Poll: Good or Evil?
- Thread starter Easykill
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Stalin was a paranoid psychopath who was afraid of being put in a wood chipper, so he killed anyone who didn't think Communism wasn't the coolest thing since curly fries.
On a completely unrelated note, I wrote the above as an answer on a history quiz. %100. Hoo yeah.
On a completely unrelated note, I wrote the above as an answer on a history quiz. %100. Hoo yeah.
Hitler was all about the greater good. He saw Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc, as vermin to be destroyed so the 'better' people can rule the future.Easykill said:
Yeah, John was cool.Darth Mobius said:
Back on subject (I'll assume we were discussing the nature of good and evil) Stephen King's Insomnia really speaks to the nature of good and evil. If a person has power, does it corrupt them? How will you know if it will? To be quite frank, ya don't know. Putting someone in a position of power is always a gamble, so you have to make sure you have enough checks and balances to control it.
Good doesn't lead to good, and evil doesn't lead to evil-things happen is all.
Apparently heroin is no match for Hitler.John Galt said:
On my topic: I'd say that he's a super-villain, because I believe it is the choice to do good that's important, and I don't think the ends justifies the means.
On your topic: Nobody can really say what Hitler had in mind, as none of us are time traveling psychics (as far as I know), but I'd suspect that he had to hold some semblance of 'the greater good' in his mind to rationalize his actions, as perverted as that semblance was.
Perverson of idealism is a terrible thing; nothing good has come of it, whether it be the slaughter of Jews or the ostrization of immigrants (due to the efforts of the KKK). Of course, because he was mad, we can think that he thought he was doing the right thing; insane people are like that when they have power.Larenxis said:
This makes my post much easier, thanks. Now all I have to say is that it's always a gamble to give someone this much power, great good can come of it if they AREN'T psychopaths, but if they are, then you're screwed. I don't believe power corrupts, I think it just reveals what you already are, which is the entire point of this thread. The problem is, the people who want power will always be the people in power, and quite a few of those people are a little crazy. It's a gamble. In the initial topic, the do-gooders basically had to decide whether they could trust themselves not to end up like Hitler, at least that's the way I saw it. But this is trusting someone else, which I would prefer to avoid if possible. Sorry if this is a bit non-sensical, my headache never went away.The_Logician19 said:
I see Hitler as a prominent example of how altruism can be used as a front for bigotry and hate. He wanted a better germany, that is true, however, the better germany was his standard of one. He imposed his own standards on others without them being able to question him. In a sense he was like captain control, just with a secret police rather than a super power.
Governments today still don't let the public have a say. From Cheney saying it doesn't matter that over two thirds of Americans don't think the war in Iraq is worth fighting, to the Harper government ignoring that over 97% of Canadians think access to water should be a human right. Do you think they're doing it based on their perception of 'the greater good'?
No but Democracy never really exists when the person who makes the choices for any country is only ever chosen every 4 years.Larenxis said:
I reckon that, if faced with no repercussions for my actions, I would do strive to achieve for myself, but without 'stepping on someone else's toes', so to speak, similar to Ayn Rand's philosophy.
But, I know, that given this opportunity, I will do anything and everything in my power to achieve what I wish. No-one can fool them self with utilitarianism, or for others. Deep-down, humans are selfish animals, whose first and foremost goal is to survive, no matter the cost.
But, I know, that given this opportunity, I will do anything and everything in my power to achieve what I wish. No-one can fool them self with utilitarianism, or for others. Deep-down, humans are selfish animals, whose first and foremost goal is to survive, no matter the cost.
With regards to the topic on altruism, I'll admit that in a way it's selfish since people often expect some sort of reward, like the feeling of good that may come of it. Because of this I don't know if by objectivist standards it can be considered immoral. If someone was altruistic simply because they either knew they'd get a reward for it, or they felt good because of it, doesn't that fall into the catagory of rational self-interest? The altruism would be motivated by selfishness, thus pretty much conforming with objectivism...at least what I know of it.
And as to democracy...only in small groups, i.e. city-states or smaller (I'm looking at you, Athens), would it accurately represent most of the population's views. On a global or national scale, it would just be tyranny by majority, or if you look at the U.S., a complete stalemate. The only way to make a democracy work on a large level like a country is for people to discover the long lost art of compromising.
And as to democracy...only in small groups, i.e. city-states or smaller (I'm looking at you, Athens), would it accurately represent most of the population's views. On a global or national scale, it would just be tyranny by majority, or if you look at the U.S., a complete stalemate. The only way to make a democracy work on a large level like a country is for people to discover the long lost art of compromising.
Frankly I am disgusted by homeless people and those who help them. It's nothing personal, but regardless of how they arrived in that situation, I see nothing stopping them from helping themselves to get out. People who help them are just enabling them to continue leeching off the rest of society. Anyone else feel as though we need to let survival of the fittest be the means of determining who lives and dies?
Now that we've since shifted towards democracy in the discussion, I'll chime in again.
I think that democracy is probably the worst thing you can do for a society as large as the United States, essentially it boils down to 'my gang is biggest so we rule now' rather than 'my gang has some pretty good ideas'. While I'm all for liberty and individual rights, I'm pretty much a meritocrat. When you give a yokel who barely got out of high school the same voice as a world renowned economist, then you've clearly done something wrong. I feel our leaders should be determined by their overall competence rather than their ability to gather votes in elections.
I think that democracy is probably the worst thing you can do for a society as large as the United States, essentially it boils down to 'my gang is biggest so we rule now' rather than 'my gang has some pretty good ideas'. While I'm all for liberty and individual rights, I'm pretty much a meritocrat. When you give a yokel who barely got out of high school the same voice as a world renowned economist, then you've clearly done something wrong. I feel our leaders should be determined by their overall competence rather than their ability to gather votes in elections.
On the homeless:
My view on the homeless is generally apathetic, I just flat out don't care. This is my view of homeless persons in general, however should I get into personal contact with one, my opinion will either be that of respect or of downright contempt. I've no warm feelings towards panhandlers and bums, however, I was aquanted with one homeless man who'd lost everything to a drug addiction but was busting his ass off to get back in control of his life. Needless to say, I saw him as a respectable person who could do quite a bit of good if given a little help, a good return on society's investment so to speak.
My view on the homeless is generally apathetic, I just flat out don't care. This is my view of homeless persons in general, however should I get into personal contact with one, my opinion will either be that of respect or of downright contempt. I've no warm feelings towards panhandlers and bums, however, I was aquanted with one homeless man who'd lost everything to a drug addiction but was busting his ass off to get back in control of his life. Needless to say, I saw him as a respectable person who could do quite a bit of good if given a little help, a good return on society's investment so to speak.