| 000 | 01581naa a2200193uu 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 7112318052823 | ||
| 003 | OSt | ||
| 005 | 20190211163302.0 | ||
| 008 | 071123s2006 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 eng d | ||
| 100 | 1 |
_aANDERSON, Jonathan F _933145 |
|
| 245 | 1 | 0 | _aThe rhetorical impact of evil on public policy |
| 260 |
_aThousand Oaks : _bSAGE, _cJanuary 2006 |
||
| 520 | 3 | _aThe concept of evil is murky, colored as it is with religious undertones and ontological ramifications. Are actions or peopleevil? Is it intention or outcome that matters?Evil can be understood as an intense exploitative connection with another person or a total disconnection with the humanity of others. Normally, it is limited to human actions toward other humans. The term is used to conceptually separate people designated asevil fromthe rest of humanity. Rhetorical use ofevil is an example of sensemakingit places the incomprehensible within an understandable framework. A designation ofevil may also be used to preclude causal analysis. In public policy, its use constructs a worldview that permits, or even demands, undertaking otherwise proscribed actions to destroy the designatedevil. By enabling the commission of what would otherwise be understood as inhumane actions, the rhetorical use of evil facilitates the very behavior it condemns | |
| 650 | 4 |
_aPolítica Pública _912838 |
|
| 773 | 0 | 8 |
_tAdministration & Society _g37, 6, p. 719-730 _dThousand Oaks : SAGE, January 2006 _xISSN 00953997 _w |
| 942 | _cS | ||
| 998 |
_a20071123 _b1805^b _cCarolina |
||
| 998 |
_a20100720 _b1055^b _cDaiane |
||
| 999 |
_aConvertido do Formato PHL _bPHL2MARC21 1.1 _c25097 _d25097 |
||
| 041 | _aeng | ||