Jump to content

[DomLuka] Aaron Keslin. Evil? Or Just Misunderstood?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Aaron isn't evil. Stupid, petty, shallow, and emotionally damaged... yes.

 

But he isn't evil.

 

 

Evil is not a disease you catch, except from morgul blades. Evil is the moral quality of the things you do. Aaron's actions are evil because his actions so often harm other people. That does not make him beyond redemption, but it also does not excuse him for the nature of his actions.

Edited by Alan
Link to comment

I won't enter the whole Seth vs Luke war. Mostly because it's more funny than anything but I think that Luke can be much more than a boyfriend.

 

A best friend, even a brother. I mean, up until her death, Rory's mom was pretty much his whole world. She was his mother but also his best friend. I don't think it could be possible for Eddy to fill the entire role now. He can be a parent, that's all. You can't tell EVERYTHING to a parent. To a best friend/bro (or sis), you should be able to.

 

And well, boyfriends/girlfriends might come and go but family is family.

 

As for Aaron, hum, more than evil, he seems to be five years old emotionally. I want, I take. I'm the center of the world and momy should love me more than anyone else.

 

It's kinda cute. At five.

 

As someone said, his actions are evil in that they cause harm and pain. But his main point doesn't seem to be to cause harm (weird sentence Oo). So I wouldn't call him evil.

Link to comment
are you implying that just because his dad is in prison that he'll end up there too?? it seems to me that he has no contact with his dad, and i know from first-hand experience that this is the best way to start on a path of not following in your fathers footsteps. luke has a steady job and a drivers license and a jeep to get himself around in, not to mention a good home life, so it's kind of preposterous to even suggest that he'll end up incarcerated.

 

OK, I'm somewhat new here, so excuse me if I put my foot in it, but: I thought the whole LGAITE thing was a running joke on this forum? If not, excuse me while I go get the taste of foot out of my mouth :blink: ...

 

And, regarding people following in their father's footsteps, I certainly agree with Tim. In fact, some of the finest people I've ever met come from horrible backgrounds, and come to think of it, I know a few inverse examples too. (great background, but utter scum).

Link to comment
Evil is the moral quality of the things you do. Aaron's actions are evil because his actions so often harm other people.

 

I disagree completely. Evil isn't the moral quality of your actions, but the intent behind the actions you cause. And I don't feel that Aaron meets my definition, because Aaron is completely inept when it comes to foreseeing consequences to his actions, mostly due to his emotional immaturity.

Link to comment
I disagree completely. Evil isn't the moral quality of your actions, but the intent behind the actions you cause. And I don't feel that Aaron meets my definition, because Aaron is completely inept when it comes to foreseeing consequences to his actions, mostly due to his emotional immaturity.

Exactly!

Link to comment
Exactly!

 

Aaron exemplifies the problem in basing morality exclusively on intent. He ends up making decisions as if no-one else existed or mattered. Almost no-one ever accepts that their acts are evil.

 

Let's suppose you're sitting beside a hijacker on a plane. You strike up conversation and attempt to persuade them not to kill you. They assure you their intent is good. They may even assure you they regret your (and their imminent) death. The cause, they argue, is greater than the welfare of any individual.

 

What argument, intent being the sole valid test for the moral quality of any act, will you use to persuade them not to blow up your plane? Or, moved by the sincerity and depth of their intent, will you assist them with their misguided project, since the impact their actions have on yourself and the other passengers are irrelevant to the moral quality of those actions?

Link to comment
Aaron exemplifies the problem in basing morality exclusively on intent. He ends up making decisions as if no-one else existed or mattered. Almost no-one ever accepts that their acts are evil.

 

Let's suppose you're sitting beside a hijacker on a plane. You strike up conversation and attempt to persuade them not to kill you. They assure you their intent is good. They may even assure you they regret your (and their imminent) death. The cause, they argue, is greater than the welfare of any individual.

 

While the end result of said actions may be of great harm, your example is more an argument of perspective and doesn't prove that the result of the hijacker's actions alone makes the hijacker himself an evil person (though he very well may be).

 

And, while an appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy anyway, using 9/11 imagery to defend your argument is just :thumbdown: .

 

What argument, intent being the sole valid test for the moral quality of any act, will you use to persuade them not to blow up your plane? Or, moved by the sincerity and depth of their intent, will you assist them with their misguided project, since the impact their actions have on yourself and the other passengers are irrelevant to the moral quality of those actions?

 

Total red herring. If we are to assume that the person is evil because of their actions, then what argument could you make to dissuade them anyway? Intent was never the sole valid test for the moral quality of an ACT, but the person. And in your example, the hijacker fully intends to hurt people (b/c they feel the end justifies the means), while Aaron does not, so I don't see how this analogy is relevant.

 

And really... the good/evil dichotomy doesn't exist. If it did, then there would be no room for redemption, no moral ambiguities (and thus, in your example, one man's terrorist could not be another man's freedom fighter). Unless you wish to maintain that good and evil (where you can be "more/less good" and "more/less evil") are a sliding scale. And then labeling Aaron Keslin as "evil" becomes a totally frivolous argument of semantics, because, while Aaron may look "evil" next to Seth/Rory/Luke, he'll look positively angelic compared to say... Hitler.

Edited by storymonger
Link to comment
So there is no objective reality of evil, but just a matter of one's perspectives?

If the intent meets the consequences... Like in vengeances for example... That might be call evil.

 

But I'm personnally uncomfortable with the whole concept of evil. I've always felt like it's just a cheap way out of reality. The reality being that anyone can be "evil" at one point or another. Depending, yes, mainly on the perspective.

 

"Evil" is a word that tends to disconnect things from humanity. As if we could not do such things. Making it easier to deal with the fact that we can.

 

You might say that Aaron is amoral (without moral standards) which sometimes leads him to act immoral (deviating from what's considered proper)... So far.

 

But I tend to think he's just immature and blinded. Obviously, the guy seeks attention and company. He just doesn't get how to keep it and the whole concept of reciprocity.

 

Will he meet a Anne Sullivan ? =^^=

Link to comment
I disagree completely. Evil isn't the moral quality of your actions, but the intent behind the actions you cause. And I don't feel that Aaron meets my definition, because Aaron is completely inept when it comes to foreseeing consequences to his actions, mostly due to his emotional immaturity.

If Aaron is incapable of foreseeing or unwilling to foresee the consequences his actions have on other people, he at least doesn't have good intentions. Whether being evil requires bad intentions in the narrow sense or whether the absence of good intentions, or pure selfishness, is enough, I dare not say. Then, Aaron is to some extent excused by the fact that he is too occupied with his own problems to care about other people's needs. But isn't there always one psychological excuse or the other?

 

 

So there is no objective reality of evil, but just a matter of one's perspectives?

If you don't believe in god, you have in fact difficulities in telling good from evil. You might define your own criteria for an action or a person to be evil, but those criteria would then lack supernatural vindication.

Edited by DavyReader
Link to comment
If you don't believe in god, you have in fact difficulities in telling good from evil. You might define your own criteria for an action or a person to be evil, but those criteria would then lack supernatural vindication.

 

You're forgetting the possibility that Good and Evil are completely subjective, human concepts that don't in fact have any deeper truth, and just represent cultural mor

Link to comment
While the end result of said actions may be of great harm, your example is more an argument of perspective and doesn't prove that the result of the hijacker's actions alone makes the hijacker himself an evil person (though he very well may be).

 

And, while an appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy anyway, using 9/11 imagery to defend your argument is just :thumbdown: .

Total red herring. If we are to assume that the person is evil because of their actions, then what argument could you make to dissuade them anyway? Intent was never the sole valid test for the moral quality of an ACT, but the person. And in your example, the hijacker fully intends to hurt people (b/c they feel the end justifies the means), while Aaron does not, so I don't see how this analogy is relevant.

 

And really... the good/evil dichotomy doesn't exist. If it did, then there would be no room for redemption, no moral ambiguities (and thus, in your example, one man's terrorist could not be another man's freedom fighter). Unless you wish to maintain that good and evil (where you can be "more/less good" and "more/less evil") are a sliding scale. And then labeling Aaron Keslin as "evil" becomes a totally frivolous argument of semantics, because, while Aaron may look "evil" next to Seth/Rory/Luke, he'll look positively angelic compared to say... Hitler.

 

I'm not compelely sure how you can argue that Aaron does or does not belong to a category that doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Aaron exemplifies the problem in basing morality exclusively on intent. He ends up making decisions as if no-one else existed or mattered. Almost no-one ever accepts that their acts are evil.

But morality is clearly based on intent. It's the whole concept of "knowing any better". If you don't know any better you simply cannot logically be evil. My sweet, loving, delightfuly cat would be completely happy to catch a mouse, torture it a little, almost let it get away a few times, then slowly kill it. But no one could reasonably argue that he (or any other animal) is "evil". He's completely self-involved and totally incapable of identifying with the other life form.

 

It could be argued that to some extent Aaron is similarly self-involved and obliveous to the repercussions of his actions, but that would of course require knowing what's going on in his head, which we don't. And clearly Aaron is capable of being moral or immoral, whether or not he usually operates from a position that enables this capability is another issue entirely.

 

As for very few people ever labeling their own actions and intents as "evil", this is very true. And this is also why I, personally, believe that there are virtually no completely evil people by objective standards.

 

 

Let's suppose you're sitting beside a hijacker on a plane. You strike up conversation and attempt to persuade them not to kill you. They assure you their intent is good. They may even assure you they regret your (and their imminent) death. The cause, they argue, is greater than the welfare of any individual.

LOL this definitely sounds like something I would do. "gee we were having such a nice flight, I really wish you wouldn't do this!"

Still assuming that plea proved unsuccessful it would present an interesting problem. (1)If the person isn't "evil" by my standards, this means that they really do mean well and believe their actions to be justified. They are likely a fundamentalist to their cause. As such it would be all but be impossible to convince that they were wrong in the first place. (2) If the person is "evil" by my standards, this means that the person doesn'tmean well, and is likely unhappy and eager to sadistically spread this misery and torment to others. This second, much less pleasent, individual is clearly the easier of the two to deal with and possibly persuade. With this person it would be a matter of convincing them that their own life were worth living, that there was still something left for them. Then pointing out that they could never have this something if they crashed the plan, OR even if they just killed us (since I could argue that a successful escape from the authorities is unlikely). Alternatively, I could try to figure out what happened to them to make them hate people, find out what acts and types of people they hate so much, then perhaps show that certain other passengers did not fall into these classifications. Basically use the immoral person's capacity for morality to attempt to bring them back over to a moral stance. Wouldn't be easy or even likely by any means, but this second individual is the one I'd rather deal with. The first is either so convinced of their cause that mymoral position is meaningless to them, OR if I could somehow "shake their faith" it would create a very dangerous psychological vacuum in a VERY bad situation.

 

While the end result ....is relevant.

Agreed almost completely with everything mentioned up to this point in your post.

 

And really... the good/evil dichotomy doesn't exist. If it did, then there would be no room for redemption, no moral ambiguities (and thus, in your example, one man's terrorist could not be another man's freedom fighter). Unless you wish to maintain that good and evil (where you can be "more/less good" and "more/less evil") are a sliding scale. And then labeling Aaron Keslin as "evil" becomes a totally frivolous argument of semantics, because, while Aaron may look "evil" next to Seth/Rory/Luke, he'll look positively angelic compared to say... Hitler.

And the part I disagree with: I believe the good/evil dichotomy doesexisit but few (if any)people actually meet the criteria for being completely good or evil. Everyone else varies from situation to situation, and all that can really be said is that a certain person has lately been consistantly one or the other. I like this idea of scale and agree with you; it's all a matter of perspective.

 

So there is no objective reality of evil, but just a matter of one's perspectives?

and

If you don't believe in god, you have in fact difficulities in telling good from evil. You might define your own criteria for an action or a person to be evil, but those criteria would then lack supernatural vindication.

Davy's mention of God and subsequent reasoning that without a belief in God (or some higher power)there isn't an objective "right or wrong" is very fascinating. My personal belief is that there is indeed a God, and thus an act canbe objectively right or wrong. However, I don't feel that people can ever objectively judge someone elses actions as "evil" (or even "good" if you want to be pedantic). No, "good" and "evil" do depend on the intents behind these acts and one person can never completely know another's heart. It can be argued that you could judge your own actions as either good or evil, but even that is debatable.

 

I think Davy also brought up the issue of "vindication". For me that's completely irrelevant. People have their own means of vindication (and will seek it according to their own perceptions and not "objectively" anyway). Further, while the concept of "karma" is appealing I think it begs the question of "good" and "evil". Surely being "good", especially from an objective standpoint, isn't contingent on some perception of reward. Similarly if "evil" is only based on punishment, courage and masochism become involved to an unnerving degree. No, clearly being "good" or "evil" requires that the person be beyond expecting, wanting, or fearing karma. If one's actions depend on a perception of consequences (for person themself) then morality is reduced to something akin to our own legal and/or social system(s), with of course I do believe to be completely essential I just feel that in and of themselves they are also completely amoral (in that they lack an objective moral value either way).

 

If the intent meets the consequences...

...whole concept of reciprocity.

Almost entirely agree with this post as well.

 

VERY fun debate everyone, I enjoyed it. Take care and have a sensational day!

Kevin

Edited by AFriendlyFace
Link to comment
And the part I disagree with: I believe the good/evil dichotomy doesexisit but few (if any)people actually meet the criteria for being completely good or evil. Everyone else varies from situation to situation, and all that can really be said is that a certain person has lately been consistantly one or the other.
I don't understand what you mean here.

 

If the good/evil dichotomy exists, you are either good or you are evil. Everyone would have to meet the criteria for being one or the other because no inbetween would exist. Otherwise, it isn't a dichotomy.

 

DavyReader is right, however, in pointing out that questioning (the lack of) a dichotomous relationship between good and evil is not the same thing as saying good and evil do not exist.

Link to comment

With or without any supernatural beings, good and evil can exist as objective realities, and any given person has perceptions of and opinions about those realities, with cultural and personal blind spots and inconsistencies and rationalizations of behavior. We may disagree as to whether these exist objectively, just as in a larger sense we could debate the mediaeval problem of universals. (Or rather we could debate that if we knew enough about it to debate it, which I don't.)

 

If one believes in one of the three big monotheist religions (or some of their offshoots), then evil could be viewed as whatever God doesn't like and has commanded us to eschew (blended fabrics, cheeseburgers, charging interest, for example). An atheist can believe that there are objective moral principles by which we can discern (however imperfectly) what is good and what is bad. Non-fundamentalist/legalist religious folk often have that same sort of view, though retaining a concept of what is or is not pleasing to God.

 

I'm not suggesting a guy with a red suit with horns and a tail. (Though, whatever turns you on, I guess.) But when we look at human society and see how things often turn out even with the best people's best intentions, it appears that evil must be bigger than the sum of human bad intentions. The law of unintended consequences can account for only some of that, I think.

 

As for good intentions, well, you know the old saying about the road to hell. Hitler had a lot of good intentions. And that brings up the issue of means and ends. If your intentions are good, but you choose evil means to accomplish them, then I believe that your actions are evil. If you try to fight evil with more evil, then you've lost and sold out to the other side from the getgo.

Link to comment
I don't understand what you mean here.

 

If the good/evil dichotomy exists, you are either good or you are evil. Everyone would have to meet the criteria for being one or the other because no inbetween would exist. Otherwise, it isn't a dichotomy.

I suppose I didn't make that clear enough. What I meant was the dichotomy for good and evil actions exists (I.E. there is an objective right and wrong), but few people ever actually exisit as purely good or evil. Thus for people I wouldn't think of classifying them strictly into one camp or the other. Also I say the dichotomy exisits for actions but specifically I'm only referring to moral actions; I make no claims about the virtue of everyday, mundane actions (though these would be interesting to debate).

Edited by AFriendlyFace
Link to comment

I think that it's easier to attribute inexplicable behavior to evil than to understand that some people are damaged in ways that are both subtle and gross.

 

Aaron Keslin as described by Dom shows signs of Histrionic Personality Disorder (DSM4/301.50).

 

Here's what the DSM says about it:

 

A pervasive pattern of excessive emotionality and attention seeking, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

 

(1) is uncomfortable in situations in which he or she is not the center of attention

 

(2) interaction with others is often characterized by inappropriate sexually seductive or provocative behavior

 

(3) displays rapidly shifting and shallow expression of emotions

 

(4) consistently uses physical appearance to draw attention to self

 

(5) has a style of speech that is excessively impressionistic and lacking in detail

 

(6) shows self-dramatization, theatricality, and exaggerated expression of emotion

 

(7) is suggestible, i.e., easily influenced by others or circumstances

 

(8) considers relationships to be more intimate than they actually are

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Our Privacy Policy can be found here. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..