Pitch's idea : what is evil??

[Avatar]

I think the best determination of whether or not something is 'wrong' would be an analysis of it's consequences, both immediate and far reaching. The bad or 'wrong' idea would have a negative impact, whereas the 'good' idea would be the one with the positive impact.

I agree completely. Everything should be evaluated on a consequential basis, and in terms of its effects, both immediate and long-term.

But...What about "immoral" actions that have a long-term positive effect? Can we justify the means by the ends?

Not as far as I'm concerned. Using "evil" or unjust means to achieve something desirable opens the way for future injustices.

--Avatar

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

By 'immoral actions with long term positive effects' what exactly do you mean? Like the baby killing question?
What I meant was, if the effects are long term positive, it would not be immoral. I also include the consequences of setting an example of negative behavior and also the impact on the future ability for people to make positive decisions in the 'long term effects' category, by the by.

[Avatar]

Sure, like the "baby killing" question. Would that fall into "setting an example of negative behaviour" and thus be considered "immoral", even though the apparent effecst are positive, i.e. you all survive?

--A

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Well, I don't know the long term effects if that policy was adopted as a rule... I'm simply not a psychic. If it was adopted as a rule, it would encourage the threat, wouldn't it? And that would probably be negative. But then again, like I said, I don't really have the information to make the decision... no experience in baby killing and hostage taking.

[Avatar]

Well, for the sake of this discussion, I meant it as an independant event. A once off, with no implications other than the moral ones.

No information is really needed. Killing the babies is the moral/immoral choice, the "positive effect" is that if you do so, your city will be saved.

Negative behaviour, positive result. Acceptable? Or not?

--Avatar

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

In that case, in a rare instance of actually taking a stance (besides the Legalize It thread), I'll say that I don't believe in a negative action with a truly positive result *wince*
But I don't like doing it! I'll tell you that!

[Avatar]

I agree with you. And I feel your pain about having to commit to a standpoint. I usually prefer being flexible myself, and I certainly believe that each situation should be judged on it's personal and individual merits.

But on the whole, negative behaviour can never justify a "positive" result in my opinion. It just opens the way to more "negative" behaviour later.

--Avatar

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Not only do I agree that a negative behavior can't justify a positive result, I go so far as to saying that it never happens at all

[Nathan]

Isn't the nature of the behaviour often judged by its results? The only person who truly knows whether behaviour is negative or positive is the person who performs the action. He's the only one who knows why he did it, and unless you judge the value of the action by its motives, you're judging it against your own opinion, which is most certainly not a fair or universal scale.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Unless, of course, you wanted to judge things solely by their consequences, and you somehow had access to the final results of all actions.

And THEN you would need to have a key to understanding which results would be important, and which would not. Included in that key would be a definition of what was important.

In fact, the whole questions seems to be pretty difficult in the long run.
But I don't see how we could escape total subjectivity in that case.

[Avatar]

I think Nathan raises a good point when he suggests the motives may be the deciding factor, but that again opens my question of what does one do when the "motive" is admirable, but the means are not.

I don't think we can ever really escape subjectivity, and thats why I'm not keen on the idea of "absolutes".

Each situation, each consequence, each action depends on so many variables, external and internal, that a wholly objective "definition" of Good or Evil is difficult, if not impossible to obtain.

--Avatar

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Right, which is why I don't believe that Evil exists. By proposing the idea of 'evil' you are naturally creating its opposite, 'good'. The ideas of good and evil are so tied together with absolutes that I don't think you can take one without the other. Maybe we should take the German's advice, and go "Beyond Good and Evil"....

heheheh.....

[Avatar]

Right, which is why I don't believe that Evil exists.

Depends on what you mean by "Evil". If you mean a personification, or anthropormorphic representation of Evil, like the devil, then I agree. If you simply mean the concept, or Evil that arises from the petty desires of humans, then sure, it does exist.

There are actions or people that we classify as "evil", people because of their actions, and actions because of the results, all of which of course arise from their desires. Of course, they never see it that way, and the problem lies in our relative perceptions.

--Avatar

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

A side question: Do you all believe there are simply evil actions, or are there fundamentaly evil people? This might help clear up some of my difficulties.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

[Warning, spoilers from 1st Chronicles Herein]

First of all, the terms good and evil are both relative and subjective, and depend entirely on who is doing the judging. We should ask for a specific definition every time somebody uses either term. How tedious would that be? I think that for most people, the continuum of good vs. evil changes each time the person gains a new experience. It's like asking somebody "What is happiness?" and expecting a 20-words-or-less answer that everyone can agree on.

As to whether actions or people are or can be evil, I would say it depends on who they are, what actions are in question, and the value system of the person passing judgement.

Kevin Landwaster's Ritual of Desecration wrought great evil upon the Land. The act in and of itself is described as evil, but from Kevin's point of view, he thought it was the only way to get rid of the Despiser. Lord Foul is the personification of evil, and the one that was hoping for the RoD, but it was Kevin that did it. Are they both evil? Or is one evil and the other just tragically misguided? Was the act evil? I say Yes, because it was done out of despair. But, from Kevin's assumed PoV, it was done for the right reason--to rid the Land of Lord Foul. What he didn't realize is that it wouldn't work, at least not until it was too late. Whether he himself is named evil is all about how harshly you judge him.

Elena thought she was doing the right thing by bringing Kevin back, and obviously didn't think it through--breaking the Law of Death was a huge victory for Despite, though that was a totally unintended consequence of her action. It caused massive harm to the Land that she loved, though she was only trying to help defeat Foul. Was she evil? Was she tainted from the beginning because she was born of rape? Or was it only her act that had unintentionally evil consequences, because she was either insane, foolish, or misguided (or all three)? It's again all about how harshly you want to judge her.

You could say that Lord Foul is evil, but what would a Raver say about his boss if you interviewed him? Do Ravers think of the Despiser as evil incarnate? Or do they merely see themselves as locked in a struggle against hated enemies [all living things]? There it's all about point of view.

We can go on like this for pages and pages, but unless we all suddenly decide to accept the same value system, religion, and level of social responsibility then I don't think we'll ever agree on what evil is, because "well, it depends..."

In the mean time, we can sure have some fun discussing it, though

[Avatar]

Great post Dukkha. As you say, "it depends on who they are, what actions are in question, and the value system of the person passing judgement."

This also counts as to whether people are fundamentally evil or not. In their own eyes, I would guess that they almost never are. We could say that consistently "evil" actions make somebody evil, but it's almost never as clear-cut as that, at least from their point of view.

Even Hitler thought that what he was doing was right for his country etc. (At least at the start, and possibly even at the end.)

--A

[Nathan]

Is Lord Foul really evil? He's been put into an unfair situation after all. Trapped in the cage of the creator's world with nowhere to go, no chance of escape except through destroying the arch of time. Why should he have to suffer while everyone else lives happily? We just see him as evil because we look at it from covenant's (and the land's) perspective. The killing stroke is a great example of perceived evil being incorrect. Argoyne was just trying to live his life his own way, and because others saw it as evil he was punished.

[Avatar]

The killing stroke is a great example of perceived evil being incorrect. Argoyne was just trying to live his life his own way, and because others saw it as evil he was punished.

An excellent point, and my all time favourite SRD short story. So much lies in the perceptions, and even agendas of the beholder. I doubt that Foul saw himself as evil, he was just doing what he had to to escape his prison. A prison which he, no doubt, felt he was unjustly placed in.

It seems that "evil", just as with "good" and "beauty", is in the eye of the beholder.

--A

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Just to play the devil's advocate here, while I was arguing against the idea of evil, I definately also argue against total subjectivity... although none of my arguments are coming to me now, first time I've thought about it since my existentialist revolution... I know the existentialists needed free will for some reason, I'm reading Sartre now so I'll try to formulate an opinion here and post it in the future.

[Baradakas]

"The path to Hell is paved with good intentions..."