Poll: Good or Evil?

[John Galt]

Why does the motive have no effect on the nature of the action? Well, Hitler wanted to acheive racial purity in Germany. A sensible end, but his means were through torture and murder, a barbaric practice any reasonable human can point to as an example of depravity.

The Inquisition felt that they could please God(a decent end) by inflicting horrible punishments on many who were innocent(again, a horrible way to carry out a decent end). However, the very same church that claimed God loved all his children would stop at nothing to punish people they percieved as a threat to the spiritual well being of the whole.

The fact that people think that they can destroy, take advantage of, or in any other way exploit others to achieve their goals is why the ends can never justify the means.

 

[G.]

Yes, they may not have wanted to harm the victim but motives do not change the action, and since that action results in the unwarranted death of another human, the perpetrator is indeed a murderer.

But that's just your moral opinion that the only thing relevant to classifying a killing is the action, and the motive is of no consequence. If you want us to share your opinion, you need to show us why it's better than ours if we disagree.

Well, my non-moral opinion would be that motive is a personal, psychological thing that can't be objectively ascertained by external oberservers. Me picking up a knive could be an action taken by me for several reasons: slicing some meat, remove the grime under my fingernails, stab someone repeatedly.
If a murder / killing / manslaughter has taken place, we're left with one observable, objective fact: dead forum troll. Whether it was me, you, Galt, is left for investigation. Motive comes into play at the trial: crime of passion, accident, intent are mitigating factors in the sentencing. If you're lucky, you're being tried primarily because you acted against the law, and not because you did something "wrong".

And continuing from my previous train of thought: by saying that "Laws can be geared towards increasing the freedom of the individual to do as he or she pleases without forcing the notion that freedom=good on anyone, because it's self-referentially incoherent of anyone to say 'I have the right to no freedom' because the exercise of a right is a kind of freedom" and assert that with this statement morality has been eliminated, you're saying:

A) Morality is a fallacy
Morality is a judgement in the order of good or bad
Laws are based on morality
Laws can instead be geared to increase freedom
Freedom is not equal to morality
Ergo, laws that increase freedom > laws based on morality
Ergo, freedom is better than morality
Ergo, Freedom is good, morality bad
A judgement in the order of good or bad.

B) Relinquishing a right is actually fullfilling a right. That doesn't make sense. Let's deconstruct that statement:
I have an apple. (ie, {apple, me, have}, a positive relationship between me and the apple)
I throw the apple. (An act, I get rid of the apple)
I have no apple. (ie, -{apple, me, have}, a negative relationship between me and the apple)
I have an apple. (ie, {apple, me, have}, a positive relationship between me and the apple)

There's something wrong, not a moral judgement.

[Damn late night posting, spelling and grammar are suffering]

 

[The Negotiator]

Jesus Christ!

If you had half a mind I previousley said I made that list up!

BTW, in case you didn't notice, I also said "RAMBO IN VIDEO GAMES" for god sake!

Or wait, were you talking about something eles?

The point is there is a balance of good and evil and I am willing to try and keep that balance in order.

Even if it means life takes a toll.

 

[G.]

Well, my non-moral opinion would be that motive is a personal, psychological thing that can't be objectively ascertained by external oberservers. Me picking up a knive could be an action taken by me for several reasons: slicing some meat, remove the grime under my fingernails, stab someone repeatedly.
If a murder / killing / manslaughter has taken place, we're left with one observable, objective fact: dead forum troll. Whether it was me, you, Galt, is left for investigation. Motive comes into play at the trial: crime of passion, accident, intent are mitigating factors in the sentencing. If you're lucky, you're being tried primarily because you acted against the law, and not because you did something "wrong".

If we only have one observable, objective fact of a dead forum troll, well, how does that make it anyone's fault? You also need to link a person to the occurrence of that death in some sort of chain of causation (if we're not making people statutorily responsible for the death of other people or something weird).

Perhaps I should have elaborated on my definition of investigation: finding the perpretrator of the act. Doesn't anyone watch cop shows anymore?

I mean, if you're trying to say that only facts which are objective should be let in before the sentencing phase, then okay, but, how do you deal with an issue like self-defense?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(theory). "Whodunnit?" is a different question than "Why did he / she do it?". And I repeat:

crime of passion, accident, intent are mitigating factors in the sentencing. If you're lucky, you're being tried primarily because you acted against the law, and not because you did something "wrong".

Intent / motive doesn't lessen the question of whodunnit, but most oftenly intent (murder vs. voluntary manslaughter), and coupled with that, sentencing.

Part 2, after I get home from work.

 

[John Galt]

If person A sees person B with a knife, it is a personal fact that person B is trying to kill person A. Person A may just be paranoid and afraid of fish cleaners. However, if person B actually makes an aggressive move towards person A, then it is an objective fact. I feel that soon we'll have a "Han-Shot-First" styled debate going on here.

 

[Kikosemmek]

I don't recall using the term 'perfect' to describe anything. I tend to stay away from using the word, and here's why:

If you are into figuring out the nature of things philosophically, then you will stumble on the fact that everything and nothing are everything and nothing- an antithesis is a thesis perceived from an opposing point of view. Anything is the exact same thing as its opposite, and we, the perceivers, are lining up on different points in the sphere to look at its center. What I'm basically saying is that if perfection is stasis (and on this I agree with you), then perfection is nothing, because nothing is in stasis. Stasis is nonexistent because everything changes, and that includes any optimum point, so if you want a state of perfection, it would have to change constantly. In an unbiased timeframe, which means it must last forever, perfection will have encompassed every point- everything. Now, step back and take a look: is the world not locked in the stasis of constant change, since the fact that everything changes never changes? Isn't perfection, then, the culmination of all things, or in other words, everything, since everything changes without cease (and this never changes)? If so, then everything is, in fact, nothing, because nothing never changes, and we have just reached the point of logical nexus- paradox.

Paradox, my friend, is (and therefore isn't, but bear with me) the rule of the universe. This is why no one can have a single answer to the meaning of life without incurring a measure of bias. That's fine, because in existence we are all imperfect and biased. I merely promote awareness of this fact instead of claiming complete objectivity.

 

[Singing Gremlin]

I would describe myself as a good person with an incredibly wonky moral compass. I can quite happily distinguish between good and evil, so to speak, but I don't apply this in daily life. I look at the things I want, weigh my benefit against any loss inflicted on others, and act accordingly. But I don't apply pre-determined morals to a situation if possible (of course, some morals are unavoidable).

For example, I have a friend at school who buys things in town, ups the price and sells them on again, normally food. I have no scruples with stealing the odd doughnut from him simply because it'll taste nice for me, and he sells 'em for enough that he'll still be making a very large profit. I don't feel justified for doing it because he's ripping people off, because he doesn't force people to be ripped off. Nor would I really care if he had any clearly wrong practises. I have no moral basis for it, but do it because a doughnut will taste good for me and not ruin him. I'm entirely aware that morally, I'm in the wrong. But I'm happy and he's not exactly in great suffering. Therefore, by stealing the aforementioned doughnut, I've brought more happiness into the world than by being moral and upstanding.

I guess basically what I'm trying to say is that to be good is to make people happy without being confused by any ideas of some 'bigger picture' or higher morality. You weigh up the likely benefits and consequences and act accordingly. If it goes wrong and makes people unhappy (which I am as guilty of as anyone else, possilbly more), you accept responsibilty, try and fix what you can and learn from it.

 

[John Galt]

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?

Interesting situation. If you knew that the drug could cause sleepwalking behavior then yes, you should be held accountable just as much as anyone who willingly puts a drug into their system.

However, if you were not aware of the side-effects due to the company not telling you, then they would be guilty of fraud or improper testing of a drug. You might get off easier if you could not anticipate such a reaction.

 

[Break]

Interesting situation. If you knew that the drug could cause sleepwalking behavior then yes, you should be held accountable just as much as anyone who willingly puts a drug into their system.

What if the drug was for crippling pain?

Or what if, instead of falling asleep from the drug you fall asleep at the wheel because you stayed up all night partying? Or you stayed up all night feeding starving orphans?

Or you couldn't get to sleep the night before and you were heading off to a coke-filled bareback orgy with prostitutes? Or you couldn't get to sleep the night before and you were heading off to feed starving orphans?

It was an interesting question until you brought the tired old cliche of "should good people get preferential treatment to bad people?" into it.

 

[UncleWesker]

The greater good? Hmm... that's a tricky one. You see to me the greater good can't be achieved through the suffering of others. The only true way to work for the greater good is through self-sacrifice.

 

[end_boss]

I am BEYOND Good and Evil!!

Sorry, I don't have anything to contribute, I just wanted to throw that in.

And I've still yet to finish that game.