enzyme
I've heard that before somewhere - Socrates? But I disagree. While it sounds like a plausible argument, I think people do act in full knowledge that they are bad. What motivates them is not a choice between good and bad, or a feeling that the action is somehow beneficial or worthy, but that they are unlikely to get caught.

Hitler knew exactly what he was doing, otherwise why go to such lengths to cover it up at the time ('get rid of' the Jews yes - but not 'execute and burn them en masse'). When we kick a cat down the stairs or download a DVD or spit in someone's tea or all the other things that make b3ta such a lovely place, we do so because we know it's wrong and the frisson of doing it without getting caught is the thrill. In short, your "good in some sense" derives entirely from the action being bad and going unpunished - a paradox, surely. The very act of considering how worthy an action is is seldom gone through before committing it, and only done after the fact as a form of exculpation or apologia.

That said, instances of what you describe do exist - the boy who smothers his crying baby sibling because his mother is trying to sleep, for example. But I'd argue that such instances are far rarer than you suggest in adult life. I think we all know what we're really doing and choose to rationalise it away. That's the easy route.
(frankspencer, Tue 11 Dec 2007, 15:56, Reply)