You have to be Evil to be Beneficial

[burningdragoon]

I am in the boat that the value of a human life is incomparable to another, so I would not do anything like this. I will not actively destroy people to save/preserve a different group of people. If it is all equal and something like killing legitimately evil would be balanced out with the loss of genuinely good, than I wouldn't do that either.

The only thing I would considering doing, and I still would likely not, would be to kill myself. I cannot compare the value of my life to another, but I at least have an understanding of my potential. If sacrificing myself would allow one person to live who could potentially do more good, it would at least be something I would consider.

Tough question though. Ow my head.

 

[REAPER5594]

kill all the idiotic douchebags, there that is both beneficial, and im sure some people will think that is evil... done and done.

damn it! I've been Ninja'd

Same question for you. Would you kill everyone Intelligent if it meant everyone idiotic dies.

I'm speaking from the logic that if I kill at least 99.9% of the dumbass population (beneficial) it would be considered evil because I "took human lives" which for some reason, is frowned upon in most of society. In this respect, I have done a "good" AND "evil" act, while only expending half the time and effort. Ya' know?

 

[Da Chi]

I am in the boat that the value of a human life is incomparable to another, so I would not do anything like this. I will not actively destroy people to save/preserve a different group of people. If it is all equal and something like killing legitimately evil would be balanced out with the loss of genuinely good, than I wouldn't do that either.

The only thing I would considering doing, and I still would likely not, would be to kill myself. I cannot compare the value of my life to another, but I at least have an understanding of my potential. If sacrificing myself would allow one person to live who could potentially do more good, it would at least be something I would consider.

Tough question though. Ow my head.

Thanks for the honest answer. You can understand why I've been racking my brain over this hypothetical.

 

[HT_Black]

I'd steal two hundred quadrillion (it's a real number) dollars from businesses across the united states, and thus release that much into the ailing US economy, which in turn would bail that country out of the gutter and set it for two Iraq wars to come. Then, to follow up, I'd purposefully endanger and subsequently save the lives of several dozen rich people, and by doing that I would better and then immediately terminate the lives of an equal number of other rich people.

 

[Da Chi]

kill all the idiotic douchebags, there that is both beneficial, and im sure some people will think that is evil... done and done.

damn it! I've been Ninja'd

Same question for you. Would you kill everyone Intelligent if it meant everyone idiotic dies.

I'm speaking from the logic that if I kill at least 99.9% of the dumbass population (beneficial) it would be considered evil because I "took human lives" which for some reason, is frowned upon in most of society. In this respect, I have done a "good" AND "evil" act, while only expending half the time and effort. Ya' know?

I understand your point but it's a hypothetical where the consequence is something evil to YOU. Not society. It doesn't have to be killing intelligent people, but something equally abhorrent to you.

 

[KefkaCultist]

kill all the idiotic douchebags, there that is both beneficial, and im sure some people will think that is evil... done and done.

That's pretty much my answer in a nutshell.

Or I'd rob banks and shoot innocents to give money to the needy and save their lives

 

[Sewblon]

I will unite all sentient life under one banner, end all war forever and rule the universe, but I will commit genocide, torture and miscellaneous shady dealings to do it.

 

[Da Chi]

I'd embezzle two hundred quadrillion (it's a real number) dollars, and thus release that much into the ailing US economy, which in turn would bail that country out of the gutter and set it for two Iraq wars to come. Then, to follow up, I'd purposefully endanger and subsequently save the lives of several dozen rich people, and by doing that I would better and then immediately terminate the lives of an equal number of other rich people.

Ok, but to embezzle the money you would first have to take it from all other countries until you have enough. Would you cripple the economies of the rest of the world to save the United States?
And about your second action, how would you decide on the rich people you kill and the rich people you save? What makes one better than another?

 

[johnsom]

With that logic couldn't you do bad things and force good to happen. Might soften the blow if good follows bad. To answer the question I probably couldn't find something to change.

 

[Biosophilogical]

I'd give myself ultimate water-bending abilities (like from Avatar). Giving myself the ability is entirely neutral, because unless I do something with it, it serves no purpose, beneficial or otherwise. Then I could play the 'moral relativity card', and use my super-power for objective means (like, if I kill these people, more people will live, therefore, if you accept life as valuable, I performed a beneficial deed, but because morals are relative, the action is neither benevolent or evil, and therefore, there are no consequences). So yeah, it would all be about apathy, and as a teenager, I'm fairly certain I can manage that much.

EDIT: Actually, if it is about balance beyond that of morality, then I could be a pacifist hero, bringing rains to drought areas by taking it from floods, or putting out bushfires by taking water from humid areas. Alternatively, I could harmlessly incapacitate an army by lowering that area's tides (disabling most ships) and using that water to explode unmanned tanks.

EDIT2: Actually, you said one action to help the world ... I'd stick with my entirely neutral ability of water bending. It, in itself, is a signle action, so therefore my future actions do not require balance, and because it doesn't ebnefit or harm people, it doesn't require a 'balancing of the scales'.

 

[Broken Boy]

Hmmmm... Guess mine is more selfish...

If I could gain billions of dollars I would sacrifice my father a few other key family members...

But on the up side I would help some of the other family members with the money. ; )

 

[Da Chi]

With that logic couldn't you do bad things and force good to happen. Might soften the blow if good follows bad. To answer the question I probably couldn't find something to change.

I guess it would make sense, but for sake of discussion it might be flawed. You could theoretically kill everyone and everything, and the good would be to bring it all back. No change, no choice.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

I wouldn't really do anything. If the good to evil ration is 1:1 then there is no point in doing any good because it would just be cancelled out by something bad. Now if the ratio was more like 2:1 or 3:1 maybe that's when I start killing millions to save billions...

 

[Wodan]

If you could do one thing to help the world what would it be?
Could be anything. But one catch is that you have to do something horrible to balance your actions.
Like Karmic Balance.
For every good action you have to do something equally abhorrent. Every life saved, one would be lost. An Eye for an Eye so to speak.

Would you help the world by becoming a monster?
Would you do something selfish for your own personal gain?
Would you avoid the option to help people to preserve your soul?


I've been pondering this. If I was to cure cancer, I would instead have to kill the equal number of people every year, and rob people of money for medical bills, make people sick and altogether ruin lives. And I would have to deal with the burden of doing all this till the day I die. Let's say there there is no way I could die unless by natural causes, would I be able to handle it. Could I be a saviour for some and the destruction for others. Would I be able to bear that weight? In all honesty I don't think I could.

So that being said, I could do something less grandiose and have less of a consequence. Let's say I were to save the life of a single family member. In turn, I would only have to kill someone of equal importance to me. Who would I kill? How could I possibly decide on the person?

Tell me how you would react in these situations. I'm a firm believer in karma and have been wondering about the consequences of greatness.
Maybe share you're own hypothetical and see if people could handle it.

Great hypothetical question. It raises a lot of deeper questions in the background. One of my favorite questions related to this is whether or not we are inherently evil or good. I would love to go into a deeper discussion however it would be to long of a discussion to have on the internet. I bet half of you haven't even made it this far in my post, TLDR derp?

What I would do to benefit mankind would be to give everyone pain in their lives. Not excruciating pain, but pain nonetheless. No one would die, and no real harm would be done. The bright side is that if people can grow from the pain and learn from the pain their lives would evolve into beautiful meaningful lives. Those who do not successfully learn and grow from the pain suffer and in some cases die.

Sound familiar?...

 

[Da Chi]

I'd give myself ultimate water-bending abilities (like from Avatar). Giving myself the ability is entirely neutral, because unless I do something with it, it serves no purpose, beneficial or otherwise. Then I could play the 'moral relativity card', and use my super-power for objective means (like, if I kill these people, more people will live, therefore, if you accept life as valuable, I performed a beneficial deed, but because morals are relative, the action is neither benevolent or evil, and therefore, there are no consequences). So yeah, it would all be about apathy, and as a teenager, I'm fairly certain I can manage that much.

EDIT: Actually, if it is about balance beyond that of morality, then I could be a pacifist hero, bringing rains to drought areas by taking it from floods, or putting out bushfires by taking water from humid areas. Alternatively, I could harmlessly incapacitate an army by lowering that area's tides (disabling most ships) and using that water to explode unmanned tanks.

to effectively create neutral karma through every action you do, you will never again care about anyone, anything, or yourself. Essentially creating a shell of a human with no purpose and no will. You can have all the superpowers you want if you can handle that.

 

[Sindaine]

If I could choose the good thing and the bad thing I had to do, then sure.

Eternal world peace at the expense of every living pedophile's family (and the sick freaks themselves)? Hell yes I will!

 

[Da Chi]

Hmmmm... Guess mine is more selfish...

If I could gain billions of dollars I would sacrifice my father a few other key family members...

But on the up side I would help some of the other family members with the money. ; )

Also, you would have to take the money from someone else to gain it. if that changes your answer at all.

 

[Da Chi]

obliterate north korea, kill all the douce bags in the middle east, wipe out some of the crazies here in the states, and use the accumulated karma power to fuel science.

But there is no consequence. You have to have consequence otherwise this is a wishing game. What if all the karmic fuel created a scientific superweapon, that killed the entire united states and destroyed anyone who could stop the weapon. Even if you were the sole survivor in the States, would you do it?