Are those who commit evil acts in the name of good truly good?
- Thread starter icame
- Start date
Recommended Videos
no they are what is no as Lawful Evil. They will fallow the law, and bring judgment to those who don't fallow the law. So they are putting themselves below the low standards for the better of everyone. Those people, although bad themselves have a good heart... but not a good mind.
Your topic suggests that morality isn't subjective., which is wrong.
If I'm given the decision between killing a baby or the entire world population is killed, am I evil if I choose to kill the child?
If I'm given the decision between killing a baby or the entire world population is killed, am I evil if I choose to kill the child?
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.
Mainly this also presupposes that evil and good even exist. Right and wrong I would believe to exist, subject to change and adaptation across cultures and time, but good and evil are too flimsy. They are concepts used to justify rightness or wrongness. Rather than asking if doing good makes you evil, the question should be if doing wrong can still leave you right, which it can't.
Doing evil can be right, doing good can be wrong, thus we have Knight Templars and Anti-Heroes, but these two examples just highlight how flawed the concept of 'good' and 'evil' really are.
Subjective morality, based not upon an antiquated, Biblically driven notion of good and evil, but upon what is right or wrong dependant upon the society at the time.
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.
Mainly this also presupposes that evil and good even exist. Right and wrong I would believe to exist, subject to change and adaptation across cultures and time, but good and evil are too flimsy. They are concepts used to justify rightness or wrongness. Rather than asking if doing good makes you evil, the question should be if doing wrong can still leave you right, which it can't.
Doing evil can be right, doing good can be wrong, thus we have Knight Templars and Anti-Heroes, but these two examples just highlight how flawed the concept of 'good' and 'evil' really are.
Subjective morality, based not upon an antiquated, Biblically driven notion of good and evil, but upon what is right or wrong dependant upon the society at the time.
I think it is highly circumstantial. Hitler thought he was doing good. Was he? What about killing people to prevent genocide? Both are examples of what most people would agree as "evil", but their ends aren't equally moral.
I think you would be the place of the soldier at that point. You are mindlessly doing what you are told. The entity giving you this choice would be the evil one.Daystar Clarion said:
I think it depends. I mean, if you manage to prove to him what really is good, then a really good person would drop whatever he's doing to do what's actually good. But if you prove to him what "actual good" is and he still does evil, then I guess he isn't so good.
Or something?
Or something?
It's a lazy theory, let me add that there is no entity that is doing the world population killing part. Lets just say that, for reasons unknown, this child must die in order to save the world. No evil genius behind the scenes.crudus said:
Depends on the circumstances really, you can't just have one straightforward answer to all these type of situations. Although, I think in some circumstances, people should be allowed to damn themselves to achieve a greater good, sort of like light from death note. This still makes them evil, but it ultimately achieves good, which could be acceptable.
If there is no entity behind it then you are just a crazy person killing baby and that is bad. Actually, I will accept the baby is the last human who is HIV positive. At which point I will say it is still evil.Daystar Clarion said:
p.s. not sure what you mean by "lazy theory".
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.
"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.
But aren't you assuming you can predict the future 100% accurately? Which is not always, or even often, the case.Daystar Clarion said:
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.Squidden said:
