Poll: Good or Evil?

[BlueMage]

Absolutes exist. Of this there is no doubt. But a continuum exists in between them. For the most part, humans cannot attain the extremes - but they can come close. We usually vilify or deify such individuals, dependant upon whose army we're fighting in.

I strive for my personal gain, because in doing so, I can help those dear to me. Others will be considered, but they come a distant third when compared first to myself and the close second that is my friends and family.

 

[John Galt]

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...

On the weapon - Wouldn't it make more sense if the weapon just destroyed itself? Afterall, destroying the earth defeated the purpose of protecting humanity. *inserts smiley face to soften previous statement*

On the second paragraph - Altruism doesn't make someone a horrible person, however, forcing altruism on someone because it's for the greater good does. Whatever you do is your own business, just don't force me to foot the bill for something I don't want to do.

On the side note - Their's nothing inherently evil about altruism, I simply don't practice it because it seems irrational that I should expend effort to solve a problem not related to me and not reap any reward. On an occasion where I actually do harm someone or contribute to their problem, I can be just as kind and helpful as any philanthropist, but when confronted with a problem I had no part in creating I sit and say "by what right?".

i like the greater good option, its like putting money in a trustworthy bank, provided its 'for the greater good' then it will all work out.

im talking, of course, about a situation where we can trust this 'greater good' without fear of corruption, which is the basis of my above statement, sure, if you factor in selfish concerns it goes to hell, but it doesn't say that in the option, a true greater good really would be for the greater good... thats why its called 'the greater good'.

oh yeah: 'only sith deal in absolutes'

thought id mention it

On the greater good - I'd go for the greater good option too, logically it's the best; you've got everyone contributing for the better of everyone. However, in practice, it gets twisted and corrupted like most other things our inherent selfishness touches. When you give someone the power to affect everyone, odds are it will be in a way that benefits the helper.

On altruism - Selfless giving (ie. altruism) is a noble, yet highly unrealistic goal, as it always benefits the helper in some way. Whether you get your 70 virgins in paradise, a building in your honor, or a rush of seratonin to the brain, you get something out of it. Generally, when you give, you have a reason to give. Either you seek glory in the eyes of others or it makes you feel good to help others, you do it with a specific, self-oriented goal in mind. And I think we can all agree that giving without reason is just plain ridiculous.

On the sith - Isn't that an absolute in itself?

 

[Ellisia]

Although we'd all like to act for the greater good it is a matter of perspective, yes I could jump in front of a car to save a child, but what if that child later went on to create a bio-weapon that ended the world.

Without knowing how our actions will affect those around us is the greater good only a temporal thing? Would our choices change with hindsight, or would we cling to the ideals that what we did was right at that time?

Personally I think the greater good is an excuse for greater control, look how governments dictate our actions for the sake of the greater good. Perhaps, for example, the dropping of the nuclear weapons at the end of WW2 was for the greater good, but I doubt very much many Japanese citizens of the time would agree.

I think there is a greater difference between what is Morally right and Legally right, but we have laws to control our morality, doesn't make sense to me, but these laws are for our Greater Good

 

[night_chrono]

Late post and probably already said, but here it goes:

You are not good or evil. Good or evil is what is placed upon you by others. You make think what you are doing is good or evil, but the final verdict is given by society.

 

[Ellisia]

Yes, but is there any way to argue that the invasion of Japan, which would have cost many more lives than just nuking them did, would have been a better choice?

It was just an example to prove how good is open to interpretation. Besides, Japan was about to request a peaceful settlement within a few days. So with hindsight, was it for the greater good?



Interesting article concerning the bombing

 

[Ellisia]

That is an interesting point, but seeing as how they were being nice and friendly to us right up until the minute bombs started killing sleeping sailors in Pearl Harbor (As a sailor, this irks me personally) I don't doubt for a second the President and military intelligence thought of this as a ploy. What the Russians call Maskirovka (Saying one thing so you can hide your true intentions behind a false pretense. I can't remember the english version). I know I wouldn't have believed it until I knew for sure it wasn't faked. And if they were so willing to surrender, why didn't they do it after we dropped the first bomb? Why did they ignore our request for a surrender after we dropped the first bomb? I am not saying it wasn't horrible, what we HAD to do, just that there wasn't a choice at the time.

Thats just the point, the greater good was served by one side of the equation, but not by both. War cannot be for the greater good when both sides feel they are right, they both have "god on their side" or whatever. What happened in 1941 was terrible I agree, but doesn't scale matter, Pearl harbour caused no where near the the estimated 200,000 to 1,200,000 casualties that the bombings caused.

The greater good is whatever political motivation is required at the time to support the governments desire for something, sometimes this is morally right, such as cancer research, aiding third world countries, all these things are morally right and, can be said to be, for the greater good. But some choices made in our name have little to do with us at all, we are just told to accept that our governors are doing it for our greater good, not the greater good of those they are doing it to.

Maskirovka, or "The Deception", is alive and well still today, it's guise is featured in the news every day, do some digging of your own, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just study geo-politics. Ask yourself who tells us whats for our greater good, who decides when or if we should act in our own interests as a nation. Then ask if the greater good is a political tool, a motivational tool or a parody of morality.

When someone gets elected to a position of power, is it because they are the best suited and the most moral candidate that can be found to fill the role, or are they someone who wants the power and has found like minded individuals to fund them to getting it.

Political capital isn't free, those who rule in our name for the greater good have debts to those who got them there. Are they also morally inclined? If not then our greater good is nothing more than a tool to be used to control who and what we disagree with this week.

 

[Ellisia]

Ahh, but the point can be made that by helping 3rd world countries we aren't doing a greater good. They will come to depend on our abundant surplus of food, and rely on us instead of doing everything they can to make their own agricultural systems work or letting their population reach it's natural cap and stop spreading population. So when we fail to yield our bumper crop, or dare I say it, have a food shortage, these people who we have been helping, are terminally screwed. (This isn't something I made up, but something that I once read in a paper that a friend had for his Geo-politics class, I would source it if I could, but I know it was written by a professional Economist) This is just another case of a "Moral Good" not being a greater good. And we all know that all politicians are corrupt, so saying that was unnecessary. I at least admit that if I were a politician I would only take bribes from people I agreed with. I don't believe in global warming, simply because so many politicians are behind it, and some of the scientific evidence is rather scewed. The Tobacco institute was charged with finding that cancer was caused by cigarettes, Scientists are charged with proving global warming. Guess who stood to benefit the most from these findings? The guys who were paying the researchers. Coincidence? I don't think so.

I agree helping third world countries is a difficult area. The major problem with third world aid is and always has been corruption, that needs to be solved before any headway can be made into actually helping people. So maybe a few assassinations of corrupt heads of state would be for the greater good lol

Global warming, total joke, started when Margaret Thatcher wanted to convert the UK to nuclear power to break the coal unions and reduce dependency on foreign oil. Since then it's become a multi billion doller industry. Science pretty much agrees the suns running a bit hot at the moment, it happens. Maybe thats serving the greater good by keeping all those folks in jobs?

Cancer was around a long time before cigarettes. But big tobacco did know about the carcinogenic effects in the 1950's and said nothing. Of course that served the greater good, stopped us all panicking. Hmmm

Maybe on the Good or Evil Question at the top of this page I'll just go for "Dunno", cause no one can really know if they serve the greater good, so I'm gonna be a confused "dunno" and go to bed

Nice sparring with ya Mobius.

 

[Stone Cold Monkey]

A little late to the party, and I'm likely to leave early as well, however. . .

I wanted to throw a little of my perspective in on this. I know altruism does exist just as unintentional evil does. Abstraction aside, The altruism (conversely unintentional evil) I have seen is a person who does the act of goodness simply doing, 'what anyone would have done in that situation' when we all know that just isn't true. These heroes place themselves in harms way simply because they don't really see any other options. They see no reward in it, even the feeling of doing good. Part of this thread has argued that makes them slaves to society. This is partly true in that they are contributing to humanity and following what rules they believe all decent folk follow. We are social creatures and have and will always succeed because of it. Does bending your will make you a slave? If it does, you will alway have a master unless you have a greater control of nature and reality than I. Communication and teamwork outstrips intelligence and cunning almost every time. After all, what good is intellect if is completely self-contained. I have found those who fight against the idea of a greater good and cooperating society lean toward anti-social ideals often caused cynicism and arrogance. They find themselves incapable comprehending how another would risk their own life without adequate compensation for their efforts. Because of their arrogance and self superiority (as well as human nature) they believe everyone around them must be the same. This doesn't make them inherently evil (but it doesn't help either). They use extremes and powerful historical precedents often eloquently to support their own claims and dismiss others ideas to contrary because of their cynicism convinces themselves the contrary arguer is either lying or don't know what their talking about. Often, they have had to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and are angered when some else wants assistance they were never given. This only leads to a case of, 'you reap what you sow.' Of course, no one said you would get a bumper crop either and often times you see a drought. That's life, you try to do good and you won't get anything for it and if may get nothing but more bad. That's Altruism. Someday, I would like to get there, although; I don't think I will.

I'm not saying that the world is black and white, but neither is it only gray, and it most certainly isn't as dark gray as you might think it is. Certainly, there are evil doers accomplishing their evil agendas. By the same token, their are good doers trying to make this place better and not all of them are misguided. Just as some one can be duped and corrupted into evil acts so too they can led to rally for good. It is agreed that the world is a better place than it was 1000 years ago, even a 100 years ago. Their is such a concept as human rights as well as international rules of war. Human slavery is universally considered wrong by every developed nation. Technology is tool that was used for this and will remain a tool whose capacity for good or evil will lay in hands who posses it. Perhaps we will be plunged back into dark times, however; I think we have the same chance of ushering in a era of unparalleled enlightenment.

Thanks for sometime on the soapbox.

 

[Evilbunny]

The only reason people work for the good of others is because they feel good or feel they'll get a reward from it. No one does anything without the possibility of reward, be it a chemical rush or the prospect of divine favor.

That's interesting but I don't think it's completely true. I've been reading this book called semper fi and it has numerous accounts of soldiers throwing themselves on the grenade to save their friends. I highly doubt these men decided to do that because they would get a good feeling from it. If they die then they can't really reap any reward now can they?

 

[inbetweendreams1031]

I suppose another thing to think about is the fact that, well, there aren't really any 'evil' people. No-one really thinks that they are evil, even people like Hitler and Stalin thought that the things they did were right, or at least worth it, for the 'greater good'.

Personally, I go for good things, not because I like being good, but because, I always feel guilty if I don't. I could never manage to backhand the peasants in Fable, and I'd always end up having some damn 'redemption' for my evil characters on KOTOR...

 

[John Galt]

I wanted to throw a little of my perspective in on this. I know altruism does exist just as unintentional evil does. Abstraction aside, The altruism (conversely unintentional evil) I have seen is a person who does the act of goodness simply doing, 'what anyone would have done in that situation' when we all know that just isn't true. These heroes place themselves in harms way simply because they don't really see any other options. They see no reward in it, even the feeling of doing good. Part of this thread has argued that makes them slaves to society. This is partly true in that they are contributing to humanity and following what rules they believe all decent folk follow. We are social creatures and have and will always succeed because of it. Does bending your will make you a slave? If it does, you will alway have a master unless you have a greater control of nature and reality than I. Communication and teamwork outstrips intelligence and cunning almost every time. After all, what good is intellect if is completely self-contained. I have found those who fight against the idea of a greater good and cooperating society lean toward anti-social ideals often caused cynicism and arrogance. They find themselves incapable comprehending how another would risk their own life without adequate compensation for their efforts. Because of their arrogance and self superiority (as well as human nature) they believe everyone around them must be the same. This doesn't make them inherently evil (but it doesn't help either). They use extremes and powerful historical precedents often eloquently to support their own claims and dismiss others ideas to contrary because of their cynicism convinces themselves the contrary arguer is either lying or don't know what their talking about. Often, they have had to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and are angered when some else wants assistance they were never given. This only leads to a case of, 'you reap what you sow.' Of course, no one said you would get a bumper crop either and often times you see a drought. That's life, you try to do good and you won't get anything for it and if may get nothing but more bad. That's Altruism. Someday, I would like to get there, although; I don't think I will.

Eh, guilty as charged.

That's interesting but I don't think it's completely true. I've been reading this book called semper fi and it has numerous accounts of soldiers throwing themselves on the grenade to save their friends. I highly doubt these men decided to do that because they would get a good feeling from it. If they die then they can't really reap any reward now can they?

Perhaps one theory would be they would rather die and be remembered as a hero than live with the guilt of their dead comrades. I've no concrete ideas though, I've never been in such a situation.

After reflecting more on the 'greater good' issue (and reading some RA Heinlein), I feel I'd follow it to a degree, would I kill 1 to save 1,000, yes. Would I kill 999 to save 1,000? Odds are I wouldn't. Unless the situation will yield quite a big reward for a society or whatever body I'm acting for, I would probably not be so quick to act.

I've also learned a thing or two about civic virtue and duty. I feel that if you claim authority over a certain body of people, then the only ethical path you can take is the greater good. That is, you must be responsible for those you control. I have no such aspirations and I seek only to be responsible for myself and act in my own best interests. If altruism is somehow in my best interest in a particular situation, then I'll act upon it, but normally I don't see charity as a moral obligation.

 

[Blayze]

No action occurs without the reasons behind it. This is true of everything, why would selflessness, self-sacrifice and charity be any different? If there were no reasons behind an action, then there would be no reason for it to occur in the first place.

Those soldiers who sacrificed themselves to save their friends by throwing themselves on grenades could not have done as such without their reasons. Perhaps they wished to save their friends, protecting those close to them? That is a selfish desire in itself, as they would have been driven by how they consider the people they sacrifice themselves for.

Nobody does anything without a reason.

 

[ZenMonkey47]

On one hand, right makes might but on the other hand evil is sexy

It's so hard to choose.

 

[Evilbunny]

Those soldiers who sacrificed themselves to save their friends by throwing themselves on grenades could not have done as such without their reasons. Perhaps they wished to save their friends, protecting those close to them? That is a selfish desire in itself, as they would have been driven by how they consider the people they sacrifice themselves for.

Nobody does anything without a reason.

Well, yeah, I never said these soldiers didn't have a reason for sacrificing themselves. I'm just saying their reasons were not selfish, rather completely selfless. They cared more about their comrades than they did their own life. As you said, "they wished to save their friends, protecting those close to them", I fail to see how that is selfish in the slightest bit. To me that seems like the complete opposite of selfish.

Perhaps one theory would be they would rather die and be remembered as a hero than live with the guilt of their dead comrades.

I have trouble believing that the soldiers that survived feel so guilty that they think it would have been worth ending their own life to avoid the pain. From the accounts that I've read every one of them felt appreciative of what their comrade did for them but I didn't see a true regret that they themselves didn't die that day.

 

[John Galt]

I have trouble believing that the soldiers that survived feel so guilty that they think it would have been worth ending their own life to avoid the pain. From the accounts that I've read every one of them felt appreciative of what their comrade did for them but I didn't see a true regret that they themselves didn't die that day.

However, the survivors were not the ones who made that decision. Odds are we'll never know exactly why anyone does anything regarding death.

 

[Evilbunny]

I have trouble believing that the soldiers that survived feel so guilty that they think it would have been worth ending their own life to avoid the pain. From the accounts that I've read every one of them felt appreciative of what their comrade did for them but I didn't see a true regret that they themselves didn't die that day.

However, the survivors were not the ones who made that decision. Odds are we'll never know exactly why anyone does anything regarding death.

True, I guess. I would think the other soldiers would be our best marker of how the person would feel since they were in the same situation and chose to not jump on the grenade, but you're right we'll never know for sure.

 

[Larenxis]

I've got a hypothetical here for you:

His name is Captain Control. He wears a cape and can control any human being. He makes terrorists hand over hostages and turn themselves in! He makes drivers stop so old ladies can walk by! He stops politicians from dropping the bomb! He makes rich men donate to charities! He stops child pornographers and ends gang wars!

So, is he a superhero, or a super-villain?

 

[Easykill]

Super-hero, by virtue of what he does. A lot of super heros just use violence to force their morality on people, he just skips the violence. But if you want to debate whether super-heroes are good, that might be different.

 

[John Galt]

Like a shot of heroin, Larenxis breathes new life into the discussion.

I'd say he's neither, but with the infinite potential for both. As listed, his actions would make him seem noble, save for that last bit about charity, but that's just my inner objectivist speaking. I think it is a bit risky putting the actions and minds of everyone into the hands of one person, a person who is just as vulnerable to evil as anyone else. He's not so much evil as he is dangerous.

 

[Easykill]

Hitler NEVER had the greater good in mind, that was just his excuse. Although he did beleive in eugenics...