Poll: Good or Evil?
- Thread starter Easykill
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Who or what's at the top?The Negotiator said:Don't worry you are at the bottom of my list.John Galt said:
( Just imagine my list and you can decide for yourself.)PurpleRain said:Who or what's at the top?The Negotiator said:Don't worry you are at the bottom of my list.John Galt said:
I'm getting a little tired of wating for somebody to piss their pants over this so I made up my list.
BTW, I am like RAMBO, but in videogames
BTW, I am like RAMBO, but in videogames
Things to do:
-Blueberry scones
-Your mother
-Wash the dog
-Learn French
-Invade Poland
-John Galt
-Blueberry scones
-Your mother
-Wash the dog
-Learn French
-Invade Poland
-John Galt
i can't pretend to know what i would do with that kind of power. I tend to believe i'd help others, but then the power and my already somewhat arrogant personality would lead me to think that I know best. i would probably end up becoming more and more harsh in my search for the "greater good", and eventually the anger of the people i originally intended to help would vex me and i would become more and more malevolent.
so i dunno what i would do, because i would do my best to avoid the above situation, so it's hard to say. i hope i never have total power thrust upon me.
EDIT: oh wow, i didnt read to much of this topic and was unaware this had become what appears to be a flame war. ignore my post and continue.
so i dunno what i would do, because i would do my best to avoid the above situation, so it's hard to say. i hope i never have total power thrust upon me.
EDIT: oh wow, i didnt read to much of this topic and was unaware this had become what appears to be a flame war. ignore my post and continue.
I am for my personal state of happiness, whatever it may be at any given moment. In other words, one could say personal gain, but any classification is too specific to my taste when applied to the dimension of morality.
To keep things simple, I'll tell you my point of view first: I do not believe in absolute good or evil. I think the notion of such things is an illusion- it's all perspective, and therefore no one can be judged to be good or evil absolutely. What do I mean absolutely? I mean that, for example, if killing is absolutely evil and wrong, then no one would, under any circumstances commit murder. To have something in the absolute is to say that all things in existence keep as much distance as possible from said absolute, and so no real absolute can exist past the truth. The truth is that we, the observers, have our own agendas and our own lists of good and evil. For any one there is something abhorrent and something pious, in one way of looking at things or another. A hitman, for example, would view the murder of his victims as acceptable means to procure a living, and not as something necessarily wrong and unacceptable- because the hitman's ability to kill many a person shows that murder is acceptable.
If one were to call the hitman evil because the hitman murders on a regular basis, then the evil is a perception within the paradigm of the person calling out the hitman. That person cannot fathom himself in the hitman's shoes where he chooses to kill instead of make a living doing something else that does not involve what one considers evil.
So, all in all morality's a list of personal guidelines, and I'd be a liar if I told you I had none. I do, but I never claim them to be the universal rules, and I do not judge others for disagreeing with me- after all, they are all mere egos, not unlike my own, and to be able to step outside one's ego and relate to others is the practice of wisdom, to me.
I also read some of John Galt's posts about altruism. The way I see it is this: Everyone is completely and utterly self-serving. Altruism, objectively, is to deter oneself in a conceivable manner for the benefit or in the interest of another willingly. What drives this will? Did we just stop there? I don't. Personal gain drives the interest of altruism, as it does in all personal conscious action. I believe that people do what they believe it is best to do at any given moment, and so if one were to decide to perform an act of altruism, what one would be getting out of the act is mental satisfaction. Furthermore, one would also be protecting oneself from a sense of guilt.
If making others happy makes you happy, then you have a personal incentive to be an altruist.
So, if you ask me, everyone is self-centered and self-serving. This makes no one good or evil, which works for me. We are, in fact, neither good nor evil. We are.
To keep things simple, I'll tell you my point of view first: I do not believe in absolute good or evil. I think the notion of such things is an illusion- it's all perspective, and therefore no one can be judged to be good or evil absolutely. What do I mean absolutely? I mean that, for example, if killing is absolutely evil and wrong, then no one would, under any circumstances commit murder. To have something in the absolute is to say that all things in existence keep as much distance as possible from said absolute, and so no real absolute can exist past the truth. The truth is that we, the observers, have our own agendas and our own lists of good and evil. For any one there is something abhorrent and something pious, in one way of looking at things or another. A hitman, for example, would view the murder of his victims as acceptable means to procure a living, and not as something necessarily wrong and unacceptable- because the hitman's ability to kill many a person shows that murder is acceptable.
If one were to call the hitman evil because the hitman murders on a regular basis, then the evil is a perception within the paradigm of the person calling out the hitman. That person cannot fathom himself in the hitman's shoes where he chooses to kill instead of make a living doing something else that does not involve what one considers evil.
So, all in all morality's a list of personal guidelines, and I'd be a liar if I told you I had none. I do, but I never claim them to be the universal rules, and I do not judge others for disagreeing with me- after all, they are all mere egos, not unlike my own, and to be able to step outside one's ego and relate to others is the practice of wisdom, to me.
I also read some of John Galt's posts about altruism. The way I see it is this: Everyone is completely and utterly self-serving. Altruism, objectively, is to deter oneself in a conceivable manner for the benefit or in the interest of another willingly. What drives this will? Did we just stop there? I don't. Personal gain drives the interest of altruism, as it does in all personal conscious action. I believe that people do what they believe it is best to do at any given moment, and so if one were to decide to perform an act of altruism, what one would be getting out of the act is mental satisfaction. Furthermore, one would also be protecting oneself from a sense of guilt.
If making others happy makes you happy, then you have a personal incentive to be an altruist.
So, if you ask me, everyone is self-centered and self-serving. This makes no one good or evil, which works for me. We are, in fact, neither good nor evil. We are.
Flame war? Where? This is the Escapist, you really have to mess things up really bad to incite one of those. Just be gentle with the English language and we'll pretty much respect you.the_tralfalmadorian said:
Also, Kikosemmek those are some pretty good points there, the only moral absolutes we have are those we willingly impose on ourselves I guess. But don't you think that people should still be able to pass judgement on others because an action so heinously breaks an accepted standard?
Also#2, when did Kikosemmek say "stuff"? I searched his post for about 10 minutes and now I feel more puzzled than ever. Combined this with his last paragraph, and I think it's safe to say that my mind has been blown.
I agree with Kikosemmek that all actions, whether for personal gain or for the happiness of others, is ultimately for your own pleasure.
As for the man who kidnapped that rich guy's daughter, you all seem to be making the assumption (and this is becoming increasingly false in my opinion) that the rich guy earned his money. I don't like the idea of forcibly redistributing people's money, but the fact of the matter is a lot of rich people get their money in less than legal or fair ways. I am almost positive that the saying "Behind every great fortune there is a great crime" is correct. If the guy essentially stole his money off the backs of those who actually do work, I am able to completely justify the kidnapper's actions.
As for the man who kidnapped that rich guy's daughter, you all seem to be making the assumption (and this is becoming increasingly false in my opinion) that the rich guy earned his money. I don't like the idea of forcibly redistributing people's money, but the fact of the matter is a lot of rich people get their money in less than legal or fair ways. I am almost positive that the saying "Behind every great fortune there is a great crime" is correct. If the guy essentially stole his money off the backs of those who actually do work, I am able to completely justify the kidnapper's actions.
Deciding what people should or should not do is an indulgence I keep myself from taking part of- I can say this: we all judge inevitably, because we are all imperfect and therefore succeptible to our own sets of morals or standards. A human is a gregarious animal, however, so do not forget that while many of us might agree on a set of standards or some other protocol, for whatever reason, the number of people sharing an opinion is no grounds for the opinion to be wise. Humans do, as experiments demonstrated, ammend their beliefs and reckonings to suit the societies they see themselves a part of, virtually universally. I cite the German 3rd Reich as a good example of this:John Galt said:
German wardens repeatedly abused and brutalized their captives in the concentration camps, and then broke down in tears when the Allies unlocked the gates. What's up? What happened was a swift paradigm shift in the perception of German society as a whole- under Hitler, the standard is to hate the Jew and those lesser to the Aryan race. Under Allied occupation, humane treatment of all people was demanded, and the people of the 3rd Reich had to cope with these shifts. One can marvel at how easily humans forget the pain of an insult in the vengeance they exact on their aggressors, as the moral gates of hell were basically loosened on the German footsoldier while no one ever considered how much choice he really had in the matter.
What's the lesser of two evils: agree to hate and torture another or have the same applied to you due to moral reluctance? For most people, as a realist, I have to admit that it's the former. In the end, people do follow their orders in fear of retribution.
In the end, people do serve their own needs, yes.
---
To give a less dissatisfying answer to your question, I'd say that I believe in a society where the only rules are those that apply to direct assurement of safety from social (murder; riots; chaos), political (war, foreign relations and trade), and economical (mass inflation/deflation of currency value; gross disparities between social monetary ranks) catastrophes, and in this and only this type of society can people be judged for breaking a law. The system we have now is far from what I describe. With this, I'd make it clear that to be part of a society one must sacrifice a bit of liberty and agree to such aforementioned rules. I'd also make it clear that any action that does not break the rules does not pass through the brain of the legal system.
How would this apply to our world? Gay marriage would be legal because there would be no law making it illegal, as homosexual wedlock is no direct or indirect cause of social, political, or economical crises. Abortion would be legal because the killing of a fetus does not directly cause social, political or economical crises. Note that I will contrast this with the killing of a grown human, which will carry with it a social problem, because those who are tied to the people involved will be affected and/or harmed. The recently departed would have probably been productive citizens, and their loss would probably evoke a a need for vengeance in friends and lovers. A fetus, however, carries with it less emotional baggage. If an abortion takes place, then it is because the mother didn't want to have it, for one reason or another (for the sake of objectivity, I'd also account for the woman being forced into the abortion: if the woman is successfully forced into it, then the powers that made her abort will definitely take no liking to the child once it's alive if the woman disobeyed the pressure). The death of a fetus does not incur the loss of a productive member of society.
Things like the murder of a human being would be illegal not because killing is evil or wrong, but because it will be a disturbance to the whole- a sudden loss of a part of the community- a lessening of the society's peacefulness.
If you care to know, I only harbor one moral code: honesty toward myself. Lying to myself is to me the greatest and only sin I can commit, and to better negotiate and understand my life and myself, I should not seek to hide or distort the truth, and so I will not play a bigot of any kind in sincerity. I guess you could call me a scientist, because that's really what science is all about: hard, objective evidence to find out a common truth we can all relate to. Anyone who tells you different does not quite grasp the essence of science, which is really a sharing of truth under the test and scrutiny of others. Only in this way may one be sure that all illusions are gone.
Happiness for others would (in my opinion) result in boredom. You've reached that peak of happiness, that state of pure please. Why do anything else? Might as well not live, its the only thing left. Also, Happiness is different for everyone. It might result in pain or the destruction to someone/something which would lead to someone else being unhappy - the loophole begins. The same goes "for the greater good", it just changes too radically based on opinion.
I vote "Not use it". The world works as it is, why tip the scales and risk fucking it up for everyone?
I vote "Not use it". The world works as it is, why tip the scales and risk fucking it up for everyone?
If I ruled the world, there would be three provinces. One would be your typical freedomless safe place, one is controlled anarchy where everyone is their own country and are only bound by international law. The other one is where people are raised. They choose which place to go. Once they choose there is no turning back. It might not work, but it'd definitly be interesting. Also I don't think there's even such thing as a heretic anymore. I can't see them being worthy of death anyways.