Gil wrote:

I understand the desire to want to make the distinction. We want to say something like "They're not bad, they're just mistaken!" But what does "bad" mean, if not being mistaken about fundamental moral issues and being willing to act (or not act) based on those mistakes?

Sylvia wrote:

Is it because you're hoping your idiotarian friends and relations won't be so offended and you want to persuade them they're wrong? is there some denial here?

I think it's about as offensive to call someone an idiotarian as it is to call them evil. I don't want to make excuses for people who side with evil, and I think most of them ought to know better.

However, I think there is a difference between being complicit in evil, and actually being evil. One example: Some people opposed the US invasion of Iraq because they wanted to be able to continue torturing people. Some other people opposed the invasion of Iraq because it conflicted with their idea of what nations should do in a peaceful world, and these people did not consider the torture to be an important consideration.

Similarly -- some people say that in Nazi Germany, most people didn't actively agree with what was going on, but they had no choice and just did what they were told. This is idiotarian. Some people think the Nazis were right. This is evil.

People who are unable or unwilling to consider the torture in Iraq or the moral culpability of the Germans are unable to take the right side in many vital issues. But that is not the same as actively wanting evil to triumph.

~Woty
http://woty.blogspot.com