Evil — Evil = Good?

Eugene 2.0
Super Moderator

Elder

Posts: 5,750

Likes: 1,823
Country: Ukraine
Location: Kharkov
Religion: Christianity
Age: xxxvi

Staff Member

Evil — Evil = Good? May 15, 2022 8:33:34 GMT

Quote

Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 15, 2022 8:33:34 GMT

I don't know maybe someone read the book "A Murder of Crows", or maybe watch the movie, but this film is really something.
Anyway, there was a circumstances the main hero was put. He could not do anything else, except to kill a guy who wanted to set up him (and firstly to kill him). If he wouldn't do that he would let the real murderer go free and be accused of murder six people. And without a doubt he couldn't choose anything else to kill or to be judged wrongly. But if he would kill he would bring more good, than not do to this.

For me it's kinda paradox that occurs time to time. One has to kill someone to bring more good, or else he risks to bring more evil. But I know that exactly this problem is too rusty. Bible has been shouting about it, Quoran has been yelling about it, Upanishads, Homer, Plato, Curt Cobain, and many others famous people have made this problem to be one of the most hit. Along with that this isn't what I was going to ask. I was talking about something quite closer.

Well, my question is that:

         a) either making evil to prevent (stop, block, etc) evil brings good, or
           b) making evil to prevent (stop, block, etc) evil bring nothing (neutrality)?

Last Edit: May 15, 2022 8:34:22 GMT by Eugene 2.0:

∀ ∃ □ ◊ ¬ ∧ → ⊃ ⊢ ⊨ ≡ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ∈ ∉ ⋂ ∅ ϕ 𝓕 ξ α β γ δ Δ

jonbain
Elder

Posts: 2,082

Likes: 964
Meta-Ethnicity: Afro-Celt
Ethnicity: Viking
Country: Cape of Good Hope
Y-DNA: DNA is mythology
Politics: Viking Fundamentalist
Religion: Norse-Christian
Hero: Ras Tafari
Age: Born Summer of '69
Philosophy: Arthurian Chivalry

Evil — Evil = Good? May 16, 2022 12:32:35 GMT Eugene 2.0 likes this

PM Quote

Post by jonbain on May 16, 2022 12:32:35 GMT

May 15, 2022 8:33:34 GMT Eugene 2.0 said:

I don't know maybe someone read the book "A Murder of Crows", or maybe watch the movie, but this film is really something.
Anyway, there was a circumstances the main hero was put. He could not do anything else, except to kill a guy who wanted to set up him (and firstly to kill him). If he wouldn't do that he would let the real murderer go free and be accused of murder six people. And without a doubt he couldn't choose anything else to kill or to be judged wrongly. But if he would kill he would bring more good, than not do to this.

For me it's kinda paradox that occurs time to time. One has to kill someone to bring more good, or else he risks to bring more evil. But I know that exactly this problem is too rusty. Bible has been shouting about it, Quoran has been yelling about it, Upanishads, Homer, Plato, Curt Cobain, and many others famous people have made this problem to be one of the most hit. Along with that this isn't what I was going to ask. I was talking about something quite closer.

Well, my question is that:

         a) either making evil to prevent (stop, block, etc) evil brings good, or
           b) making evil to prevent (stop, block, etc) evil bring nothing (neutrality)?

The main problem is how we understand

the concepts of good, evil, and nothingness.

Specifically how they relate to one another.

I often find the biggest stumbling block to preaching Biblical values

is that people seem to think that it is possible for there

to be a universe that is wholly good and excludes all evil.

So they reject religion, and end up suffering all the more

because of rejecting those values on the basis

that all-good should be possible, so God is just being mean.

Try all you can, make you own narrative-universe

and you will be unable to do so without the idea of evil.

Chances are your favorite movie has an appalling villain.

Even nature documentaries have raw elements to take that role.

We need to see that evil is actually just "very little good",

and that nothingness is the worst state to be in;

if it is at all even possible.

The typical mistake is in thinking that a perfect universe

has no shadows, so because there are shadows in our world,

then this universe is not perfect, so we should refrain

from seeking perfection, as we can never achieve it.

Killing an evil person can be wrong too,

because power-vacuums, just invite the next

power-hungry person to fill that gap,

and they are typically no better.

Its not the ultimate good that we need to seek,

but we need to instill in ourselves the capacity

to seek after that seeking; or at least to

find out why some give up on seeking it.

It is thus better to regret the things you have done,

rather than the things you have not done.

Because doing invites learning.

Doing nothing results in ever more ignorance.

Eugene 2.0
Super Moderator

Elder

Posts: 5,750

Likes: 1,823
Country: Ukraine
Location: Kharkov
Religion: Christianity
Age: xxxvi

Staff Member

Evil — Evil = Good? May 16, 2022 12:54:25 GMT

PM Quote

Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 16, 2022 12:54:25 GMT

May 16, 2022 12:32:35 GMT jonbain said:

May 15, 2022 8:33:34 GMT Eugene 2.0 said:

I don't know maybe someone read the book "A Murder of Crows", or maybe watch the movie, but this film is really something.
Anyway, there was a circumstances the main hero was put. He could not do anything else, except to kill a guy who wanted to set up him (and firstly to kill him). If he wouldn't do that he would let the real murderer go free and be accused of murder six people. And without a doubt he couldn't choose anything else to kill or to be judged wrongly. But if he would kill he would bring more good, than not do to this.

For me it's kinda paradox that occurs time to time. One has to kill someone to bring more good, or else he risks to bring more evil. But I know that exactly this problem is too rusty. Bible has been shouting about it, Quoran has been yelling about it, Upanishads, Homer, Plato, Curt Cobain, and many others famous people have made this problem to be one of the most hit. Along with that this isn't what I was going to ask. I was talking about something quite closer.

Well, my question is that:

         a) either making evil to prevent (stop, block, etc) evil brings good, or
           b) making evil to prevent (stop, block, etc) evil bring nothing (neutrality)?

The main problem is how we understand

the concepts of good, evil, and nothingness.

Specifically how they relate to one another.

I often find the biggest stumbling block to preaching Biblical values

is that people seem to think that it is possible for there

to be a universe that is wholly good and excludes all evil.

So they reject religion, and end up suffering all the more

because of rejecting those values on the basis

that all-good should be possible, so God is just being mean.

Try all you can, make you own narrative-universe

and you will be unable to do so without the idea of evil.

Chances are your favorite movie has an appalling villain.

Even nature documentaries have raw elements to take that role.

We need to see that evil is actually just "very little good",

and that nothingness is the worst state to be in;

if it is at all even possible.

The typical mistake is in thinking that a perfect universe

has no shadows, so because there are shadows in our world,

then this universe is not perfect, so we should refrain

from seeking perfection, as we can never achieve it.

Killing an evil person can be wrong too,

because power-vacuums, just invite the next

power-hungry person to fill that gap,

and they are typically no better.

Its not the ultimate good that we need to seek,

but we need to instill in ourselves the capacity

to seek after that seeking; or at least to

find out why some give up on seeking it.

It is thus better to regret the things you have done,

rather than the things you have not done.

Because doing invites learning.

Doing nothing results in ever more ignorance.

I agree that there are no perfect universes surround us (or at least, they are not the worst). Also, I agree that there are cases, and it cannot be said that for any case evil minus evil results in good. I think that not doing is not a good thing. We have to do, to learn it, and try to learn by ours mistakes (but it's not the worst to learn by others - as the famous proverb says about it).

I've got another question for you. I might not ask you if I had more carefully read your previous comment (I mean maybe you've already answer me it), but what do you think of that: (for example)

p1. to offend a person is not good
p2. let's say a person X was offended by a person Y (the offense 1)
p3. then, that person X offended a person Y offended him back (the offense 2)
C: the offence 2 < the offence 1

In other words, if the offence has a rance from 0... to 1, then in case of p2, we've got, let's say, the offense = 0,7, but in case p3 we've got the offense = 0,3 or lower.

What makes me think like that? Two things. Firstly, I know that to respond isn't always a bad way. Sometimes a person has no other choice then to repeat his foe's move. Seconsly, if to repeat an action too many times it risks to become the other action (e.g. if to use explicit and inapropriate lexic (lexicon) elsewhere in a region R, then after a while all the people in this region will loose an ability to feel the difference between the explicit and inapropriate lexic (lexicon) and others. Or if a person repeat a move M everyday, then this M turns to a habit, and the person stops to registrate it).

∀ ∃ □ ◊ ¬ ∧ → ⊃ ⊢ ⊨ ≡ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ∈ ∉ ⋂ ∅ ϕ 𝓕 ξ α β γ δ Δ

jonbain
Elder

Posts: 2,082

Likes: 964
Meta-Ethnicity: Afro-Celt
Ethnicity: Viking
Country: Cape of Good Hope
Y-DNA: DNA is mythology
Politics: Viking Fundamentalist
Religion: Norse-Christian
Hero: Ras Tafari
Age: Born Summer of '69
Philosophy: Arthurian Chivalry

Evil — Evil = Good? May 16, 2022 15:29:35 GMT Eugene 2.0 likes this

PM Quote

Post by jonbain on May 16, 2022 15:29:35 GMT

Eugene 2.0

One of the real problems with philosophical ethics is that it
tries to maintain its position in an abstract way,
much like math tries to do.

In the mind, there are always endless contingencies
such that any purely abstract ethic or law
will always have exceptions.

The 10 commandments form a hierarchy to try and mitigate
against this problem. But even the God of Truth is Jealous
of the gods that are lies.

That is the other big problem with biblical ethics,
is that what needs to be done to achieve the 10 commandments
is not so clear; most especially with regards the actions of others.

And if it were clear, it would be so long it would require
a dozen lifetimes to read it all.

Your example could easily be twisted from an instance where
it was justified. Like my kitten loves to wake me up by
jumping on my back, and the only way to stop him,
is to catch him and tickle him until he gets the message.

Anyone could take that too far, and there is no clear way
of defining what offenses are justified as retaliation.

We are told to turn the other cheek, this is to compensate
for a tendency to falsely blame or over emphasize the retaliations.

We need only turn the other cheek 490 times.
Its the 491st slap, that brings back all the repressed
frustration, and over-reaches into revenge.

So NOT retaliating can actually have a worse effect
because that frustration can build up and be vented on someone innocent.

This is why it should always be clear to communicate who has
offended you and why. Passive-aggression is actually the dynamic
in so much pathological crime.

People fear their abuser, and end up abusing someone harmless
because they have no outlet.

Pay the devil his due, and he will not own you.

Eugene 2.0
Super Moderator

Elder

Posts: 5,750

Likes: 1,823
Country: Ukraine
Location: Kharkov
Religion: Christianity
Age: xxxvi

Staff Member

Evil — Evil = Good? May 16, 2022 20:07:01 GMT jonbain likes this

PM Quote

Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 16, 2022 20:07:01 GMT

May 16, 2022 15:29:35 GMT jonbain said:

Eugene 2.0

One of the real problems with philosophical ethics is that it
tries to maintain its position in an abstract way,
much like math tries to do.

In the mind, there are always endless contingencies
such that any purely abstract ethic or law
will always have exceptions.

The 10 commandments form a hierarchy to try and mitigate
against this problem. But even the God of Truth is Jealous
of the gods that are lies.

That is the other big problem with biblical ethics,
is that what needs to be done to achieve the 10 commandments
is not so clear; most especially with regards the actions of others.

And if it were clear, it would be so long it would require
a dozen lifetimes to read it all.

Your example could easily be twisted from an instance where
it was justified. Like my kitten loves to wake me up by
jumping on my back, and the only way to stop him,
is to catch him and tickle him until he gets the message.

Anyone could take that too far, and there is no clear way
of defining what offenses are justified as retaliation.

We are told to turn the other cheek, this is to compensate
for a tendency to falsely blame or over emphasize the retaliations.

We need only turn the other cheek 490 times.
Its the 491st slap, that brings back all the repressed
frustration, and over-reaches into revenge.

So NOT retaliating can actually have a worse effect
because that frustration can build up and be vented on someone innocent.

This is why it should always be clear to communicate who has
offended you and why. Passive-aggression is actually the dynamic
in so much pathological crime.

People fear their abuser, and end up abusing someone harmless
because they have no outlet.

Pay the devil his due, and he will not own you.

I remember you were talking about that Psychology was important. I agreed with you and agree with it now. I guess Psychology is important even being not such an accurate science as Physics or Chemistry.

Also, Gospels says that: "If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector" (Matthew 18: 15-17). So, I guess there's a limit of how many times we can forgive our enemies their faults.

The situation with the ten commandments is very true. The history confirms it: most of post-written in Jewish Bible was only just comments to the Torah, or to these the ten commandments. (At least I heard of it from different sources. And Gospels also tell it, when Jesus Christs responded pharisee that there were two main commandments: to love God, and to love thy neighbour.

By the way, I've got a cat who also jumps on my back =) Many times he left scratches on my back, and it is very painful. Unfortunately, today seems he's caught a cold or something. I don't know, I hope he'll be well soon.

This is my cat the name "Ginger" (in Ukrainian it sounds like "Ryzhy").

∀ ∃ □ ◊ ¬ ∧ → ⊃ ⊢ ⊨ ≡ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ∈ ∉ ⋂ ∅ ϕ 𝓕 ξ α β γ δ Δ

Announcements

Recent Threads

Mandatory Edit Reason Plugin

Evil — Evil = Good?

Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 15, 2022 8:33:34 GMT

Post by jonbain on May 16, 2022 12:32:35 GMT

Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 16, 2022 12:54:25 GMT

Post by jonbain on May 16, 2022 15:29:35 GMT

Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 16, 2022 20:07:01 GMT