Poll: Good or Evil?

[John Galt]

Why does the motive have no effect on the nature of the action? Well, Hitler wanted to acheive racial purity in Germany. A sensible end, but his means were through torture and murder, a barbaric practice any reasonable human can point to as an example of depravity.

The Inquisition felt that they could please God(a decent end) by inflicting horrible punishments on many who were innocent(again, a horrible way to carry out a decent end). However, the very same church that claimed God loved all his children would stop at nothing to punish people they percieved as a threat to the spiritual well being of the whole.

The fact that people think that they can destroy, take advantage of, or in any other way exploit others to achieve their goals is why the ends can never justify the means.

 

[G.]

Yes, they may not have wanted to harm the victim but motives do not change the action, and since that action results in the unwarranted death of another human, the perpetrator is indeed a murderer.

But that's just your moral opinion that the only thing relevant to classifying a killing is the action, and the motive is of no consequence. If you want us to share your opinion, you need to show us why it's better than ours if we disagree.

Well, my non-moral opinion would be that motive is a personal, psychological thing that can't be objectively ascertained by external oberservers. Me picking up a knive could be an action taken by me for several reasons: slicing some meat, remove the grime under my fingernails, stab someone repeatedly.
If a murder / killing / manslaughter has taken place, we're left with one observable, objective fact: dead forum troll. Whether it was me, you, Galt, is left for investigation. Motive comes into play at the trial: crime of passion, accident, intent are mitigating factors in the sentencing. If you're lucky, you're being tried primarily because you acted against the law, and not because you did something "wrong".

And continuing from my previous train of thought: by saying that "Laws can be geared towards increasing the freedom of the individual to do as he or she pleases without forcing the notion that freedom=good on anyone, because it's self-referentially incoherent of anyone to say 'I have the right to no freedom' because the exercise of a right is a kind of freedom" and assert that with this statement morality has been eliminated, you're saying:

A) Morality is a fallacy
Morality is a judgement in the order of good or bad
Laws are based on morality
Laws can instead be geared to increase freedom
Freedom is not equal to morality
Ergo, laws that increase freedom > laws based on morality
Ergo, freedom is better than morality
Ergo, Freedom is good, morality bad
A judgement in the order of good or bad.

B) Relinquishing a right is actually fullfilling a right. That doesn't make sense. Let's deconstruct that statement:
I have an apple. (ie, {apple, me, have}, a positive relationship between me and the apple)
I throw the apple. (An act, I get rid of the apple)
I have no apple. (ie, -{apple, me, have}, a negative relationship between me and the apple)
I have an apple. (ie, {apple, me, have}, a positive relationship between me and the apple)

There's something wrong, not a moral judgement.

[Damn late night posting, spelling and grammar are suffering]

 

[The Negotiator]

Jesus Christ!

If you had half a mind I previousley said I made that list up!

BTW, in case you didn't notice, I also said "RAMBO IN VIDEO GAMES" for god sake!

Or wait, were you talking about something eles?

The point is there is a balance of good and evil and I am willing to try and keep that balance in order.

Even if it means life takes a toll.

 

[G.]

Well, my non-moral opinion would be that motive is a personal, psychological thing that can't be objectively ascertained by external oberservers. Me picking up a knive could be an action taken by me for several reasons: slicing some meat, remove the grime under my fingernails, stab someone repeatedly.
If a murder / killing / manslaughter has taken place, we're left with one observable, objective fact: dead forum troll. Whether it was me, you, Galt, is left for investigation. Motive comes into play at the trial: crime of passion, accident, intent are mitigating factors in the sentencing. If you're lucky, you're being tried primarily because you acted against the law, and not because you did something "wrong".

If we only have one observable, objective fact of a dead forum troll, well, how does that make it anyone's fault? You also need to link a person to the occurrence of that death in some sort of chain of causation (if we're not making people statutorily responsible for the death of other people or something weird).

Perhaps I should have elaborated on my definition of investigation: finding the perpretrator of the act. Doesn't anyone watch cop shows anymore?

I mean, if you're trying to say that only facts which are objective should be let in before the sentencing phase, then okay, but, how do you deal with an issue like self-defense?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(theory). "Whodunnit?" is a different question than "Why did he / she do it?". And I repeat:

crime of passion, accident, intent are mitigating factors in the sentencing. If you're lucky, you're being tried primarily because you acted against the law, and not because you did something "wrong".

Intent / motive doesn't lessen the question of whodunnit, but most oftenly intent (murder vs. voluntary manslaughter), and coupled with that, sentencing.

Part 2, after I get home from work.

 

[John Galt]

If person A sees person B with a knife, it is a personal fact that person B is trying to kill person A. Person A may just be paranoid and afraid of fish cleaners. However, if person B actually makes an aggressive move towards person A, then it is an objective fact. I feel that soon we'll have a "Han-Shot-First" styled debate going on here.

 

[Kikosemmek]

I don't recall using the term 'perfect' to describe anything. I tend to stay away from using the word, and here's why:

If you are into figuring out the nature of things philosophically, then you will stumble on the fact that everything and nothing are everything and nothing- an antithesis is a thesis perceived from an opposing point of view. Anything is the exact same thing as its opposite, and we, the perceivers, are lining up on different points in the sphere to look at its center. What I'm basically saying is that if perfection is stasis (and on this I agree with you), then perfection is nothing, because nothing is in stasis. Stasis is nonexistent because everything changes, and that includes any optimum point, so if you want a state of perfection, it would have to change constantly. In an unbiased timeframe, which means it must last forever, perfection will have encompassed every point- everything. Now, step back and take a look: is the world not locked in the stasis of constant change, since the fact that everything changes never changes? Isn't perfection, then, the culmination of all things, or in other words, everything, since everything changes without cease (and this never changes)? If so, then everything is, in fact, nothing, because nothing never changes, and we have just reached the point of logical nexus- paradox.

Paradox, my friend, is (and therefore isn't, but bear with me) the rule of the universe. This is why no one can have a single answer to the meaning of life without incurring a measure of bias. That's fine, because in existence we are all imperfect and biased. I merely promote awareness of this fact instead of claiming complete objectivity.

 

[Singing Gremlin]

I would describe myself as a good person with an incredibly wonky moral compass. I can quite happily distinguish between good and evil, so to speak, but I don't apply this in daily life. I look at the things I want, weigh my benefit against any loss inflicted on others, and act accordingly. But I don't apply pre-determined morals to a situation if possible (of course, some morals are unavoidable).

For example, I have a friend at school who buys things in town, ups the price and sells them on again, normally food. I have no scruples with stealing the odd doughnut from him simply because it'll taste nice for me, and he sells 'em for enough that he'll still be making a very large profit. I don't feel justified for doing it because he's ripping people off, because he doesn't force people to be ripped off. Nor would I really care if he had any clearly wrong practises. I have no moral basis for it, but do it because a doughnut will taste good for me and not ruin him. I'm entirely aware that morally, I'm in the wrong. But I'm happy and he's not exactly in great suffering. Therefore, by stealing the aforementioned doughnut, I've brought more happiness into the world than by being moral and upstanding.

I guess basically what I'm trying to say is that to be good is to make people happy without being confused by any ideas of some 'bigger picture' or higher morality. You weigh up the likely benefits and consequences and act accordingly. If it goes wrong and makes people unhappy (which I am as guilty of as anyone else, possilbly more), you accept responsibilty, try and fix what you can and learn from it.

 

[John Galt]

What if I take a sleeping pill to, say, get a good night's rest before I go help starving orphans, and I wind up committing a crime while I'm in a sleeping pill induced haze? I did something, CHOSE something that I knew would impair my judgment in that situation too. Should I be held to the same level of responsibility as the person who commits a crime after getting completely drunk?

Interesting situation. If you knew that the drug could cause sleepwalking behavior then yes, you should be held accountable just as much as anyone who willingly puts a drug into their system.

However, if you were not aware of the side-effects due to the company not telling you, then they would be guilty of fraud or improper testing of a drug. You might get off easier if you could not anticipate such a reaction.

 

[Break]

Interesting situation. If you knew that the drug could cause sleepwalking behavior then yes, you should be held accountable just as much as anyone who willingly puts a drug into their system.

What if the drug was for crippling pain?

Or what if, instead of falling asleep from the drug you fall asleep at the wheel because you stayed up all night partying? Or you stayed up all night feeding starving orphans?

Or you couldn't get to sleep the night before and you were heading off to a coke-filled bareback orgy with prostitutes? Or you couldn't get to sleep the night before and you were heading off to feed starving orphans?

It was an interesting question until you brought the tired old cliche of "should good people get preferential treatment to bad people?" into it.

 

[UncleWesker]

The greater good? Hmm... that's a tricky one. You see to me the greater good can't be achieved through the suffering of others. The only true way to work for the greater good is through self-sacrifice.

 

[end_boss]

I am BEYOND Good and Evil!!

Sorry, I don't have anything to contribute, I just wanted to throw that in.

And I've still yet to finish that game.

 

[Duck Sandwich]

What if I take a sleeping pill to, say, get a good night's rest before I go help starving orphans, and I wind up committing a crime while I'm in a sleeping pill induced haze? I did something, CHOSE something that I knew would impair my judgment in that situation too. Should I be held to the same level of responsibility as the person who commits a crime after getting completely drunk?

I'm not arguing either way, I'm just saying that there's a lot to think about if we lay down an iron-clad rule of 'you chose to impair your judgment so you're responsible for any bad judgments that follow'.

You shouldn't be held to the same responsibility as a drunk, because even though you chose to impair your judgment, it was for a good purpose (being able to help starving orphans). Although I must admit, to what amount of responsibility you should be held, if any, I have no idea.

 

[Easykill]

Umm.... I was proud of this thread and would like to revive it, but I can't think of anything to say. Little help?

 

[Mr Wednesday]

Oh man, nothing says pseudo-philosophy more than an internet discussion on morality.

I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, but count me out. I get seriously tired of people hanging on the edge of moral relativism and thinking they're dead clever for it, without really accepting its ramifications.

Oh, and for the reccord.
Light Jedi.

 

[Wormthong]

i think that if there is a god he is like me only with more power only looking to rilief boredom and thusly creating a planet with the start of a species and further on leave them alone to in the end see them destroy themeselves(or you this wouldnt matter becouse at least you arent bored anymore)so to this poll if i had this option i would awnser what is the most intersting or "fun" for me wich i guess is some sort of self gain but can at the same time be all the other ansers
(srry for crapy english)

 

[Easykill]

It's a shame the greater good lost. I mean, think. You have the power to change everything you hate going on in the world, who cares if a few people need to get hurt? In the end, it hurts less people.

 

[John Galt]

The greater good is a very slippery slope. You can do anything and justify it by saying that you had the best of intentions. Hitler and Stalin all had their own dreams for utopia and look what happened, millions died, where's the greater good in that?

Giving someone enough power to change the world is dangerous. If you give them enough power to do something like that, then you must make them responsible to all they affect. And if they had to answer for their actions, then the wielders of said power would find themselves in a pretty bad situation.

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

It occured to me a while ago that it is not what a person does that makes them good or evil, it's what they WOULD do if they could do whatever they wanted with no repercussions.

The problem with this question is the "no repercussions" part - no repercussions for who? Because "won't get caught/punished" is not the same as "no repercussions." If there are no repercussions at all then it doesn't matter what you do one way or the other. Or no personal repercussions, no repercussions toward myself?

It sounds like the conversation here is mostly of the "no punishment" variety, but I find that really uninteresting. Most of the restrictions on my freedom have to do with the requirements of self-preservation, not the rule of law. So what would I do if there were no personal repercussions? Quit my job. Stop eating, unless I felt like it, go live outside and sleep wherever I wanted, as much or as little as I wanted, make use of only the resources I needed at the moment I needed them, rather than having to hoard things in preparation for possible scarcity. Be kind just because I can. (I see no appeal in deliberate cruelty. I am cruel enough by accident, why would I want to add to it?) Quit worrying about little shit. Whenever I think, "Someone really oughta do some thing about that," do something about it. Daydream as much as I want. Walk everywhere. Find a really good street musician, sit down and listen to him for more than two minutes. Try things out. Indulge my curiosity. Take my time, because for the first time ever, that time would actually be mine.

I'd never get hungry or cold or sick or hurt. So basically, I'd be the happiest, healthiest homeless person on the planet.

Would that make me good or evil? I'd like to think I would leave things better than I found them. That's good, isn't it? I'm agnostic about the Greater Good. I like the Smaller Good, just lots and lots of it.

 

[000Ronald]

The greater good, with the sole exception of it being what I belive is for the greater good. Here's an example of sorts.

I wrote a story once about a sentient weapon (essentially; it was made to stop atomic warfare, so it had to be powerful). The sole purpose of this weapon was to protect all mankind from itself. Eventually mankind drifted beyond the little blue mudball we call earth, into the cosmos; somewhere along the line, someone found this weapon and wanted to use it as a weapon. The weapon could not let this happen; it was powerful enough to destroy entire galaxies, and anyone who controlled it would become engrossed with power to the point of tyranny. So it did the only thing it could; it made those people too afraid to use it by destroying earth. Six billion people died for the sake of so many future generations. It had done it's job, though.

Could you have made that sort of decision? I don't think any of us could. Anyone who thinks they would likely intends a future that Mr. John Galt is so damned scared of. I want to help people though; not because I expect reward or because my life would be worse without people I don't know, but because a lot of people honestly need help. Does that make me a terrible person? Does the fact that I (as perhaps president) may have to make descisions that will cause irrepprible harm either way make me a monster for even contemplating such a thing? I don't know anymore. I need to talk to my dad again...

On a side note, I read Atlas Shrugged; I found it horrifying that someone could convince you that doing the right thing was wrong. Everyone in that book was at fault in some way or another, even if they did have the best intentions.

as always, apologies abound to anyone I insulted. Just my thoughts...

 

[000Ronald]

Also, the greater good lost because a lot of people don't have a clear idea of what the greater good is. And Kudos to them for being completely honest with us and themselves. I will always do what I think is right; to betray this would be the most terrible thing I could do.

apologies abound