Poll: Good or Evil?

[Kikosemmek]

I am for my personal state of happiness, whatever it may be at any given moment. In other words, one could say personal gain, but any classification is too specific to my taste when applied to the dimension of morality.

To keep things simple, I'll tell you my point of view first: I do not believe in absolute good or evil. I think the notion of such things is an illusion- it's all perspective, and therefore no one can be judged to be good or evil absolutely. What do I mean absolutely? I mean that, for example, if killing is absolutely evil and wrong, then no one would, under any circumstances commit murder. To have something in the absolute is to say that all things in existence keep as much distance as possible from said absolute, and so no real absolute can exist past the truth. The truth is that we, the observers, have our own agendas and our own lists of good and evil. For any one there is something abhorrent and something pious, in one way of looking at things or another. A hitman, for example, would view the murder of his victims as acceptable means to procure a living, and not as something necessarily wrong and unacceptable- because the hitman's ability to kill many a person shows that murder is acceptable.

If one were to call the hitman evil because the hitman murders on a regular basis, then the evil is a perception within the paradigm of the person calling out the hitman. That person cannot fathom himself in the hitman's shoes where he chooses to kill instead of make a living doing something else that does not involve what one considers evil.

So, all in all morality's a list of personal guidelines, and I'd be a liar if I told you I had none. I do, but I never claim them to be the universal rules, and I do not judge others for disagreeing with me- after all, they are all mere egos, not unlike my own, and to be able to step outside one's ego and relate to others is the practice of wisdom, to me.

I also read some of John Galt's posts about altruism. The way I see it is this: Everyone is completely and utterly self-serving. Altruism, objectively, is to deter oneself in a conceivable manner for the benefit or in the interest of another willingly. What drives this will? Did we just stop there? I don't. Personal gain drives the interest of altruism, as it does in all personal conscious action. I believe that people do what they believe it is best to do at any given moment, and so if one were to decide to perform an act of altruism, what one would be getting out of the act is mental satisfaction. Furthermore, one would also be protecting oneself from a sense of guilt.

If making others happy makes you happy, then you have a personal incentive to be an altruist.

So, if you ask me, everyone is self-centered and self-serving. This makes no one good or evil, which works for me. We are, in fact, neither good nor evil. We are.

 

[Easykill]

Stuff.

I approve.

 

[John Galt]

EDIT: oh wow, i didnt read to much of this topic and was unaware this had become what appears to be a flame war. ignore my post and continue.

Flame war? Where? This is the Escapist, you really have to mess things up really bad to incite one of those. Just be gentle with the English language and we'll pretty much respect you.

Also, Kikosemmek those are some pretty good points there, the only moral absolutes we have are those we willingly impose on ourselves I guess. But don't you think that people should still be able to pass judgement on others because an action so heinously breaks an accepted standard?

Also#2, when did Kikosemmek say "stuff"? I searched his post for about 10 minutes and now I feel more puzzled than ever. Combined this with his last paragraph, and I think it's safe to say that my mind has been blown.

 

[Easykill]

I touch my cake at night.

The same time you said that.

 

[zwitterion117]

I agree with Kikosemmek that all actions, whether for personal gain or for the happiness of others, is ultimately for your own pleasure.

As for the man who kidnapped that rich guy's daughter, you all seem to be making the assumption (and this is becoming increasingly false in my opinion) that the rich guy earned his money. I don't like the idea of forcibly redistributing people's money, but the fact of the matter is a lot of rich people get their money in less than legal or fair ways. I am almost positive that the saying "Behind every great fortune there is a great crime" is correct. If the guy essentially stole his money off the backs of those who actually do work, I am able to completely justify the kidnapper's actions.

 

[Kikosemmek]

Also, Kikosemmek those are some pretty good points there, the only moral absolutes we have are those we willingly impose on ourselves I guess. But don't you think that people should still be able to pass judgement on others because an action so heinously breaks an accepted standard?

Deciding what people should or should not do is an indulgence I keep myself from taking part of- I can say this: we all judge inevitably, because we are all imperfect and therefore succeptible to our own sets of morals or standards. A human is a gregarious animal, however, so do not forget that while many of us might agree on a set of standards or some other protocol, for whatever reason, the number of people sharing an opinion is no grounds for the opinion to be wise. Humans do, as experiments demonstrated, ammend their beliefs and reckonings to suit the societies they see themselves a part of, virtually universally. I cite the German 3rd Reich as a good example of this:

German wardens repeatedly abused and brutalized their captives in the concentration camps, and then broke down in tears when the Allies unlocked the gates. What's up? What happened was a swift paradigm shift in the perception of German society as a whole- under Hitler, the standard is to hate the Jew and those lesser to the Aryan race. Under Allied occupation, humane treatment of all people was demanded, and the people of the 3rd Reich had to cope with these shifts. One can marvel at how easily humans forget the pain of an insult in the vengeance they exact on their aggressors, as the moral gates of hell were basically loosened on the German footsoldier while no one ever considered how much choice he really had in the matter.

What's the lesser of two evils: agree to hate and torture another or have the same applied to you due to moral reluctance? For most people, as a realist, I have to admit that it's the former. In the end, people do follow their orders in fear of retribution.

In the end, people do serve their own needs, yes.

---

To give a less dissatisfying answer to your question, I'd say that I believe in a society where the only rules are those that apply to direct assurement of safety from social (murder; riots; chaos), political (war, foreign relations and trade), and economical (mass inflation/deflation of currency value; gross disparities between social monetary ranks) catastrophes, and in this and only this type of society can people be judged for breaking a law. The system we have now is far from what I describe. With this, I'd make it clear that to be part of a society one must sacrifice a bit of liberty and agree to such aforementioned rules. I'd also make it clear that any action that does not break the rules does not pass through the brain of the legal system.

How would this apply to our world? Gay marriage would be legal because there would be no law making it illegal, as homosexual wedlock is no direct or indirect cause of social, political, or economical crises. Abortion would be legal because the killing of a fetus does not directly cause social, political or economical crises. Note that I will contrast this with the killing of a grown human, which will carry with it a social problem, because those who are tied to the people involved will be affected and/or harmed. The recently departed would have probably been productive citizens, and their loss would probably evoke a a need for vengeance in friends and lovers. A fetus, however, carries with it less emotional baggage. If an abortion takes place, then it is because the mother didn't want to have it, for one reason or another (for the sake of objectivity, I'd also account for the woman being forced into the abortion: if the woman is successfully forced into it, then the powers that made her abort will definitely take no liking to the child once it's alive if the woman disobeyed the pressure). The death of a fetus does not incur the loss of a productive member of society.

Things like the murder of a human being would be illegal not because killing is evil or wrong, but because it will be a disturbance to the whole- a sudden loss of a part of the community- a lessening of the society's peacefulness.

If you care to know, I only harbor one moral code: honesty toward myself. Lying to myself is to me the greatest and only sin I can commit, and to better negotiate and understand my life and myself, I should not seek to hide or distort the truth, and so I will not play a bigot of any kind in sincerity. I guess you could call me a scientist, because that's really what science is all about: hard, objective evidence to find out a common truth we can all relate to. Anyone who tells you different does not quite grasp the essence of science, which is really a sharing of truth under the test and scrutiny of others. Only in this way may one be sure that all illusions are gone.

 

[Easykill]

More stuff.

More approval.

 

[FatRabidRamboCow]

Happiness for others would (in my opinion) result in boredom. You've reached that peak of happiness, that state of pure please. Why do anything else? Might as well not live, its the only thing left. Also, Happiness is different for everyone. It might result in pain or the destruction to someone/something which would lead to someone else being unhappy - the loophole begins. The same goes "for the greater good", it just changes too radically based on opinion.

I vote "Not use it". The world works as it is, why tip the scales and risk fucking it up for everyone?

 

[Easykill]

If I ruled the world, there would be three provinces. One would be your typical freedomless safe place, one is controlled anarchy where everyone is their own country and are only bound by international law. The other one is where people are raised. They choose which place to go. Once they choose there is no turning back. It might not work, but it'd definitly be interesting. Also I don't think there's even such thing as a heretic anymore. I can't see them being worthy of death anyways.

 

[John Galt]

I touch my cake at night.

The same time you said that.

Ouch, that one hurt.

If I ruled the world, there would be three provinces. One would be your typical freedomless safe place, one is controlled anarchy where everyone is their own country and are only bound by international law. The other one is where people are raised. They choose which place to go. Once they choose there is no turning back.

You'd turn the world into a Mummorpugor?

Now, plenty of people get board when they achieve the things they *thought* would bring them happiness, but, that doesn't say anything about happiness--that just means they were wrong about what they really needed.

I think for most people, it isn't actually achieving the goal, it is more of the actual work and effort required to earn it. Sorta like my experience with WoW. I loved playing through it but once I got to level 65, things just tapered off until Grubbles the Gnomelock died, all sad and lonely. Ironically, thinking about getting to level 65 was much more fun than actually "being" 65. When I realized this I decided not to waste anymore time on it, seeing as how boredom would swoop in like a hawk and claim my $15 a month.

 

[Kikosemmek]

That's not true though--the murder of a heretic in a fundamentalist religious society not only does not lessen the peacefulness of a society, but rather, it increases it. If you define 'part of the community' as 'harm to that thing will cause a disturbance to the whole', well, then those things to which harm will not cause a disturbance to the whole aren't 'part of the community'. They become, in a sense, out-laws, beyond the protection of the law.

That's more than just the "sacrifice a bit of liberty," don't you think? To say that you have to sacrifice all liberty except that residual left over after the legal system has been geared to assure "safety from social (murder; riots; chaos), political (war, foreign relations and trade), and economical (mass inflation/deflation of currency value; gross disparities between social monetary ranks) catastrophes"? That my right to be free from deadly violence only reaches to the extent that others "will be affected and/or harmed"?

You say abortion would be legal under such a system. However, how is an orphaned person with handicaps severe enough to keep them from ever being a productive member of society any different than a fetus? In a sense, aren't they *less* than some fetuses, which at least have the possibility of becoming productive members of society?

I guess I have serious doubts about a legal system that fails to protect those most in need of legal protection, you know?

I'll respond to each paragraph in order quoted:

I apologize for not making the fabric of the society I am describing clear. It is all based on mutual agreement and equality between the consenting and contributing members of the society. In your example, while the murder of the heretic would bring peace of mind to the religious majority, the peace of mind and health of the heretic, a consenting member of the society are forfeit, and this is unequal treatment of a member of the society, so this would not be allowed. Bigotry is left to be dealt with by the people harboring it. Whether they hate or love a type of person is no business of the law. It is their own personal matter. The business of the law in this example is to uphold the rights of every member equally.

Sacrificing liberty is exactly what's required to be a part of such society- no more and no less. You must understand that if people agree to be part of a whole that has an agenda to watch over its members equally, everyone must give an adequate, acceptable contribution, because 'equal contribution' is a debatable margin. Think of society today. Do we not sacrifice liberty to live in it? In the U.S., one under the age of 18 cannot be outside their house after 11 P.M. unless accompanied by a legal adult. This is a very small and meager example, but every law in society is a sacrifice of liberty.

What must be made clear is that to live in a society should be seen as a choice, as humans can very well support themselves in wilderness and solitude. We are not stupid and incapable, but for those who want to live together to achieve something greater than what each can do individually, sacrifices have to be made. Respect is a price you have to pay for cooperation. This is something you would hear in a high school classroom, but it is very true. If one would prefer not to abide by the rules, then they should not be part of the society. The rules, however, though their description sounds like every other fascist regime's agenda (as they all pass their legislations under the pretense of protection), would have to be agreed upon directly by all members. Otherwise, the society will collapse. With this granted, you can be sure that this type of society will not be larger than a village or a city, in most cases, because direct voting and discussions will have to be present for a rule to pass- after all, the rules must be agreed upon by the consenting members of the social body. This is a liberty we do not currently have in most republics, as those rule themselves with a small body of electives. I do not believe in such an approach, but that's just my personal opinion.

A cripple (I'm going to assume that this is a helpless person on his/her own) in this case would not be a contributing member of society, and as such cannot be a consenting member, because he/she cannot contribute to support the outcome of his/her votes. The society itself may or may not agree to legislate laws to support the crippled, but that is for the society to decide. In the case of vegetates, the same rule would be applied: if the society deems it a good solution to support them, then they'll have outside help. Should they be killed through euthanasia, it would not be counted as murder, because they are unproductive and unconsenting (whether or not they can think is not the issue, but it's whether or not they can show us they can think, and they cannot do that) members of society.

Those who are physically and mentally crippled do not need the help of the law. They need the help of family and friends. If they have none, what disorder will come of their deaths? They are not productive.

From my angle, no one is forced to be part of the society unless they request to be treated as part of the society and receive it's benefits. They must understand that to act within the whole means that they have to cooperate and contribute to the whole. If they do not agree with it, then they may complain, as all humans do naturally. No one is automatically counted as a member if they are born to members if the society, either.

The nature of the contributions can vary, as I mentioned, and some people may opt to become temporary members if they need others to help them with a task, contributing as the society asks and they themselves see fit. Going back to the cripple example- if man with no arms or legs happens to be the wisest person in the earth, then his abilities as a consultant or advisor would be invaluable, and he would then be counted as a productive member of society. Broaden your mind and accept any contribution!

This type of society that I describe is dynamic and localized. I do not find myself believing in being part of a country of millions, where my voice is not heard and no candidate seems to represent my opinions. My world is the immediate physical one that I have a living in. In fact, I'm an anarchist. I'd probably be one of those people living on the fringe of that society, enlisting and retiring as a member as I see fit, because sometimes I just don't agree with others. By my standards, it should be fine to disagree peacefully.

 

[The Reverend]

Well Kikosemmek, that kind of society, like communism, would work well in theory. Practically applying it in even a small collective of people would ultimately lead to a failure, in my opinion, due to human nature itself. Its in our nature to destroy ourselves (why do you think there's so many emo kids out there) and with the added "funbox" of the multitude of human emotions, such ideas of "disagreeing peacefully" would only last so long. After all, some people have shorter fuses than others, and there are a multitude of things that can wind someone up and ultimately lead to not so peaceful disagreements. A fine idea, but impractical, methinks.
(My scanners detect that there is high possibility that I am talking out of my arse. If this is the case, I don't apologize in advance, due to article 6 of the international declaration of human rights, freedom of expression. And arse talking is one form of accepted expression. Just ask any politician. You may however, ignore the above comments.)

Oh and as for what I would do with this "responsibility.." well, I'd fulfill my own desires and then dispense vengeance and benevolence when I saw fit. Because I'm a bit of a mustard.

 

[John Galt]

Its in our nature to destroy ourselves (why do you think there's so many emo kids out there) and with the added "funbox" of the multitude of human emotions, such ideas of "disagreeing peacefully" would only last so long.

I disagree, I don't see humans as self-destructive, I see us for the most part as wanting to advance the goals of the self. However, after millenia of being indoctrinated in the ways of altruism, we see discarding the needs and wants of the self for those of the others as a value. Because our morality is focused not on improving the self, but of sacrificing it to the whims of others,we often destroy ourselves thinking we're achieving a higher goal, when in reality we are damning ourselves to failure. Yes, all people have the capacity to behave in an emotional, self-destructive way, but as living creatures, we also have an innate drive to live and survive.

This predisposition towards altruism allows a well-meaning, rational society to be destroyed by an individual or group of individuals who see force as a valid means of control. People will commit great and horrible atrocities if lead to beleive it is for the greater good.