Good Is Better Than Evil

[acropolis]

Pragmatically speaking I would argue.

This is all assuming that by 'good' and 'evil' we are only referring to the means to which we want to achieve our ends. If the ends we want is a decent corned beef sandwich, then getting a corned beef sandwich is obviously better than not getting a corned beef sandwich, and labeling either as 'good' or 'evil' is not only pointless, but also arbitrary.

Also, this is focusing on a large scale, assuming the person seeking to achieve a certain ends is a man of power. As Neechy would point out, labels of 'good' and 'evil' to someone who is powerless is also a completely pointless exercise.

Good and evil being in the classical, perhaps even Hollywood sense. Seeking to achieve my ends evilly, I will break my word as needed, I will stab people in the back whenever, and I will march my troops to death if I need to move my army. I will do what it takes, slash and burn. Trying to be 'good', I will always keep my word. I will not sacrifice lives unless it is absolutely necessary. I won't kill civilians. I will never turn my back on allies.

Fair enough? Now clearly both game plans have their advantages. Under the 'good' game plan, you get good morale, people are willing to trust you, the average person wants you to succeed and will often do what they can to help. However, this tends to be very constrictive and leave few options much of the time.

Running evil, you are completely unrestricted. That may be the only real advantage, but it is huge. All the options in the world are open to you, and it simply can't be underestimated.

So at this point, on the face of it, it's difficult to make a comparison. How do you compare troop morale to a better selection of options? You really can't. I admit it.

But. After 30 years of running the 'good' plan, if all you need to do is stab someone in the back to achieve your ends, you can still do it. Whereas in the reverse situation, running evil all that time, all you need is for someone to trust you, you can't do it.

Good always has the option selection of evil available to it, and can make use of them whenever it becomes absolutely necessary. Evil never has the advantages of good available.

[Deepflow]

i think troop "morale" will be pretty high if you indoctrinate them into your evil ways, making evil even more powerful, it always is.

luckily, there are more good than evil people in the world, so all is safe

dear god, what a glib answer

[queball]

It depends whether other people's trust is worth more than your ill-gotten gains. There's no point being liked and poor.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

but I claim no more right than my right to have an opinion on a world which belongs as much to me as anyone else.

ironically much greater shares of the world belong to certain other people and entities than to you.

Originally Posted by queball

It depends whether other people's trust is worth more than your ill-gotten gains. There's no point being liked and poor.

i'm not sure what you mean.

per my post, i think i clearly stated my stance that other people's trust was merely a means of no intrinsic value...

[Nodrog]

What you are saying has very little bearing on reality. People dont choose their ends and then decide as an afterthought whether to pursue them by 'good' or 'evil' means. It's almost inconceivable that Mother Theresa would have committed armed robbery in order to raise money for Africa - it would be completely inconsistent with her character. Both the selection of means and ends is normally based on fundamental principles held by the chooser - you cant split them up and treat them as being unrelated.

[queball]

Originally Posted by acropolis

i'm not sure what you mean.

per my post, i think i clearly stated my stance that other people's trust was merely a means of no intrinsic value...

But by lying, or slashing and pillaging, you gain money or power. Edit: which you can use to achieve any particular ends.

An accountant might put down trust as an asset worth $100. You can "sell" the asset, by stabbing someone in the back, or you can use it over time by co-operating.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

What you are saying has very little bearing on reality. People dont choose their ends and then decide as an afterthought whether to pursue them by 'good' or 'evil' means. It's almost inconceivable that Mother Theresa would have committed armed robbery in order to raise money for Africa - it would be completely inconsistent with her character. Both the selection of means and ends is normally based on fundamental principles held by the chooser - you cant split them up and treat them as being unrelated.

i think mother theresa would have committed armed robbery, given that that means would have fed enough hungry children/healed enough sick. maybe i'm just a romantic.

tbh, i don't really see armed robbery as being an 'evil' means. Chaotic Good, though I'm sure you consider Robin Hood to be the utmost evil.

I do feel that if you want to pursue a strict comparison of the merits of good and evil (and i do), the place to look is the means. Because while you can never reach any clear conclusion about which ends are superior, you have an objective measure of means: success is superior to failure.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by queball

But by lying, or slashing and pillaging, you gain money or power. Edit: which you can use to achieve any particular ends.

An accountant might put down trust as an asset worth $100. You can "sell" the asset, by stabbing someone in the back, or you can use it over time by co-operating.

Oh I agree with all that you are saying, I'm unclear on what your point is.

And in the case of cooperating, I doubt you are 'using up' your trust.

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

No they don't who says?

it's written out explicitly in the social contract

[Fyodor]

Not to digress from the topic, but the opposite of good is bad, not evil. Evil is a purely fictionalized human emotion that we use to define "very bad". So being that there is no opposite of evil, does it truly exist. ( I think it was neitzche who first made this point)

http://www.unc.edu/~megw/Nietzsche.html

[queball]

Originally Posted by acropolis

Oh I agree with all that you are saying, I'm unclear on what your point is.

That trust is the same as any other asset. You can sell it or keep it, and each has pros or cons. Suppose we know a monkey each. You're nice to yours, I con mine out of a banana. You can still use your monkey's trust to achieve your ends, but I can use my banana to slip up my enemies. Each has pros and cons.

And in the case of cooperating, I doubt you are 'using up' your trust.

I'm not much a people person .

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by acropolis

i think mother theresa would have committed armed robbery, given that that means would have fed enough hungry children/healed enough sick. maybe i'm just a romantic.

I find this exceptionally hard to believe. As far as I know, she was first and foremost a Christian. Her Christianity influenced her 'ends', and it will also have influenced her 'means'.

I'm sure you consider Robin Hood to be the utmost evil.

Depends on the interpretation. Is he robbing the rich and giving to the poor, or is he reclaiming the tax money stolen by an oppressive government?

I do feel that if you want to pursue a strict comparison of the merits of good and evil (and i do), the place to look is the means.

I dont understand why. What purpose do you think the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' serve? Why do we need morality in the first place?

Because while you can never reach any clear conclusion about which ends are superior

I strongly disagree

you have an objective measure of means: success is superior to failure.

Nonsense. Would Hitler's success have been superior to his failure?

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by queball

That trust is the same as any other asset. You can sell it or keep it, and each has pros or cons. Suppose we know a monkey each. You're nice to yours, I con mine out of a banana. You can still use your monkey's trust to achieve your ends, but I can use my banana to slip up my enemies. Each has pros and cons.

fair enough. i think I'm starting to see your point. Yes, trust is an asset. For the monkeys, my post's point was that after I've used my monkey's trust for a long time, then I can con him out of his bananas. I'm having my cake and eating it too.

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

The book by Rousseau?

not the book, (which wasn't entitled 'the social contract'), the contract itself.

Originally Posted by queball

That trust is the same as any other asset. You can sell it or keep it, and each has pros or cons. Suppose we know a monkey each. You're nice to yours, I con mine out of a banana. You can still use your monkey's trust to achieve your ends, but I can use my banana to slip up my enemies. Each has pros and cons.

fair enough. i think I'm starting to see your point. Yes, trust is an asset. For the monkeys, my post's point was that after I've used my monkey's trust for a long time, then I can con him out of his bananas. I'm having my cake and eating it too.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I dont understand why. What purpose do you think the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' serve? Why do we need morality in the first place?

i believe that i've treated good and evil entirely amorally so far.

i've used the specific words 'good' and 'evil', which are often, perhaps usually, found to be involved in questions of moral nature only as recognizable terms to describe well-known sets of actions. we can call the game plan noted by its focus on trust, loyalty, and cooperation Gordon and the other route noted by betrayal, dishonesty, and willingness to sacrifice Nodrog if you prefer.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I strongly disagree

Let me rephrase: you can argue forever without both people in the debate ever reaching the same conclusion.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Nonsense. Would Hitler's success have been superior to his failure?

I'd assume that would depend on if I were Hitler or not.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

Not to digress from the topic, but the opposite of good is bad, not evil. Evil is a purely fictionalized human emotion that we use to define "very bad". So being that there is no opposite of evil, does it truly exist. ( I think it was neitzche who first made this point)

http://www.unc.edu/~megw/Nietzsche.html

Nietzsche didnt think evil meant 'very bad'. Nietzsche thought that "good versus evil" and "good versus bad" represented 2 very different approaches to 'morality'. Good and bad are used in the way we would talk about a 'good hammer' - we arent saying the hammer is ethically sound, but that it is good at performing its function - perhaps it is heavier, stronger and less fragile than other hammers. A 'bad hammer' would be one that was too clumsy to be used properly, or was rusty, or had some other fault that made it useless. In the context of humans, a 'good' person is similarly one who is strong, powerful, noble, and generally worthy of respect. A 'bad' person is one who is weak, craven, cowardly, and so on. Calling someone 'bad' isnt a moral judgement in the sense we make moral judgments - its closer to being an insult, as if you were saying they were a pathetic and inferior person. "Good and evil" on the other hand represent the moral judgements most people make today, and arose out of Judeo-Christian ressentiment in an attempt to subdue the strong and glorify mediocrity and so on.

[queball]

Originally Posted by acropolis

fair enough. i think I'm starting to see your point. Yes, trust is an asset. For the monkeys, my post's point was that after I've used my monkey's trust for a long time, then I can con him out of his bananas. I'm having my cake and eating it too.

Yeah, it just depends on the circumstances. You might need the banana right now before your rival gets too powerful. You might only be able to get the banana through some confluence of events. Perhaps your friend is getting old, or your trust in him is waning. etc

When you play chess, do you prefer not to sacrifice pieces?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by acropolis

i believe that i've treated good and evil entirely amorally so far.

I dont think this makes sense. What criteria are you using to classify actions as being good or evil? WHY is a certain means 'evil' and another 'good'? What distinction are you making?

i've used the specific words 'good' and 'evil', which are often, perhaps usually, found to be involved in questions of moral nature only as recognizable terms to describe well-known sets of actions. we can call the game plan noted by its focus on trust, loyalty, and cooperation Gordon and the other route noted by betrayal, dishonesty, and willingness to sacrifice Nodrog if you prefer.

I think this would be a more sensible option, since the words 'good' and 'evil' are loaded with certain connotaitons. But the question now becomes - why do you want to divide the actions up in that particular way. Why not call "trust, willingness to sacrifice and betrayal" Gordon, and "dishonesty, loyalty and cooperation" Nodrog?

You seem to just be uncritically accepting a distinction which most people make without having any real idea why they make it.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by queball

Yeah, it just depends on the circumstances. You might need the banana right now before your rival gets too powerful. You might only be able to get the banana through some confluence of events. Perhaps your friend is getting old, or your trust in him is waning. etc

When you play chess, do you prefer not to sacrifice pieces?

I always avoid sacrificing a piece if I've promised it I wouldn't until I'm sure I'll never need that piece again.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I think this would be a more sensible option, since the words 'good' and 'evil' are loaded with certain connotaitons. But the question now becomes - why do you want to divide the actions up in that particular way. Why not call "trust, willingness to sacrifice and betrayal" Gordon, and "dishonesty, loyalty and cooperation" Nodrog?

You seem to just be uncritically accepting a distinction which most people make without having any real idea why they make it.

connotation was definitely a word i was looking for there.

the split was still not made arbitrarily. You can't have trust and betrayal; they are mutually exclusive. If you want trust you can't have betrayal, nor dishonesty, nor backstabbing, nor willingness to sacrifice.

Looking at six attributes:
A) Trust
B) Honesty
C) Loyalty
D) Betrayal
E) Willingness to sacrifice
F) Dishonesty

It's a self segregating population. If you have A, you can have B and C but neither D nor E nor F.

If you have E, you can have F and D but never A B or C.

So naturally we will have two sets, A B and C (Gordon) and D E and F (Nodrog).

[MrL_JaKiri]

Posting in a Freddy N thread.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Sorry was interested in what you were saying but now I see you're talking shite.

i'm sorry that rousseau didn't specify what portion of the world would be your share in the year 2005.

maybe i'm misinterpreting you.

Do you not like Rousseau,
Do you not believe in the social contract,
or did I say something contradictory?

[Yahwe]

nobody likes the french

[Deepflow]

I like rousseau, capital fellow.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by acropolis

i believe that i've treated good and evil entirely amorally so far. .

Have to agree with Nod that this isn't coherent.

Ends and means are both subject to what might be termed ethical evaluation. Ends or means can be "good" or "evil". The only real difference is that means tend to be more heavily judged on tactical (i.e. practical, non-ethical conditions).

However, I don't think any of this is particularly meaningful. People act in a context dependent manner. The means I find acceptable will depend on the end that is being sought (or defended/risked). Almost no-one would say Schindler was an "evil" man because he had to lie / betray people's trust. Certain patterns of behaviour (e.g. blind obedience or rash rebelliousness) can be dangerous, but that's different.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well Rousseau is as Deepflow says a top bloke, your opinion or intepretation of his work has transformed from a subject of little interest to a subject of no interest.

because rich people have more money than you,

you therefore are uninterested in my interpretation of 18th century french writers?

a step was missed by me.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

What has rich peopel having more money that me have to do with anything? Aside from anything else Rousseau is of the position broadly speaking that there is no natural right to private property and it is illegimate.

He also said that there is no natural right to govern.

Does that mean all government is inherently illegitimate (according to him)?

(i see what your point was now. thx)

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by acropolis

He also said that there is no natural right to govern.

Does that mean all government is inherently illegitimate (according to him)?

no it just means that there is no natural right to govern

I'm not entirely convinced that this thread isn't a thinly veiled attempt to get GD to teach you philosophy.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

no it just means that there is no natural right to govern.

then why does the statement "there is no natural right to property" mean "property is illegitimate"?

that's my Q

Originally Posted by Yahwe

I'm not entirely convinced that this thread isn't a thinly veiled attempt to get GD to teach you philosophy.

would that be so wrong?

perhaps EVIL?

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by acropolis

then why does the statement "there is no natural right to property" mean "property is illegitimate"?

that's my Q
would that be so wrong?

perhaps EVIL?

"Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains." -- Rousseau, The Social Contract, 1762

T&F was right, <3

anyway, what other kind of right to property would there be? The kind that is gained under the "illegitimate" governments laws? The kind that is taken by force?

obviously, "there is no natural right to property" is a fairly abstract statement, whilst "property is illegitimate" is a far more practical one, the kind of thing that revolutionaries end up taking far more seriously. The point is, that Rousseaus idea of the perfect society is one where the individuals who are a part of it make the laws DIRECTLY. These laws are then enacted by magistrates, apparently.

Anyway, all you are doing here, by making a leap from the first statement to the other, is turning a theory into practice. Something that really wouldn't have worked with Rousseau's writings (except in very small societies). Therefore, the whole thing is a bit silly.

edit: obviously i didnt actually answer your QUESTION as it was pretty silly too, but hopefully this will at least help.

[Yahwe]

Rousseau has been perverted by the anarchists to suit their political cause. all Rousseau does is advocate more personal responsibility; which actually means the individual accepting duties under Rousseau's rather naieve belief that that'll all turn out ok because man is inherently good.

thus government is not inherently illitimate but rather inherently unnecessary and through that lack of necessity it is desireable to minimise government in proportion with increasing personal responsibility. with the obvious end that eventually personal responsibility will replace government. it's just not true to say he says government is 'illigetimate' in a strict sense.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

THE first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows, "Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."

Fairly unambivalent about property there: http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq_04.htm

fairly unambivalent about land ownership, yes. But no sane person argues in favor of land ownership anymore.

When I say "property" I'm not referring to land.

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

and then there is this fantasic quote:

"We cannot therefore, from the servility of nations already enslaved, judge of the natural disposition of mankind for or against slavery; we should go by the prodigious efforts of every free people to save itself from oppression. I know that the former are for ever holding forth in praise of the tranquillity they enjoy in their chains, and that they call a state of wretched servitude a state of peace: miserrimam servitutem pacem appellant.6 But when I observe the latter sacrificing pleasure, peace, wealth, power and life itself to the preservation of that one treasure, which is so disdained by those who have lost it; when I see free-born animals dash their brains out against the bars of their cage, from an innate impatience of captivity; when I behold numbers of naked savages, that despise European pleasures, braving hunger, fire, the sword and death, to preserve nothing but their independence, I feel that it is not for slaves to argue about liberty."

http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq.htm

what do you think he is saying in this quote?
'government is illegitimate'
or
'freedom is good'
?

[dda]

The title of this thread is: Is Good Better than Evil?

The answer is yes.

However, good is defined differently by different individuals in different situations.

If someone decides that private property is illegitimate and moves into my house, they will think it is good and i will think it is evil.

When I take my 12 gauge and blow the ****'s brains out and drag his carcas out into the street for the garbage man. I will think that is good but the victim's relatives will think it is evil.

When the victim's friends and relatives decide to hang me from the tree in my front yard and burn my house down, they will think that is good and I will think it is evil.

[Thermodynamics]

Apologies if anything here has already been said etc. [i'm too lazy to read through the whole thread]


Good and evil are relative- both are conceptions based on a moral code which is subject to the way we interact as a social entity- if we pause for a moment, and look at the laws which govern our society, most of them are geared towards ensuring that are society functions and works together- by ensuring that each individual is allocated rights which are to be upheld, which are there attempting to keep each said individual safe and secure. If we consider these laws as a very basic definition of what our society considers right and wrong, we notice that "wrong" is often based around something which shall upset or result in a negative effect on an individual.

Yet, if we look at the many, many different cultures on our globe- they are huge discrepancies- why? Because its all relative- subject to geographical and cultural variation.

Its all relative- its one of those things whoch is extremely hard to pin down and give an all-encompassing definition for.