|
Post by The Kaiser on Mar 24, 2005 15:50:57 GMT -5
Here's a very (well at least I think it is) deep question: What is the true nature of Good and Evil?
With Good: Do the ends justify the means? Is the murder of 1 person fine if it saves the lives of a 1000? Would it be evil to not save those thousand people because you refuse to kill one? Is donating to charity a good action? What about if you donate only to increase your reputation or earn you some kind ofreward (e.g. A knighthood in Britain)?
And for Evil: What is Evil? Is mass murder evil? Or is that just a sign of a defective mind? Is wearing a cape evil? Or is that just the sign of a disturbingly large wardrobe (I have a cape ;D... well I want one ) Is Evil babarity? Or is it more subtle?
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by LordTerrible on Mar 24, 2005 16:51:33 GMT -5
I don't believe in Evil. I believe there is stupidity, humanity, bad luck and plain ol' insanity. Not Evil. People shooting up schools aren't evil, they just wack yo. Saddam Hussein isn't(/wasn't) evil, he just a bit insane.. kinda like Hitler (megalomaniac, along with a few others). Only Hitler was also P.O.'d since Germany got pwnaged in WW1.
Some guy said that 95% of all people are basically reluctant to hurt another human being. They don't want to, and they don't like it. This guy doesn't have much scientific credibility attached to himself, but he has a point. We have the ~5%, who aren't reluctant to hurting other people since they a) can't put themselves in their place of pain (sociopaths), or b) actually enjoys hurting people (psychopaths).
Is someone who hurts someone in blind frenzy evil? Can he help it? Does he at any point actually make the choice to flip out and kill people, or is it just in his nature to get frenzied and kill stuff when he gets sufficiently angered (ie. he's slightly insane)?
|
|
|
Post by The Kaiser on Mar 25, 2005 8:43:03 GMT -5
So should socipathetic/psychopathetic define evil then? Is "evil" basically just a form of insanity that leads someone to harm others? That sounds pretty plausible, I can't think of a case where an "Evil" person couldn't also be described as insane, the two seem to go together.
But then is our view of "Evil" not open to interpretation. I can think of a lot of groups that would not see Hitler as mad, and a few more that would see him as a "messiah". So society has an effect on deciding what is "insane" and what is "wrong"? Stupid relativistic morality, it seems no matter how hard you try to make morals absolute, the more people find exceptions which call a code of morals into question
|
|
|
Post by Bludgeonman on Mar 25, 2005 9:01:18 GMT -5
Heh. Me and SirJoe took an online personality test the other day. We scored almost exactly the same in every category, except for the emotion/logic section. I, apparrently, think with my "heart", always with the good of others in mind. He thinks logically, not letting the livelihood of others interfere with his plans.
According to this, then, the only difference between Good and Evil is the devotion to one's agenda. An evil person will strive to achieve his ends, even going so far as to sacrifice others to keep control of the situation. A good person will carry out his plans, trying to be as compassionate as he can, avoiding harming his companions and trying to include them, if possible, as co-workers.
Of course, this is only an internet personality test, and is therefore subject to heavy interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by LordTerrible on Mar 25, 2005 9:15:45 GMT -5
I've just recently picked up on Edgar Allan Poe, who tells many tales of evilness. Interesting is the Cask of Amontillado, which is about an aristocrat wanting to take revenge on another aristocrat... See, he's very Evil, and schemeing... reminded me of Kaiser. Montresor is pissed off at this here Fortunato character for whatever reason, and he kills him off using the awesome power of chaining him in a dungeon and sealing it with a wall. So, is this Montresor insane? Taking ultimate revenge like that. He must be the definition of Evil, not flipping out and killing people, but plotting revenge in a very cool way. He's not doing it for anything but the vengeance, living up to his family motto of Nemo me impune lascessit, or "Noone assails me with impunity" (or, "Don't fuck wit' us if you wanna live mothafucka!!") I guess he is. Wanting to hurt someone so bad can't be totally normal. He's taking pleasure in it, too.
|
|
|
Post by The Kaiser on Mar 25, 2005 9:55:55 GMT -5
Ah yes, "He is as evil as The Kaiser" should become a proverb! ;D
So something planned, pre-meditated is evil? But then if Montresor was presented as hero, he wouldn't be seeking "revenge" but "justice" and Fortunato's death would be "comeuppance" and not "murder".
And Bludgeon, what about if the "evil" person's ends are for the good of all? If they harm others but the end result is for good? Take the situation where person X creates a plague with a 95% mortality rate. After 95% of the world's population is dead and the person is finally caught, they claim they were only helping humanity by ensuring only the most resistant to disease would procreate. For the small cost of over 5 billion people, they've helped protect all of humanity from a plague in the future. Good, or Evil?
This got me thinking. The most famous Evil figure would have to be the anti-christ, devil, satan etc. But from a non-relgious perspective, what paticularly makes the "Dark Lord" evil? He hasn't commited mass muder. He doesn't walk around with a club and whack people to death. He doesn't even undercook meat to give party guests food poisioning.
In fact about the only thing he does is trick people into commiting evil acts, "leading them astray". And he's does it more out of spite than any real love of the job. So is he really evil? Or just misunderstood?
Oh and according to the Saxons, he hides in the woods and and rubs his hand together menacingly
|
|
|
Post by LordTerrible on Mar 28, 2005 10:53:59 GMT -5
"Satan is the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!" - The 9th Satanic statement
Yeah, I think that plague-guy would then be Evil, since he made a lot of people feel bad (by killing them). No real need to do it, since it had just come naturally anyways. Noone really benefitted from it in any way either.
|
|