity must draw in order to avoid evil is between willing good and willing evil. willing good occurs when, upon due reflection, we will ourselves to do and speak that which we now know to be the right, even when the burden

Comments

[beeporama]

"good" and "evil" are subjective terms... I take it you disagree? I agree, but have no ability to back up the assertion with any reasonable argument.

[idlechic]

the issue i have is with his suggestion that if you don't reflect on an action, then you're evil. i'd prefer if he'd included a third option for people who act without reflection; i'd agree that these people do not have integrity, but i certainly wouldn't automatically say they're evil. actually, while i'm at it, i'd say there should be a fourth option for people incapable of telling right from wrong.

i think "evil," if i must call it that, can really only be used for people who knowingly act maliciously or people who cause such wide-scale harm to others that no amount of reflection could possibly excuse it. it could be argued that hitler duly reflected and acted in a way which he thought was right.

[beeporama]

So it's an oversimplification, then?

I think this passage (admittedly out of context) refers to situations where you knowingly don't help somebody. For example, "I think my neighbor is beating his wife, but it's none of my business. I'm not beating her myself, so I'm not acting in an evil way."

[idlechic]

so staying out of it/not getting involved is evil? sure, there are some exceptions; if you know someone is doing great harm to someone and you do nothing about it, but i'm still not sure that makes you evil.

[jdecay]

Urgh. I read that book for a class in the MLIS program. Didn't like it. Too many instances of black and white, rigid thinking like the passage you've quoted.

[idlechic]

probably the same class...information ethics with toni carbo?

i think the biggest problem i have with the author in particular is the same problem i have with most religious people...they're incapable of talking about any important or complex issues without bringing religion into it. sure, you can be shaped by or driven by your beliefs, but there's no reason that you can't discuss issues that aren't directly related to religion without bringing god or the bible into it.

[sakuramayoke]

Religion tends to come up a lot when you're talking about morals. Morality is a big part of religion, but I don't think religion is part of being moral. Unfortunately, some people have a difficult time making that distinction.

[jdecay]

Indeed, it was Information Ethics, but not with Toni Carbo - Stephen Almagno, as I recall. He was actually a catholic priest, but also assigned a book by the Dali Lama because it essentially said that you do not need religion to be moral. Best professor that was in the program, but he retired.