You have to be Evil to be Beneficial

[Da Chi]

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...

It's karmic chemistry, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

 

[DCFowl]

I think that the answer is to avoid extrems. Instead of killing all the idiots make it so that every one (or every one thats an idiot) thinks about what they say or do before they do it. to balance that out, things like alcohol, tiredness and other things that reduce inhabition, have a much greater effect.

Avoid trying to fix every problem, but make it easier for people to fix thier own problems, that way they can deal with the problems that your changes create.

DCFowl

 

[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?

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.

that makes it a bit harder, seeing as I don't really feel. uhhh... fuck. there is nothing equal to the good I would be doing. All I can think about is doing mandatory genetic screenings and I.Q. tests so you can be ALLOWED to procreate. Oh, wait, that would be beneficial too. I can't think of anything.

 

[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.

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

Oh no problem at all. If someone's priorities are in a different order than mine, it can very well shift from the evil not being worth it to the evil being worth it, so there is no real "right" answer.

 

[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. ; )

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

Oh well then if all I would have to do is drain someone else pffft Bill Gates is at the top of my list. I would make him poor & laugh about it.

 

[Sarcasm Spasm]

Create a better society by killing everyone who gets in my way

 

[Xanadu84]

I'm a gamer and a scientist at heart. Naturally, I would experiment, safe in the knowledge that any evil I do would be balanced out, and search for an, "Exploit", a discrepancy in the way that the system interprets evil, and a practical interpretation of evil, that allows me to actually bring a fantastic amount of good into the world.

If the system was utilitarian-illy perfect, then...I would play video games all day. There without causing good things to happen, there is no point to action.

 

[Da Chi]

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?...

So every life will be eternal suffering. Those who bear the burden endure, those who crumble, die.
While the pain makes no distinction between persons it does make me wonder who endures and who crumbles. A hypothetical dilemma for another day I guess.
This does make me think of the idea of heaven though. Suffering through life, evolution into beautiful eternity. The weak willed doomed...

My goodness, I would love to have a continued discussion on this. You have posed an interesting scenario. By putting this burden on yourself are you bettering mankind or making it worse. Those who can't bear it will say you make life worse. Those with strength to endure would argue you haven't made it worse, but better. If we picture a perfect balance, half the world would choose one side of the argument and the other chooses the other option. The weak half dies, the strong half lives forever in pain.
I can't decide if this is a good option.... My head is spinning over this.

 

[Da Chi]

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!

Interesting, so no matter the family they die through association. How far into the family do you go? To end all war, you would have to go into extended family. aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews. Children and childrens children. Some of the people you are trying to save will die. Many of them.

 

[Da Chi]

I think that the answer is to avoid extrems. Instead of killing all the idiots make it so that every one (or every one thats an idiot) thinks about what they say or do before they do it. to balance that out, things like alcohol, tiredness and other things that reduce inhabition, have a much greater effect.

Avoid trying to fix every problem, but make it easier for people to fix thier own problems, that way they can deal with the problems that your changes create.

DCFowl

You my friend are quite bright. If I could share something, Mother Theresa once said "There are no great things, just little things with great love." You showed compassion for all mankind, you made no distinction between anyone and genuinely made a solution to try and help. Even if it was little, it showed a lot of character.
Thank you.

 

[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?

last I checked murder is pretty horrific, I figured that made up or the science, i did kill a fair amount of people

If I could wager a guess you chose those three specific groups of people because of personal agenda. I just wanted to make it more non-specific.

 

[Da Chi]

that makes it a bit harder, seeing as I don't really feel. uhhh... fuck. there is nothing equal to the good I would be doing. All I can think about is doing mandatory genetic screenings and I.Q. tests so you can be ALLOWED to procreate. Oh, wait, that would be beneficial too. I can't think of anything.

Ok, so let's go back to my original question to you. If you killed every "dumbass" in the world, and sacrificed one intelligent human being for every "dumbass" you killed, would it be worth it?

 

[Dr. Whiggs]

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.

Been watching a lot of Fullmetal Alchemist lately, have we?

 

[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.

Oh no problem at all. If someone's priorities are in a different order than mine, it can very well shift from the evil not being worth it to the evil being worth it, so there is no real "right" answer.

too true.

 

[Da Chi]

I'm a gamer and a scientist at heart. Naturally, I would experiment, safe in the knowledge that any evil I do would be balanced out, and search for an, "Exploit", a discrepancy in the way that the system interprets evil, and a practical interpretation of evil, that allows me to actually bring a fantastic amount of good into the world.

If the system was utilitarian-illy perfect, then...I would play video games all day. There without causing good things to happen, there is no point to action.

It's entirely hypothetical so I can make it entirely perfect. I'm afraid you're stuck playing video games.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Wait a minute ... this sounds alot like Fatalism.

Frankly it that were the case then everybody would just say "Come what may".

 

[Saltyk]

This is a good question. But it's not easy to answer.

If I kill a murderer, is that a balanced act in and of itself? After all, I killed someone (evil act), but he was a horrible person, so I saved lives (good act). If I saved multiple lives, would I have to kill more people to make up the balance of the people I saved by killing the murderer? Or is killing a murderer a good act to begin with? So would I have done one good act by killing him, or multiple good acts by killing him and saving people? Or is killing someone evil, regardless of intent?

What's more, who decides who is evil? My moral compass?

I don't think I can answer this question easily.

 

[Da Chi]

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.

Been watching a lot of Fullmetal Alchemist lately, have we?

That would be a no. I don't watch anime.
Care to contribute?