Whatmeworry4

Whatmeworry4 t1_j24v23v wrote

I am only referring to the intentionality to seek the consequences. True evil considers the consequences as evil and doesn’t care. The banality of evil is when you don’t consider the consequences as evil. The intent to cause the consequences is the same either way.

5

Whatmeworry4 t1_j24o6bz wrote

Ok, the easiest way is to ask if the consequences were intentional, or it may even be documented. Now, why do you ask? Why do we need to detect the intent for the purposes of a theoretical discussion?

2

Whatmeworry4 t1_j24k3s5 wrote

I would disagree with her definition because I believe that the banality of evil is what happens when we do understand the full consequences of our actions, and just don’t care enough to change them.

Evil is not a cognitive error unless we are defining it as mental illness or defect. To me, true evil requires intent.

18

Whatmeworry4 t1_ixl0o1a wrote

Your math is wonky especially using a Fahrenheit scale, but let’s assume that overall heat remains the same but over a different amount of time.
Cooking generally requires that you cook the food all the way through, and the heat takes time to get from the outside of the food to the inside. So if you cook too fast the heat will cook the outside, but never have time to cook the inside before that outside gets over-cooked and burns.

1