>>37897955I think you're wrong. You're defining "evil" as specifically "irredeemable, intrinsic evil," but nobody was ever talking about any such thing. A very small portion of people have ever done evil things because they wanted to be "evil," but they did it because they thought it was "not evil" or else they didn't particularly care. Being wrong about the facts of the situation doesn't make them less evil. Arguably, it would make them more evil.
Instead, the crux of McCarthy (and others') argument is this:
What does it mean for a person to be evil, vs. what does it mean for a person to be broken?
The distinction lies entirely in individual choice.
A person who "is evil" is one who takes evil action through their own decisions, while a person who "is broken" must, by definition, be suffering from some damage not of their own making whereby their evil actions are the inevitable result.
It's self-righteous do-goodery, but what the statement is really saying is "It's not their fault." (and thus, they deserve "compassion" rather than scorn and retaliation.)
