[ageofwant]

But what is evil ? What you decide it to be ? What if I happen to disagree with your notion of evil, am I now evil as well ? You seem to make fundamental mistake in assuming that evil is something concrete and fixed in some sort of absolute moral framework. Realise that both the framework and the "place of evil" are, within very relaxed bounds almost arbitrary, is the point that's being made.

[AnimalMuppet]

Some things really are evil. Not nearly as many as people call "evil", but some things genuinely, objectively, are evil.

Take Pol Pot, for example. He deliberately killed one quarter of his country's population. If you think it's just my decision to call that evil, then you are from a place that is so morally different from me that I don't know how to even begin having a conversation with you.

But Pol Pot thought he was doing good. The only response I can imagine is to try to resist that with arms. I don't know what else is possible. But in doing so, I have to make very sure that I don't become some kind of monster myself, rationalizing the evil that I do and calling it good.

[thisrod]

Let's not forget the context in which poor and unsophisticated people decided that was a good idea, and the names of the international aggressors whose crimes encompass the evil of the whole conflict:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freedom_Deal

Do you think that President Kennedy was an evil man?

[pekk]

The bombing of Cambodia cannot possibly justify anything Pol Pot did to his own population.

[thisrod]

I didn't suggest that it did.

However, in the context of moral outlooks that people form in that sort of environment, Pol Pot's values are quite normal. Many German soldiers formed similar views during the First World War; they were very well informed compared to the Cambodians, and in a position to know better.