Dear Fractelle,

A thought can be detected by chemical and electrical responses and transferences between synapses in the brain so you are correct. I must abandon my dichotomy or further refine it although it must remain hazy to some degree. There are thoughts which are merely speculation and thoughts which have intent behind them. I don't think there is or even can be an apparatus capable of differentiating between the two. When a thought crosses my mind I cannot be sure that I would not carry it out if I had the opportunity so the differentiation must remain hazy. I think my wife is better than I am at picking up vibes which is another way of saying she is better than I am at detecting those subtle movements, gestures and speech patterns that indicate a person is not to be trusted.

I think I made the distinction between thought and action because I make a distinction between speech and action. I favour minimum legal restrictions on free speech and don't feel speech should be prosecuted even if it is loathsome and unpopular or because some object to the speech.

I am loath to use the word, evil, because of its theological connections. In writing evil is what one doesn't like to start this string I was trying to rid the concept of theology. The concept of evil often justifies prejudice by treating evil as an objective truth rather than a dislike.

Thank you. You have made me think.

Dear csteele,

My thoughts on returning a fattened wallet are complex. They involve moral conditioning, societal approval and many other things. eg. A dishonest person might return the wallet to gain a reputation for honesty. Another person would keep the wallet but his conditioning against doing so is so strong that if he knows if he keeps it he will be tormented in mind so he returns it.

My stepson left a fattened wallet behind on a train. It was returned to him by mail much slimmer.

I don't want to write more on the subject at this time.

Dear davidf and Fractelle,

daivdf wrote; “The two sentences have little to do with each other. You are comparing evil deeds of others with 'evil thoughts' of one's own. Deeds can be evil. To my way of thinking thoughts cannot be so it is a meaningless comparison to me.”

I disagree, the sentences have everything to do with each other. I will tell you what I was thinking when making that statement, I have on numerous occasions sat and spoken to older Australians in particular who, when the surface is scratched, exhibit deep seated anti-Semitic views even though they are usually flippantly expressed. The same people will decry the evils of Hitler.

It is almost an archaeology of the mindset cultivated through formative years in an atmosphere of anti-Jewish hatred during the pre-war period.

Even before the war sales of Mien Kampf had made Hitler a millionaire many times over. He had made the equivalence of around 25 million Aussie dollars and had incurred a tax bill of $8 million which was waived when he came to power. This seedbed of hate was being laid in countries throughout the world. I cannot accept that the priming of this German people can only be regarded as evil once the act of the Holocaust made it so.

The very basis of our racial and religious vilification laws is a recognition of the evil of hate propagation even it is not realised in action.

Fractelle when you said “To fail to recognise evil in my own thoughts (either deliberately, as Davidf appears to be, or by lying to myself) may result in harm to others (even if not consciously acted upon) , or a massive load of subconscious guilt.” you seem to be echoing davidf's position that evil thoughts must have an effect to be evil, why can't they be regarded as evil just of their own accord?

Dear csteele,

I oppose antivilification laws as I believe people should be allowed to express ideas that other people might find loathsome. I am against hate propagation but feel that there should not be a law against it. I make a distinction between speech, opinion and action. If we are to have a democracy only the last should be subject to legal sanctions.

Democracy is a risky business. If we allow free speech we risk a demagogue such as Hitler destroying democracy. If we ban categories of speech, we have certainly lost democracy. I prefer a risk to a certainty.

Earlier on this string I mentioned the Nazi, Oskar Schindler. I don't know why he joined the Nazi Party or whether he was an antisemite, but he saved the lives of many Jews at great risk to his own. He was also a genuine Nazi - a Sudeten German who was put in prison before the war by the Czechs due to his activities in supporting the Nazis.

Not all antisemites are willing to murder Jews. One may hate Jews and still not be willing to murder human beings. One may not hate Jews and be willing to murder them if one is expected to do it as part of one's job. I do not think Eichmann was an antisemite, but he was responsible for the murder of many Jews.

I think it is quite reasonable to be an antisemite and decry the evils of Hitler.

After WW2 Sarah Gordon examined archives, interviewed Germans and wrote "Hitler, Germans, and the "Jewish Question"". One finding of hers was that Nazis were as willing to give Jews a place to hide as were other Germans.

Antisemitism is an opinion. Murdering Jews is an act. They may be but are not necessarily connected.

I favour laws that ban discrimination based on ethnicity or religion. Those are acts. I oppose laws banning vilification. Those are opinions.

When the state decides which opinions are good and which are evil we are on the road to tyranny.

Dear davidf,

As your earlier post illustrates the problem lay in our respective views on what constitutes a thought although I felt you may have shifted the goal posts a little, especially if a raised eyebrow is deemed an act. But you have explained how you arrived at your line of reasoning well.

You say; “I think it is quite reasonable to be an antisemite and decry the evils of Hitler.”, fair enough, but it doesn't mean the first can't be considered evil. I hope you won't try and make the argument that our sense of what is evil only comes from our reason any more than love does.

The same applies when you say “I make a distinction between speech, opinion and action. If we are to have a democracy only the last should be subject to legal sanctions”. Sure, but people should be able to express moral sanctions, to consider such speech or opinion as evil.

Our racial and religious vilification laws should be focused on the act of incitement. I have no problem with someone having the freedom to hold evil views but if it means doing an Alan Jones and whipping up a Cronulla then I want our law to step in.

And just because I like the last word...You previously asked; “What does a tee-totalling minister passing up a stiff drink or a new inductee into AA doing the same have to do with good or evil?”, probably nothing if we accept your premise but from my point of view if that drink means the AA inductee 'falls off the wagon', starts abusing his wife and children again, driving while under the influence etc., then the act of refusing must surely have a greater good attached to it, especially in light of his addiction.

Good and evil define each other

Dear csteele,

I specified act of any kind. Stationary goal posts.

If antisemites do not discriminate against Jews or act unfairly to Jews their opinion is their own business. I won't sit in judgment and call them or their opinion evil. They hurt nobody.

Focussing on incitement we need no antivilification laws at all. Incitement and harassment are offenses under English common law which is law of Australia. One problem in Australia is our racist police. According to "Racist Violence" put out by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission in 1991 most of the harassment of Aborigines has been by the police. The police unions are powerful, and politicians are afraid to anger them. If police would engage in neither incitement nor harassment and arrest those who do racist violence in Australia would almost disappear. I believe Alan Jones has violated common law with his incendiary broadcasts, but he is a powerful media figure with a big following which will see his arrest as persecution. We need no antivilification legislation for the law to step in when there is incitement or harassment. Police should enforce existing English common law.

Antivilification laws serve to mask the continuing acceptance of the police culture and Australian culture in other areas which accept racism. Every once in a while we read in the papers of football racist slanging or violence by the hoodlums who are professional athletes. Some professional athletes are not hoodlums.

Abusing of family due to drink or driving under the influence is criminal. However, taking a drink is not. All alcoholics are not abusers or law breakers.

I don’t like moral sanctions. One cause of youth suicides is the inability of teenagers uncertain of their sexual identity to cope with the moral sanctions of their community.

Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

That is nutty. The heart is not the organ that commits adultery. Evil is what you do. Not what you think.

Davidf
The immediate problem with your argument is there is a distinction between common law and criminal law. The police are responsible only for criminal law i.e. crimes act.

There is a difference in the burden of proof, in the crimes act it is beyond reasonable doubt. Common law is the weight of evidence, the common man test.
Vilification is under the crimes act i.e. did the person do the crime yes or no, the govt is the prosecutor and has rights of apprehension and arrest.

Damages (common law) the victim is the prosecutor, the court determines financial losses (how much).(no powers of apprehension or
arrest).

The idea that the police could get involved in common law say a libel suit has horrendous implications. As many common law cases are bargaining chips.

Therefore vilification as something that should be stopped now (public order), is rightfully placed under the crimes act and is carefully spelled out.

Jones can be arrested for vilification (incitement) but for me to take him to court for damages (common law) means That I would have to in addition to guilt, show the court losses of financial or my good(?) name.
As it is expensive, to discourage trivial claims, my losses because of Jones words would have to be substantial to justify the expense.

These differentiations are major pillars in our justice system.