الشر: رؤية فلسفية

by Luke Russell, لوك راسل, محمد هوجلا-كلفت (translator)

• «يوضح راسل أنه، في حين أن بعض المفاهيم المألوفة للشر ناقصة بشكل مؤسف، لا يزال من الممكن صياغة تعريفات بسيطة ومفيدة للأفعال الشريرة والأشخاص الأشرار... كل من يهتم بالأفكار سيستمتع بقراءة هذا الكتاب وسيستفيد منه» - البروفيسور مايكل سميث، جامعة برينستون


نواجه بانتظام أفعالًا مروعة، وتقدِّم لنا وسائل الإعلام سيلًا لا ينتهي من حالات الاعتداء والاغتصاب والقتل. أحيانًا نواجه جريمة مروعة وسيئة للغاية، إلى درجة أن نصمها بالشر. لكن ما «الشر» بالضبط؟ وكيف يتجاوز «الشر» ما هو مجرد سيئ أو خطأ؟
يعرض هذا الكتاب الإجابات التي قدمها الفلاسفة لهذه الأسئلة. ويناقش «لوك راسل»، أستاذ الفلسفة بجامعة سيدني، لماذا يعتقد بعضهم أن الشر أسطورة أو خيال، بينما يصر آخرون على أن الشر حقيقي. هل الشر دائمًا مروع أو غير مفهوم، أم يمكن أن يبدو عاديًّا؟ وهل هناك سمات نفسية خاصة تميز الأشرار عن بقيتنا؟
كتاب قيِّم، ترجمه محمد هوجلا-كلفت عن الإنجليزية بدقة وبراعة، سيدفعنا إلى إعادة التفكير في مسلَّمات عديدة.

عن المؤلف
لوك راسل، محاضر أول في قسم الفلسفة بجامعة سيدني. يبحث في الفلسفة الأخلاقية، وقد كتب عن الشر والغفران والفضيلة والرذيلة. يدرِّس لوك راسل الأخلاقيات وعلم النفس الأخلاقي والتفكير النقدي، ويدير برنامج الفلسفة الدراسي الذي تقدمه الجامعة إلى المدارس الثانوية عن العقل والأخلاق.

عن المترجم
محمد هوجلا-كلفت، مهني ثقافي يقيم بالقاهرة. ترجم من الإنجليزية إلى العربية عدة مقالات وكتب، وآخرها كتاب «٢٣ حقيقة يخفونها عنك بخصوص الرأسمالية» من تأليف ها-جوون تشانج. ويعمل هوجلا-كلفت حاليًّا على تأليف كتابه الأول.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Audiobook

160 pages, Paperback

Published January 26, 2023

Reviews

[Geoff · Rating 3 out of 5]

The fun of philosophy is preciseness of language and definitions, thought experiments, and going way way too deep into a topic. The annoying part of philosophy is over fussiness in defining terms, precious or unrealistic thought experiments, and going so far into a topic that it loses all relevance or connection to people's actual lives. This short survey of the philosophy of evil showcased both extremes. On the one had, with a label that has such social impact and consequences as "evil," it's important to really understand and examine what we mean by it so the concept isn't abused. On the other hand, the debates serve to intellectually distance us from the horrors that get the label evil. Interesting, but also sort of pointlessly fussy.

*Thanks to the author, publisher, and NetGalley for a free copy in exchange for an honest review.

[ancientreader · Rating 3 out of 5]

It says something for this book that I listened to the whole thing even though the narrator spoke so slowly and portentously that my wife couldn't even stand to be in the same room when it was playing.

As so often with audio nonfiction, I can't cite pluses and minuses in detail, so I'll leave it at saying that I appreciated the logical analysis of various attempts to define evil. I did find myself yelling "Who sez????" at my phone whenever the author brought out the concept of people who have good moral codes, because unless I missed it he made no attempt to define a universal "good" and it's easy to think of examples of things some people and societies identify, or once identified, as good, and which I/you/many people would recoil from.

Russell is of the view that evil and evil people do exist, but he's careful to distinguish between people who do evil (and may be capable of moral reform) and people who are evil (and happily do evil deeds at every opportunity). I appreciated his bringing the discussion down to specific cases (Lynndie England vs Ted Bundy, for example); I'm pretty sure I couldn't have tolerated the narration if the text itself had been limited to the abstract plane.

Four stars for the book, brought down to three stars by the narrator.

ETA: I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the reviews complaining that Russell is just analyzing a word and that that's a waste of time. How does one even begin to explain the value of moral reasoning?

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thank you to the publisher and netgalley for a copy of this audiobook.
A pretty straightforward listen, this title claims to be an objective study of evil in theory and practice. And that s what it is its premise is not to prove or disprove the presence/existence of evil, but to examine what it means. I would say there was a lot of interesting material to listen to and the narrator did a fine job reading story to audience.

[Karoline Kamel · Rating 3 out of 5]

الكتاب فكرته حلوة والترجمة كويسة.. لكن في الحقيقة الخلاصة بتاعته مدخلتش دماغي.. يعني الفلسفات المتعددة اللي بتتناول ما يسمى بالأفعال الشريرة كلامها منطقي ومليان نقط مرتبة لكن تبقى عصية عن التطبيق لأنها حللت نفسية فاعل الشر بدون التطرق لنفسية الضحية وقدرتها على التعاطي أو قبول هذه التفسيرات وبالتالي تبقى مجرد نظريات لأن الجمهور بشكل ما هيتعاطف مع الضحية أو الضحايا فهيكون برضو غير موضوع تجاه تفسير فلسفة الفعل الشرير.. يعني ممكن نقول دي نظريات يأخذ بها القاضي في المحكمة عند محاكمة مجرم ما.. بس هو الأهم بالنسبة لي من مجمل الكتاب إن استخدام لفظة شرير أو شر محتاجة تقنين على المستوي الشخصي أقصد.. والجميل تفسير الكتاب ليه القادة والحكام في الدول القمعية بالذات بيوصفوا المعارضة والآخربن بأهل الشر لأن الشر سمة ذات صبغة دينية وليها سحرها على الجماهير البسيطة اللي التدين بتاعها بيتأثر بهذه الكلمات الرنانة.. الشر هو عدو الخير.. والشرير عدو الله

[Nadia · Rating 3 out of 5]

مفهوم الشر من منظور فلسفي بلغة مبسطة و أمثلة واقعية .

[Carolyn Amate · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have to say I did not enjoy this book much. The audio narrarators voice was monotone. Plus I guess I didn't like the idea of dissecting evil to determine whether it actually exists or not. And if it does it must meet certain criteria. I believe that to be subjective and yet to be fair this is a philosophy book.
I personally didn't care for it. I believe in evil in people, its unfortunate that it excist but it sure does.

[Elisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Deep but approachable, this meditation on evil is eye-opening. The author doesn’t give any definite answers, but mostly poses questions and illustrates the main issues with examples that are easy to understand. What is evil? Such a simple question with a complicated answer. Russell doesn’t give one definition, but builds on philosophers’ theories and leaves room for the reader’s own ideas. Terrorists, serial killers and dictators are obvious study subjects here, but what about the bureaucrats that make it possible for many people to lose their lives? What if you were following orders? The book is written in such an easy to follow way that it’s like having a conversation in which the reader is engaged. It really made me think about some of my positions, or “what would I do in such a situation?” scenarios. James Cameron Stewart does a great job narrating the audiobook. This is a weighty subject but a very entertaining book.
I chose to listen to this audiobook and all opinions in this review are my own and completely unbiased. Thank you, NetGalley/HighBridge Audio!

[SIRBU DANIEL · Rating 1 out of 5]

A book far worst than I expected.The name intrigued me and the fact that the main subject of the book was a analise about the meaning of being evil, made me buy this book.By curiosity. Such a waste of time.

[ناديا · Rating 3 out of 5]

أجابني الكتاب على بضع تساؤلات عن الشر وأوجهه
تناولها الكاتب فلسفيًا بشكل مبسط محاولا تفسير الشخص الشرير وكيف ينشأ ! وهل من سمات للافعال الشريرة؟

خلص طبعا انه فعل غير أخلاقي ، ومرتكبوه يفتقرون للانسانية

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good, short introduction to the concept of evil. For me it was exactly what I was after so even though I disagree with the author several times I think the book gave me a good overview and a deeper understanding of how evil can be understood.

For people not used to the philosophical method of analyzing concepts it might seem dry, repetitive and of small, if any, value. For me who is used to the method and likes it, the book was a joy to read. What Russell does for most of the book is give different definitions of evil and then gives examples of actions which would or would not be regarded as an evil action which goes against our/his intuition on what an evil action is. I give a couple of examples which will give those interested in the book an idea of what to expect from the book.
One definition is that an evil is action if and only if it causes feelings of horror which does cover some actions previous definitions have missed, but Russell points out this would include someone walking a tight rope over a chasm as it induces horror in a lot of people and we certainly wouldn't want to count that as an evil actions and he concludes that definition doesn't hold. Later in the book he discusses definitions which are based on the psychology of the person doing the potentially evil action and starts with the definition that an act is evil if and only if it is morally wrong and is malicious. He rejects this definition as he points out this would include very small wrongdoings and he gives the example of someone out of malice telling a lie about a rival which embarrasses her in front of her friends. While Russell agrees this is wrong he doesn't believe the wrongdoing is of the magnitude that it should be called evil. So the next proposed definition is naturally that an action is evil if and only if it is extremely wrong and malicious. And so on.
This is how most of the book is written. Russell gives different definitions and then discusses how well they correspond to our intuitions on evil actions. If you are someone who believes you know evil when you see it, then this book is probably not for you. For me it was perfect though. I certainly don't agree with Russell on everything, rather the opposite actually. I'm doubtful evil exists, I'm skeptical that evil has any explanatory value and my intuition is that if evil exists it has something to do with the psychology of the person performing the act. My intuition is also much less clear than Russell's is in the example above about the person lying to embarrass her rival out of malice. But by reading the book and his discussions I got a much better understanding of the different views on evil which gives me better tools to understand other people's views and engage in a more fruitful discussion on the subject and while I didn't find a perfect definition of evil it made me aware that my intuitions of evil lies closest to some kind of definition which takes as its starting point the psychology of the perpetrator.

As said the book is quite short and while I think Russell in general does a good job with limited space he has, on some occasions the discussion feels cut short. An example of this is his discussion of whether evil as a concept is harmful and if it has any explanatory value. It is not that Russell said anything wrong, it's just that more could have been said.

Highly recommended for anyone who wants a quick overview of the philosophical discussion on evil.

[Jacob Hudgins · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some interesting thought experiments here. The author attempts to develop a secular definition of evil. He admits that there are numerous philosophers who do not believe that evil is a real thing, but then he does not engage with them at all.

The glaring oversight here is that as he reasons through the various standards for what constitutes an evil act, he repeatedly reverts to subjectivism. He is searching for what we would “all agree” is evil and runs through scenarios that prompt us to say whether we feel something is evil or not. Subjectivity on this issue creates infinite regression. Why do we not ask Ted Bundy what evil is? He might have different definitions than we do, which suddenly changes the meaning of evil (if it is all subjective). Or can we not ask Bundy because he is evil? In which case it is a sort of mental illness. And how do we decide which non-evil people get to define evil? Might not evil people know best?

Bottom line is that most humans feel some actions are evil, but that absent some sort of objective truth, there is no logical reason for them to do so.

[Eilish Gilligan · Rating 2 out of 5]

for such an interesting topic this book was incredibly dry

[G Flores · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am not a philosopher, so I don't know how to review a book like this exactly. I have the same sort of passing interest in philosophy as I do in geology or coding - I think it's neat and I'd like to know about it, but I seldom care to take the time to learn.

Despite that, I found this to be a largely enjoyable ruminations on the definitions and parameters of evil. While discussing such incredibly heavy and terrible topics as serial killers/rapists, war criminals and terrorists in a quasi-dispassionate academic context can feel unsavory, I think it is no less valuable even for the everyman such as myself to consider what we as individuals and as people consider to be or define as an evil act or an evil person or if the concept of evil as it exists in the popular imagination does more harm than good.

It does not overextend its welcome, which is good, because it started to get tedious near the end, and despite the book's attempt to arrive at an objective measure or definition of evil, I at least walked away with a better understanding of my own personal definitions and considerations regarding the nature of evil.

[Sarah Faichney · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Being Evil" presents a philosophical perspective of what it means to be evil, drawing on historical examples from acts of terrorism, murder, genocide and more isolated cases. Luke Russell provides a series of potential definitions. I listened to the audiobook version. Narration by James Cameron Stewart was a little dull, making it more difficult to engage with the material but an excellent sleep aid. The book considers a variety of themes including moral horror and intentional objects, how we use language, comprehension, looking beyond our emotive response and the dangers of dehumanising perpetrators. The evidence is considered and presented in a methodical manner, as in a research project. I felt that the book raised more questions than it answered so it would make an ideal book group choice.

[Dawn · Rating 5 out of 5]

What is evil? How does one define an action or person as evil? This philosophy book discusses it in depth. It looks at it from all sides and is very thought provoking. One must be willing to be open minded even if it goes against your own preconceived notion on what "evil" means. Often it is a visceral reaction to something inherent. A word used to describe the incomprehensible actions of others. However, it also cautions that the word used wrongly could have detrimental side effect. By labeling an action or person "evil" it may cause society to not dig deeper to find the things that caused those things to develop. The word is also used frequently to dehumanize other people especially ones in marginalized communities. It's a book worth reading and considering with an open mind.

[John Martindale · Rating 5 out of 5]

Russell's writing was clear enough to follow along as I listened to an audiobook, something that is rather rare for philosophical works. I like how Russell's book embodied something I think philosophy should do, and that is to ask (like Socrates) what something is and then critically evaluate the seemingly probable proposals, and provide counterexamples--ever muddying the water. It is fiendishly hard to define something, and for some souls, it is incredibly interesting and illuminating to wrestle with the complexities. It is an interesting reality that so many things that obviously exist are almost impossible to define to everyone's satisfaction. I think the philosophers who move on to claim that things like evil do not exist err, fortunately, Russell does work towards a definition of evil that works well enough for him.

[Beth · Rating 2 out of 5]

While reading the book, I kept fluctuating between thinking this was just all a self-indulgent mind game and thinking this was a really important exploration of the concept of evil. The chapters that delved into what a definition of evil might be led me to think it was an important exploration. But the final chapters on whether people could be evil, and the distinction between an evildoer and an evil person, brought me back to feeling this was all a superficial mind game.
Do I have more depth of thought about evil now than I did before reading the book? ...
...
...
Maybe a bit.

[OjoAusana · Rating 4 out of 5]

*received for free from netgalley for honest review* 4.5 Pretty interesting book and pretty much what i expected but in a good way. Last book i read like this ended up devoting almost an entire chapter on pedophilia and how it should be legal and not frowned upon....so F-ing happy this book didnt have anything like that.

[Amanda Branom · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not a great read. Russell’s final remarks are insightful enough, but he first takes you through all of the wrong answers of what it means to be evil in order to get there.

Reading was ultimately tedious, and I found myself wanting more of how the language of evil has been used (like how Russell mentions Warren’s tweet or Bush’s condemnation of 9/11) than a pure definitions debate.

[Conner Horak-Flood · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting but forgettable. Amazing how this book simultaneously feels exploitative in its gratuitous descriptions of heinous acts, but is also pretty dry... even boring. It's hard to wrap your head around it, but it's true. I really have nothing else to say about it. It's like... fine.

[Ravi Warrier · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love the logical process followed by the author and would consider this a logical perspective rather than purely a philosophical debate.
If you are interested in both philosophy and logic, you'll love this book. And even if you aren't, there's plenty of food for thought in this book.

[Elijah Benson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Mediocre. Philosophers are just men with tenure who argue over the definitions of words.

[Amna · Rating 5 out of 5]

من أفضل الكتب التي قرأت

[Craig · Rating 4 out of 5]

Maybe not the feel good hit of the summer, or what I should be reading right now for my mental health, but it delivered a deeply resonant introspection for me as I engaged the concepts.

[Gabriella (Ferreira) · Rating 3 out of 5]

I want to give this 3.5 stars, ideally. This was a nice short read about something I often wonder about - the author did not use big philosophical words to confuse the subject matter, and he got to the point every chapter with no frills.

[Ahmed Aposhady · Rating 4 out of 5]

الحمدلله حمدا كثيرا طيبا مباركا فيه
انتهيت من قراءة كتاب الشر للكاتب لوك راسل .

يعبر الكتاب عن رؤيه فلسفيه للكاتب لتعريفه عن الشر و متي يصبح الإنسان شريراً وهل صفة الشر تكتسب ام يولد بها الإنسان.

وهل هذة الصفه قابله للتغيير ام لا ، اسأله كثيره و إجابات اكثر و فلسفه خاصه عن هذة الصفه .

اكثر شيء لفت انتباهي خلال قراءتي للكتاب ان هناك مركب يسمي الأوكسيداز أحادي الأمين أ يوجد بالمخ بدرجات متفاوتة وعندما يزيد مع ظروف بيئيه تشجع علي العنف يصبح الإنسان اكثر عنفا و عدوانية تجاه مجتمعه.

وبالتالي هناك اشخاص يولدون عدوانين تجاه اقرانهم نتيجه لزيادة هذا المركب بالمخ .

[Sara Ali Almasoud Sara.Almasoud00 · Rating 5 out of 5]

رأيي في الكتاب:
1. مختصر و مزود بالمراجع
2.كلمات فلسفية عن تعريف الشر من اول ما اعتقد الملحدون عدم وجوده إلى ان صوره في بعض الأنفس و ما هو التعريف الأدق له
3. عندي وجهة نظر في تعريف الشر تختلف عن الكاتب وهو : كل فعل سئ بقصد او دون قصد صغير كان او كبير قديم او حديث ينسب لصاحبه دون غيره يحمل وزه بقدر حمله ( و من يعمل مثقال ذرة شرا يرى)

#سارة_المسعود

Tweeter :
@saraalmasoud00
Instagram :
@saraalmasoud00
Snap:
Lady 2020
YouTube:
https://youtube.com/channel/UCkE_1XI9...

@sara.almasoud00
TikTok:

@sara.almasoud00