Are those who commit evil acts in the name of good truly good?

[WorldCritic]

Nope, they're still evil. Misguided maybe, but still evil.

 

[Blemontea]

"The road to Hades is pathed with good intentions"

As for my personal beliefs the person who commits the said act is neither good nor evil just balancing the world the way that is needed.

 

[enriel]

No one is capable of committing acts of true evil as far as I'm concerned.

Morals are completely subjective, so everyone has their own idea of what evil is; and it's drawn from outside influences. You would not knowingly and willingly do something you believe to be evil, except to serve what you see as a better purpose because humans cannot simply be evil for the sake of evil.

If you commit what you view as an evil act for the sake of something better, than in your own eyes it was a necessary means to complete your end and you can either accept that or know that you are now evil and continue to fight for good, but don't expect yourself to be included in the glory.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

They're good in their own minds, and sometimes that's all they care about.

 

[TheTaco007]

There is no such thing as good or evil. Only perspective.

 

[Squidden]

No, he isn't just some crazy person killing a baby. For reasons unknown he has to kill the baby, or else the world's population will die.

The scenario is unrealistic. People don't just die because a child lives(especially the world population). Why they would die is quite important to the matter. That large of scale is something someone would have to orchestrate, or it would have to be some disease(although it could be both). There's only a few things that would kill Earth's population, and none of them hinge on the existence of a child. The reason why the world's population will die matters. If it is a disease, then there are ways around it, and we may even be able to learn from it. It could do more good to keep him alive. If the kid is the spawn of Satan and will start committing genocide in 20 seconds then it probably isn't evil to kill it.

Well of course it's unrealistic, it isn't supposed to be a real scenario, it's hypothetical. If you had to kill a baby because for SOME REASON it would make the world's population die out, would it be evil to kill the baby?

 

[crudus]

Well of course it's unrealistic, it isn't supposed to be a real scenario, it's hypothetical. If you had to kill a baby because for SOME REASON it would make the world's population die out, would it be evil to kill the baby?

It is like strictly controlled, sterile lab results(internal validity I think it is called). However, since the lab was so controlled the results don't apply to the outside world. There are some things in the scenario that need to be answered before we actually bring a moral choice into this because they matter if it is good or evil. Morality isn't black and white like the scenario suggests. It is like it is missing an axis or something similar.

"The road to Hades is pathed with good intentions"

What is that quote from? I heard it on DS9 once and never heard it anywhere else.

 

[Gigaguy64]

There are too many factors that can go into this to say for sure.
I honestly don't know if the person would be evil, but i think that a good person can do evil things.

Y'know, theres an old saying.

"The way to Hell is paved with good intentions"

You may be acting in someone's best interest or think you are somehow fulfilling a greater good but at the end of the day, you are still performing evil.

Pretty much this.

 

[PurplePlatypus]

A lot of the evil committed by humans in the world are acts committed for what they believe to be a good cause. People aren?t just evil; people don?t do evil for evils sake. That would be a ridiculous cartoon villain. No, a lot of people believe or convince themselves they are doing good.

Not to say that a good cause might not call for evil acts to achieve it, the evil act though is still evil act even if it may be... permissible, given certain circumstances. An evil act doesn?t become good because it?s for a good cause.

 

[Giest4life]

Just a thought that occurred to me today. Want to know my fellow escapists opinion.

Being a a sceptic, I shall reserve my opinion to myself. However, doesn't this belong better in the Religion and Politics section rather than Off-topic discusscion? Seriously, OP, how do you sort through your underwear at home?

 

[supermariner]

'good' is subjective
there's no set-in-stone definition of what is good and what is evil
each persons own variant on their feelings of good and evil can be incredibly different form another persons
and who's to say who's right and who's wrong?
so the question is unanswerable

 

[Valkyrie101]

No. If you have to do evil, even as a one off situation with a vastly greater result (see above baby killing versus entire world saving) then you are not truly good.

But that doesn't mean you aren't right, which is very different to good, but too often gets lumped in with it. If killing that baby means saving the entire human race, it is the right decision to kill the baby, even if it is an evil act.

I think that that would be the act of a truly good person. To put it another way, anyone who lets humanity die to avoid killing one baby is a pretty shit person.

Anyway, in response to the topic title: that varies enormously. You have to consider the ratio of evil performed to good caused by said evil.

 

[Biffin Bridge]

Evil is a moral choice. That is why most murders are committed out of revenge or some misplaced sense of loyalty.

To put it another way we all have a sort of weight and scales device inside us that allows us to do things that under normal circumstances we would find morally repugnant. This happens in the arena of war all the time.

 

[Valkyrie101]

"The road to Hades is pathed with good intentions"

What is that quote from? I heard it on DS9 once and never heard it anywhere else.

I think it's just a proverb. A Google search indicates that it has been attributed to numerous people.

 

[Matthew Wilson]

It's hard to tell what's good and evil anymore. My uncle's a psychologist professor at a university in England and he asks me this question.
A man is on a bus, on the seat in front of him is a heavily pregnant woman. As the bus drives along a car loses control and heads towards the bus, if it hits it will hit the side the man and woman is on and kill them. The man notices this, if he jumps out the way and leaves the woman he'll be hated for letting her die. However if he pushes the woman out of the way, in her condition she'll have a miscarriage and he'll be hated for killing her child. There are no other options aside from do nothing which, as said before, would kill them both. What would the man do?
(Please note that my uncle said the man is just a commodity, it could be anyone)

 

[Twilight_guy]

No. If a murder a bunch of dudes "for Jesus" its still wrong even though if I did it in the name of good. That's why the crusades are such a horrible thing.

 

[Danish rage]

A man doing evil deeds in the name of good, is only pretending to be good.

 

[icame]

Just a thought that occurred to me today. Want to know my fellow escapists opinion.

Being a a sceptic, I shall reserve my opinion to myself. However, doesn't this belong better in the Religion and Politics section rather than Off-topic discusscion? Seriously, OP, how do you sort through your underwear at home?

They're all labeled.

 

[Saltyk]

Y'know, theres an old saying.

"The way to Hell is paved with good intentions"

You may be acting in someone's best interest or think you are somehow fulfilling a greater good but at the end of the day, you are still performing evil.

Well, I wouldn't say that this is limited to a person committing evil deeds seeking good results.

Did you ever see the movie Kingdom of Heaven? There's a scene where the hero, Balian, is given the option to marry Sibylla, the wife of Guy de Lusignan, which would put him in line as the next King of Jerusalem. This would also prevent an absolute theological genocidal despot, Lusignan, from taking the thrown. He doesn't as it wouldn't be right. Keep in mind that Balian and Sibylla do have feelings for each other.

In the end, Lusignan becomes King and kills countless Muslims, and when a Muslim messager came to demand the people who committed the acts, he kills him. He then rides out to fight a massive battle with the Muslim main force and has his army slaughtered.

When the main force comes to take Jerusalem, our hero is forced to lead a ragtag force to defend the city. Not because it is holy ground, but because of the innocent people that will die. After barely surviving for days, Saladin, leader of the Muslim forces did spare Balian and all the people in the city, largely out of respect for Balian.

Balian then goes back home and marries Sibylla. Say what?

If Balian had done one "wrong" thing he would have saved countless lives and prevented a war. This becomes even more ridiculous when you realize that he ended up marrying her anyway.

"The way to Hell is paved with good intentions" indeed.