Thought experiment about good and evil
nobody
Posts: 353
!!!!THIS IS NOT ANOTHER 911 THREAD!!!!!!
If someone believes the US government could have prevented the terror attacks on 911 (not all hypothetical terror attacks in the US) in the (very) LONG run, but not on the day it happened (or the day before that for that matter). if someone believes they had vague information, but no concrete idea (=didn't KNOW about it). if someone believes that they are not so eager to let the public see their "lazyness" and actual REAL errors in the past...one of those errors being to believe that the USA is invulnerable (on its own soil)...
does that make the US government good or bad guys???
what if someone believes governments are neither good nor evil...but are made up of individuals with varying interests, not an unanimous block of right or wrong?
does that make that person be on the side of the good, or on the side of the evil guys???
does that make that person be ignorant of facts, or an all knowing voice of truth???
does that make that person good or evil???
I'm just conducting this experiment, as I see many(not all) arguments here sooner or later drift to the questions of right or wrong, good or evil...
with people ending up claiming it's all just opinion...but those opinions, I find, are mostly based on the above principals of good and evil...and this is what I address here...
if you engange in a debate in this manner->you are likely not to learn anything, that you don't already know...
instead of nuanced arguments you either have right or wrong (at least rethorically, and that is all this conversation is really) and an inflation of club-dead arguments like hitler-analogies...
and this basically resembles Bush/Bill O'reilly rethoric...
and believe me...those guys really want to WIN an argument;)
and I just use this example in the beginning, because it has been discussed lately...
so long...
m.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!PS: this mindset in a debate, in my opinion, is also why "GODWIN'S LAW" applies so often in internet debates, because sooner or later someone wants to proof this or that is EVIL(as in Nazi).!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PPS: and please...I want support from people who are on MY side on this...;)
If someone believes the US government could have prevented the terror attacks on 911 (not all hypothetical terror attacks in the US) in the (very) LONG run, but not on the day it happened (or the day before that for that matter). if someone believes they had vague information, but no concrete idea (=didn't KNOW about it). if someone believes that they are not so eager to let the public see their "lazyness" and actual REAL errors in the past...one of those errors being to believe that the USA is invulnerable (on its own soil)...
does that make the US government good or bad guys???
what if someone believes governments are neither good nor evil...but are made up of individuals with varying interests, not an unanimous block of right or wrong?
does that make that person be on the side of the good, or on the side of the evil guys???
does that make that person be ignorant of facts, or an all knowing voice of truth???
does that make that person good or evil???
I'm just conducting this experiment, as I see many(not all) arguments here sooner or later drift to the questions of right or wrong, good or evil...
with people ending up claiming it's all just opinion...but those opinions, I find, are mostly based on the above principals of good and evil...and this is what I address here...
if you engange in a debate in this manner->you are likely not to learn anything, that you don't already know...
instead of nuanced arguments you either have right or wrong (at least rethorically, and that is all this conversation is really) and an inflation of club-dead arguments like hitler-analogies...
and this basically resembles Bush/Bill O'reilly rethoric...
and believe me...those guys really want to WIN an argument;)
and I just use this example in the beginning, because it has been discussed lately...
so long...
m.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!PS: this mindset in a debate, in my opinion, is also why "GODWIN'S LAW" applies so often in internet debates, because sooner or later someone wants to proof this or that is EVIL(as in Nazi).!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PPS: and please...I want support from people who are on MY side on this...;)
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
But could you perhaps restate the essence of what you want discussed here?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I want to question the way in which many debates are lead here...
It's more like a statement...not an opening of a specific discussion;)
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
sometimes...they not only end that way...they already start that way...;)
(like this craigslist thread, that you wisely commented on...;))
but...who am I to say...;)
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
What may often be the case is that we observe an act or tendency that we judge as evil and bad. We thus search for which group/organization were behind/had something to do with it, then we brand them with it, so that the people in the organization must be evil, or at least it's entire board. Also, often it seems that it is deduced that evil acts must come from evil people. A quick glance through history and sociology quickly shows that so is often not the case. Through the invention of bureaucracy and big organizations, it becomes possible for great evil (as judged by bystanders and citizens) to emerge from actions of good men. And the evil may not even be intentional, but an unintended consequence of otherwise morally sound actions.
Evil, as I see it, is a judgement from observers of an act, based on an innate sense (formulated or not) whether something is good or bad, or good/evil. That judgement is closely tied to whether something is beneficial or damaging for the group, communal/tribal animals as we are. Greed is often a substitute for evil for practical purposes. Selfish, greedy and short-sighted are the hallmarks of evil most often. Which makes sense from the tribal perspective. Selfishness and greed will tear apart a tribe, and evolutionary that would have been disastrous for humans, who are fairly helpless without fellow people around.
But evil is not a result of "evil-doers" being evil because of their nature/influenced by devil etc. We are all capable of selfishness, greed and going for short-sighted gains and thus capable of evil. But if one looks for the purely evil people, one might come up regrettably short. Some people are deemed to be responsible for much more evil than others, of course, but that still doesnt make them all evil.
I am digressing, so I'll just leave it there. Just some thoughts on the concept.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
very good points:) thank you:)
I may add: not only is it possible that "evil" comes from "good" intentions in complex societies like ours...but also that "good" things come from "evil" intentions...(I have examples for that, but it would just prolong the post, without adding to the point much).
I will make a bold claim here: I don't even think Osama Bin Laden or Al-Quida is evil(evil as in the devil). Rather they have concrete personal motivations and plans that makes them act in a certain way->and cause damage. To blame it on the force of evil is just diverting from the actual problem (that most likely can be solved with rational reasoning).
good and evil make up nice (and inspiring) song lyrics, poems, or novels, but they aren't fit for political or social analyses or discussion...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
The evil label would depend on who was doing the judging. From a New Yorker's perspective the act was pure evil. For them and their sympathizers, they were justified and it will lead to greater good in the end. It would depend on what one experiences in one's own community. There are really no objective evil (but certainly widley shared subjective ones), and there is certainly no "external evil" that manifests in certain acts.
Somewhat agree. But social analysis is actually a bit impossible without a sense of good/evil or good/bad. The thing is that the judgement of something's "evilness" should not outrank it's rationally material and real circumstances. And to remember that evil acts are not a result of "inherently evil men".
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
...for the final judgement of outcomes, maybe...
but NEVER in explaining how those outcomes actually came about...
for example: World War I was a bad overall outcome, I agree...but that doesn't imply that even one single person involved was "bad"...
Such reasoning wouldn't EXPLAIN anything...
So I guess...I agree with you, too...:)
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."