Pitch's idea : what is evil??

[Avatar]

Everything you said in regards to my belief system is exactly right on. Gandhi wasn’t cruel, but his actions were outside of God & therefore all without the goodness of God & therefore evil.

Aah well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think the motivation and result of any action are what differentiates between "good" and "evil".

And if there is a god, I truly hope he see's it in the same way. I cannot imagine a being of love and mercy counting old Gandhi as "evil" simply because he performed those actions from the motivation of a different belief system.

As regards money and the beggar, in a sense, I agree with you, and you'll notice I specifically didn't say money. However, in my opinion, given the example that you offer, it would be the beggars action which is "evil". I am not, and cannot be, responsible for his actions, only my own.

As an example: (and Cj should like this one ) If you are defending a city, and the attackers tell you that if you sacrifice seven babies, they will go away and never return, but if you refuse, they will kill every inhabitant, what would you do?

Commit the "lesser evil" of killing the children to avert the "greater evil" of total destruction, thereby saving everybody? (Except the children.) Or refuse, and cause the death of everybody? (Including those children.) Which is the true "evil"? and why?

--Avatar

[wayfriend]

If you are defending a city, and the attackers tell you that if you sacrifice seven babies, they will go away and never return, but if you refuse, they will kill every inhabitant, what would you do?
Commit the "lesser evil" of killing the children to avert the "greater evil" of total destruction, thereby saving everybody? (Except the children.) Or refuse, and cause the death of everybody? (Including those children.) Which is the true "evil"? and why?

I would say: you are playing a Jedi mind trick on me if you say that I would be the cause of my city's destruction. I'm not killing any babies. If you then go and destroy my city, that's your doing, not mine.

Adding extortion to wanton destruction doesn't shift the responsibility to the extorted-upon. (But I'm surprised how many people believe that it does!)

[ZefaLefeLaH]

If you are defending a city, and the attackers tell you that if you sacrifice seven babies, they will go away and never return, but if you refuse, they will kill every inhabitant, what would you do?
Commit the "lesser evil" of killing the children to avert the "greater evil" of total destruction, thereby saving everybody? (Except the children.) Or refuse, and cause the death of everybody? (Including those children.) Which is the true "evil"? and why?

I would say: you are playing a Jedi mind trick on me if you say that I would be the cause of my city's destruction. I'm not killing any babies. If you then go and destroy my city, that's your doing, not mine.

Adding extortion to wanton destruction doesn't shift the responsibility to the extorted-upon. (But I'm surprised how many people believe that it does!)

Interesting statements from both of you.

I'd kill the babies. Even Spock would kill the kids. Superman would try to find another way.

I don't like kids anyway. I'd kill the babies.

[Worm of Despite]

Me too. Spock would death grip them to, uh, death.

Personally, if I didn't kill the babies and everyone got destroyed, I'd feel some guilt, knowing I had a chance to avert it but didn't. Certainly wouldn't feel like I did something evil, though.

[Avatar]

I'm not killing any babies. If you then go and destroy my city, that's your doing, not mine.

Adding extortion to wanton destruction doesn't shift the responsibility to the extorted-upon. (But I'm surprised how many people believe that it does!)

You see my point exactly Wayfriend.

[wayfriend]

Personally, if I didn't kill the babies and everyone got destroyed, I'd feel some guilt, knowing I had a chance to avert it but didn't.

That's the Jedi mind trick. What makes you think that, if you killed those babies, the bad guys wouldn't destroy your city anyway? Or then ask you to molest then kill seven babies, and then destroy your city anyway?

If the bad guys got the power, and there's nothing you can do to stop them, then they will or they won't - but in the end it's their call, not yours. They can try to trick you into making you believe it's your call. But its not.

So you should not feel any guilt.

[Worm of Despite]

Personally, if I didn't kill the babies and everyone got destroyed, I'd feel some guilt, knowing I had a chance to avert it but didn't.

What makes you think that, if you killed those babies, the bad guys wouldn't destroy your city anyway? Or then ask you to molest then kill seven babies, and then destroy your city anyway?

I'm assuming that's not part of the equation, Wayfriend. I'm assuming Avatar has posed his question in a fantasy world where we somehow KNOW beyond doubt that killing these babies would save the city.

Hell, even if I didn't know, I'm being offered a chance here. It's not much, but it's better than nothing. And doing something with it is better than doing nothing, thinking what could've been. Wouldn't be much thinking, though, because I'm dead and so is the whole city.

And even if I killed the babies and they went ahead and killed me and everyone else anyway, I'd actually feel less guilty, simply because I tried my best in the situation presented to me. In a certain sense, they were the ones who killed the babies in the first place, not me.

[wayfriend]

I'm assuming that's not part of the equation, Wayfriend. I'm assuming Avatar has posed his question in a fantasy world where we somehow KNOW beyond doubt that killing these babies would save the city.

Unfortunately, it's always part of the equation. The only evidence you have that meeting the demand will save the city is the word of your enemy - an enemy who thinks its a fun to see if they can convince someone to kill babies.

Hell, even if I didn't know, I'm being offered a chance here. It's not much, but it's better than nothing.

I would disagree. Not killing babies is better than killing babies. And after either doing it or not doing it, the chances that your city is saved are exactly the same either way, for either way it is still in the end at the whim of your unscrupulous overpowering enemy.

And yes, I can see that you're trying to assume that there are other forces at work, something that keeps your enemy honest. But that's not the dilemna as originally posted: "the attackers tell you that if you sacrifice seven babies, they will go away and never return". More importantly, that's how the situation will be when you encounter it in real life - there'll be no cosmic forces, just the word of the people extorting you with the threat of violence.

As SRD has often commented: you aren't responsible for what other people do, only what you do.

[Worm of Despite]

I'm assuming that's not part of the equation, Wayfriend. I'm assuming Avatar has posed his question in a fantasy world where we somehow KNOW beyond doubt that killing these babies would save the city.

Unfortunately, it's always part of the equation. The only evidence you have that meeting the demand will save the city is the word of your enemy - an enemy who thinks its a fun to see if they can convince someone to kill babies.

How do you know that Avatar decided to include such factors? They just seem irrelevant to me, as this is a conceptual/theoretical/moral question, not a realistic one. It's about whether or not you would commit a lesser evil to prevent greater evil, and I would, personally.

Then again, I'm not absolutely sure how Avatar is posing his question, so I'll ask him: Avatar, are you saying IF we kill the babies, it will without a doubt save the city? Yes, no?

I would disagree. Not killing babies is better than killing babies.

I personally view the deaths of the babies as a sacrifice for the greater good (again, assuming that they will without a doubt save the city). Yeah, killing babies in and of itself is horrible, but, considering this particular scenario, it's not that black and white. At least for me.

[Avatar]

Although I didn't originally intend to suggest that it would, without doubt save the city, lets, for the sake of the discussion, assume that it would.

I still stand by WayFriends choice. The life of everyone in the city is of equal value. It is better that we all die than that we descend to the level of our attackers.

If they wish to destroy the city, and if they succeed, the evil is theirs. It is our place to prevent any evil. To commit a smaller evil in order to avert the greater, is to make our action evil. To resist, even should everyone die, makes it their evil.

We are not responsible for the actions that others perform. Sacrifice for the greater good is all very well, provided that it is done by those aware of the implications.

If the attackers had said, "send out seven men, we'll kill them and go away", and those men had said "alright, we'll go out and sacrifice ourselves" then well and good. But to make the choice for someone else, is unacceptable to me.

Even if killing the babies will save the city without question, to do so makes us evil. We may moralise it by saying that if we hadn't, we'd all be dead, but that is simply a justification, a rationalisation, of the kind that humanity excels at.

We're in effect saying that those babies are of less worth than ourselves. If we refuse the offer, we preserve our own morality, even at the cost of our lives. It is our attackers who are evil.

Lord Foul, you say that if we didn't kill the babies, and everyone died, you'd feel guilt that you could have prevented it. Would you feel less guilt over the fate of those children if it saved your own, and everybodies, life to sacrifice them?

To me, the good of every individual is greater than the needs of the many. Not an individual, but every individual. Better to die "honourably" than to become what you abhor.

Usually, I'm all for shades of grey. But perhaps that is where some of our problems spring from? Perhaps we'd do better to look at things in black and white as well?

--Avatar

[wayfriend]

I still stand by WayFriends choice.

T'was yours as much as mine, Av.

- - - - - - - -

For the sake of discussion, I would add that I thought your example wasn't really a very good example. Before I say why, I want to digress with some strong and pointed opinionation. It's not about evil, so it's fair to call it a digression.

Extortion is an indirection. You want A, but you can't get it. You can get B. How do you use obtaining B to get A? That's the question that extortion answers.

The mechanism behind extortion is "the trade" - B for A. When you propose a trade, it's supposed to be to your benefit. If you hope the trade is accepted, then it should be to the benefit of the other party as well. ("If you don't give me $10,000, you'll never see your pencil again!" - that won't work.)

Whenever you trade, the question of integrity arises, on both sides.

So let's get back to your example, which I will now abuse by extending it farther than what it was intended for.

What is being offered for trade? Seven babies' lives for urban non-destruction?

What would the enemy want with that? If they destroy the city, they'll take out the babies anyway. The key must be that they want you to kill those babies. Maybe their lazy, and they're hoping you'll do it for them? Unlikely. Maybe they derive pleasure from inducing someone like you to do something like that. Sounds better.

If that's how you view the situation, then you have to realize that, once the enemy is satisfied by your actions, where does that leave you? Seven dead babies which you regret killing. But they have not given up a single thing. They still retain the ability to destroy your city - they have traded away nothing! And they would have a continuing desire to derive further pleasure from further acts of extortion. So that's a pretty bad trade.

So while I originally replied "I'm not killing any babies. If you then go and destroy my city, that's your doing, not mine." -- that would not always be my answer! In a different situation, the answer would be different! In the original example, it's a very poor trade being offered, and so I wouldn't do it.

(Perhaps people who would consider this trade do so because they see it as a good trade, either because they miss something I see, or because they see something I am missing.)

There're other examples where I would do it. If they were asking for money, for example. Giving people money isn't evil, so I'm not compromising my soul in my opinion.

Although I didn't originally intend to suggest that it would, without doubt save the city, lets, for the sake of the discussion, assume that it would.

Ah, if you've followed my digression, then you can see why I would now say "this changes everything!"

I would probably still refuse. There're still too many unspoken assumptions, though. The enemy has given up the threat to my city, but their desire seems to remain, and their capacity to threaten continues. Would they not therefore march to another city and repeat their atrocities, etc.

It all comes down to what's being traded. I cannot envision what they could trade that would be worth me killing seven babies, weighing in the evilness of this action.

[Worm of Despite]

I still stand by WayFriends choice. The life of everyone in the city is of equal value. It is better that we all die than that we descend to the level of our attackers.

Is the life of 7 babies greater than the entire city? I don't think so, and therein lies the crux of my decision.

Personally, I think dying so I can preserve my morality is bullshit, because for morality to even exist we have to exist in the first place. Letting myself perish for a secondary faculty such as morality just doesn't make sense to me.

Then again, I'm not the martyr type or a cavalier. Sorry, but my prerogative is to survive. When the chips are down, I will lie, cheat, steal, and kill to stay alive. Sorry, but that's just who I am; I like life.

Lord Foul, you say that if we didn't kill the babies, and everyone died, you'd feel guilt that you could have prevented it. Would you feel less guilt over the fate of those children if it saved your own, and everybodies, life to sacrifice them?

I'd feel no guilt. I don't care how old they are--babies, old men, whatever--it's a good trade if I can take 7 lives and save far more. I don’t view it as lowering to the level of the attackers; I'm just acting out for the best interest of the majority/collective and insuring their future by making a relatively small sacrifice, compared to the death of the entire city/town/whatever.

Again, I like having life more than integrity. Screw integrity, if it means I must stop breathing. For instance, if they told me, "hey, you can kill yourself to save the city or kill the seven babies", I'd still kill the babies. Probably lost a lot of respect there, but I don't care; I'm more concerned with being honest about who I am.

[Nathan]

I would probably still refuse. There're still too many unspoken assumptions, though. The enemy has given up the threat to my city, but their desire seems to remain, and their capacity to threaten continues. Would they not therefore march to another city and repeat their atrocities, etc.

And if you don't sacrifice the babies they'll destroy your city and march to another and repeat anyway. At least if you sacrifice the babies you'll be able to exact revenge later. I wouldn't feel safe knowing that I spared a city because they agreed to my demands of killing some of their children, I'd be incredibly worried that they were forming an army of their own and coming behind me. I sure as hell wouldn't feel safe besieging another city, putting myself on the anvil, ready for the first city to hammer me.
Which is a good reason not to sacrifice the babies: They'll kill you anyway, they don't want to leave enemies around especially behind them.

That's why I wouldn't kill the babies. But if I could be 100% sure the army would leave if I sacrificed the babies then I would. I think that in this case the ends justify the means. Evil can only be measured relatively. There's no absolute here, so in contrast with the whole city being slaughtered, I think the babies being killed is less of an evil. I can't speak for everyone but I'd be honoured to sacrifice myself to save an entire city. I know the babies don't have the choice, but no situation is ever ideal, and desperate times call for desperate measures.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

I think another aspect of this question goes beyond simple 'blame'
If the question was simply to place the blame of the killing, then the rational of not killing the children and letting the army kill the city would be the best one. You would be free of blame.
However, personal responsibility goes beyond blame. If we are accepting that they will not destroy the city if you kill the children, and will destroy the city if you do kill the children, looking at the consequence of the decision you are making rather than where the blame would fall, the answer might be different. I'm not sure if it would change anything, but I think that perspective needs to be addressed, especially if the question remains "what is evil?"

[Avatar]

While I agree that there are probably no absolutes, I can't in all conscience accept that the end justifies the means. If we achieve desirable ends with unjust/"evil" means, we simply open the door to further injustices along the way.

Personal responsibility is not a question of blame. If you killed the beabies, you are responsible. If they destroy your city, they are responsible. One cannot overcome a greater evil by committing a smaller one. At best, we defer the greater evil.

To me, those seven lives would be of equal value to those of the entire city. And although I understand Foul's point about survival, and in individual circumstances would agree, and act the same way, in circumstances such as my admittedly vague example, I don't think I could.

Of course, reality is the great leveller but that's what I'd like to think I'd do. Hey...I'm an idealist!

--Avatar

[Worm of Despite]

To me, those seven lives would be of equal value to those of the entire city. And although I understand Foul's point about survival, and in individual circumstances would agree, and act the same way, in circumstances such as my admittedly vague example, I don't think I could.

I'll never be able to understand that. If they were going to nuke New York or destroy America, you still wouldn't kill the seven babies? Oh well, this is all your damn example's fault!

[wayfriend]

Is the life of 7 babies greater than the entire city? I don't think so, and therein lies the crux of my decision.

At least if you sacrifice the babies you'll be able to exact revenge later.

If they were going to nuke New York or destroy America, you still wouldn't kill the seven babies?

Man, I just hope none of you are in charge if my a&& is ever on the line. You are not contemplating this scenario as anything except as a hypotheticality so pure and so abstract that it cannot possibly address anything bearing on reality.

I mean it - you guys think that if you kill seven babies, your enemy will dismantle their WMD, remove themselves from your territory, and go on to live lives of drinking tea and reading the paper. In other words, you aren't examining anything except immediate consequences.

[Worm of Despite]

I mean it - you guys think that if you kill seven babies, your enemy will dismantle their WMD, remove themselves from your territory, and go on to live lives of drinking tea and reading the paper.

That's what Av said would happen, basically, unless I'm mistaken. Observe:

Although I didn't originally intend to suggest that it would, without doubt save the city, lets, for the sake of the discussion, assume that it would.

Av has stated that if you killed the babies it would without a doubt save the city. I'm making my decision based on that. My answer would be different, though, were the consequences uncertain, but they're not in this instance.

You are not contemplating this scenario as anything except as a hypotheticality so pure and so abstract that it cannot possibly address anything bearing on reality.

Because that's what we're SUPPOSED TO DO!! The scenario is conceptual! Okay, maybe I'm wrong, but I thought this whole thing was about ONE INSTANCE where we have to decide whether or not we would commit a lesser evil to prevent a greater one--not what you do after you save the city, what will your enemy do next, what long-term consequences are there, etc., etc., blah blah blah blah.

Again, if such factors existed, my decision would change. Not only that, but if those factors existed, I would suggest this thread be moved to a strategy forum, rather than a debate about good and evil.

[Avatar]

Be easy now folks

Yes, this is a hypothetically pure and abstract, once-off scenario, for the sake of discussion, and is not intended to reflect reality in any way.

It is, as Foul says, intended to determine if people are willing to commit a "lesser evil" to prevent a greater one.

Remember I said those lives, to me, are of equal value as every life in that city. It would never be my choice to take them. Not one person in the city is worth more than any one of those seven babies.

What if a demonstrably "evil" opponent simply asked you to step aside from your defence, and let them pass to wreak havoc on the lands you're defending? No sacrifice required. Would you still surrender? You (and your city) would survive at the cost of countless others?

To me, there is no difference in the two examples. Save yourselves at the cost of others? Whether it's one other, seven others, or millions of others.

--Avatar

[wayfriend]

I mean it - you guys think that if you kill seven babies, your enemy will dismantle their WMD, remove themselves from your territory, and go on to live lives of drinking tea and reading the paper.

That's what Av said would happen, basically, unless I'm mistaken. Observe:

Although I didn't originally intend to suggest that it would, without doubt save the city, lets, for the sake of the discussion, assume that it would.

But he never said "... and then nothing else happens, forever." That's your assumption.

I can talk about it that way, as a hypothetical. But why would anyone assume it almost automatically? That's the part that makes me worry about my behind.

You are not contemplating this scenario as anything except as a hypotheticality so pure and so abstract that it cannot possibly address anything bearing on reality.

Because that's what we're SUPPOSED TO DO!! The scenario is conceptual!

I object. Just because something is hypothetical doesn't mean it has to be uselessly simplistic. Nor does exploring a larger scenario make it less hypothetical.