Poll: Good or Evil?

[Duck Sandwich]

What if I take a sleeping pill to, say, get a good night's rest before I go help starving orphans, and I wind up committing a crime while I'm in a sleeping pill induced haze? I did something, CHOSE something that I knew would impair my judgment in that situation too. Should I be held to the same level of responsibility as the person who commits a crime after getting completely drunk?

I'm not arguing either way, I'm just saying that there's a lot to think about if we lay down an iron-clad rule of 'you chose to impair your judgment so you're responsible for any bad judgments that follow'.

You shouldn't be held to the same responsibility as a drunk, because even though you chose to impair your judgment, it was for a good purpose (being able to help starving orphans). Although I must admit, to what amount of responsibility you should be held, if any, I have no idea.

 

[Easykill]

Umm.... I was proud of this thread and would like to revive it, but I can't think of anything to say. Little help?

 

[Mr Wednesday]

Oh man, nothing says pseudo-philosophy more than an internet discussion on morality.

I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, but count me out. I get seriously tired of people hanging on the edge of moral relativism and thinking they're dead clever for it, without really accepting its ramifications.

Oh, and for the reccord.
Light Jedi.

 

[Wormthong]

i think that if there is a god he is like me only with more power only looking to rilief boredom and thusly creating a planet with the start of a species and further on leave them alone to in the end see them destroy themeselves(or you this wouldnt matter becouse at least you arent bored anymore)so to this poll if i had this option i would awnser what is the most intersting or "fun" for me wich i guess is some sort of self gain but can at the same time be all the other ansers
(srry for crapy english)

 

[Easykill]

It's a shame the greater good lost. I mean, think. You have the power to change everything you hate going on in the world, who cares if a few people need to get hurt? In the end, it hurts less people.

 

[John Galt]

The greater good is a very slippery slope. You can do anything and justify it by saying that you had the best of intentions. Hitler and Stalin all had their own dreams for utopia and look what happened, millions died, where's the greater good in that?

Giving someone enough power to change the world is dangerous. If you give them enough power to do something like that, then you must make them responsible to all they affect. And if they had to answer for their actions, then the wielders of said power would find themselves in a pretty bad situation.

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

It occured to me a while ago that it is not what a person does that makes them good or evil, it's what they WOULD do if they could do whatever they wanted with no repercussions.

The problem with this question is the "no repercussions" part - no repercussions for who? Because "won't get caught/punished" is not the same as "no repercussions." If there are no repercussions at all then it doesn't matter what you do one way or the other. Or no personal repercussions, no repercussions toward myself?

It sounds like the conversation here is mostly of the "no punishment" variety, but I find that really uninteresting. Most of the restrictions on my freedom have to do with the requirements of self-preservation, not the rule of law. So what would I do if there were no personal repercussions? Quit my job. Stop eating, unless I felt like it, go live outside and sleep wherever I wanted, as much or as little as I wanted, make use of only the resources I needed at the moment I needed them, rather than having to hoard things in preparation for possible scarcity. Be kind just because I can. (I see no appeal in deliberate cruelty. I am cruel enough by accident, why would I want to add to it?) Quit worrying about little shit. Whenever I think, "Someone really oughta do some thing about that," do something about it. Daydream as much as I want. Walk everywhere. Find a really good street musician, sit down and listen to him for more than two minutes. Try things out. Indulge my curiosity. Take my time, because for the first time ever, that time would actually be mine.

I'd never get hungry or cold or sick or hurt. So basically, I'd be the happiest, healthiest homeless person on the planet.

Would that make me good or evil? I'd like to think I would leave things better than I found them. That's good, isn't it? I'm agnostic about the Greater Good. I like the Smaller Good, just lots and lots of it.

 

[000Ronald]

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...

 

[000Ronald]

Also, the greater good lost because a lot of people don't have a clear idea of what the greater good is. And Kudos to them for being completely honest with us and themselves. I will always do what I think is right; to betray this would be the most terrible thing I could do.

apologies abound

 

[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.