[StantheGarbageMan]

You know, there's a good reason why there is so much suffering in the world: Without evil, there can be no good. How can you say that something is 'good' without something less good or even evil to compare it to? There can't be dark without light, life without death, wrong without right, right without left. It's Newton's Third Law: 'For Every Action There is an Equal and Opposite Reaction'.

[civilian_number_two]

That doesn't actually hold true. You're taking a law of physics and applying it to a metaphysical realm. Try to reduce it to a singular example:

"civilian_number_two is a good man; he is nice to children and free with gifts. I think I can hold him up as an example of a person who does good things."

Now tell me: couldn't you say that even if there were no cases of rape and torture to present as counterexamples? Couldn't you have "good" and "less good," or "good" and "nicel?" Are you saying that because I am nice to children and free with gifts, THAT is why there is suffering in the world? because if you can prove it, I'll stop doing those things. That should clear up all that rape and torture, right?

I don't think in order for a thing, or even a concept, to exist you need to have an example of its extreme opposite. It starts to get ridiculous when you really pin it down, like in order to have the Earth we need something that is the exact opposite of Earth (liike Bizarro world), and in order to have abundance of food we need hunger somewhere. The former example is an absurdity, for which I apologize; that latter example, widely held, is total bullshit.

[barend]

That doesn't actually hold true.  You're taking a law of physics and applying it to a metaphysical realm.  Try to reduce it to a singular example:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

civ's right stan...


if there were more good people than evil, traffic wouldn't be so bad because people would car-pool, or catch the bus to trim down polution and undue stress on the working public rather than being the selfish c***s they are!!!

and a majority of people would not not enjoy top 40 music or watch reality TV!!!
(yes, that's right... midrifts are ALL going to hell)

[Slade]

I'm going to take the high route and not just yell out "BIZARRO!"

(yes, that's right... midrifts are ALL going to hell)

You take that back!

[barend]

i don't make the rules... i just gloat about them.

[Zatoichi]

civ, don't be stupid just to try to prove a point. From what I've read you're a lot smarter than that. These are things that have existed that we have only given labels to. They need not occur simultaneously anywhere, or at all. It is the fact that they are possible.
Also "good" and "evil" work on many different levels.

There may very well be more "good" people than "bad", but I doubt it. Even if there was as along as "bad" people hold the power and use the convictions of the "good" people to keep themselves in power, then the world would still be a "bad" place.

I think it is impossible for anyone to be completely "good" or completely "evil", even for God and Satan.

[Slade]

Again, good and evil are abstract concepts that are entirely relative depending on circumstance and intent of the value/action being judged.

This post has been edited by Slade: 12 September 2005 - 11:39 PM

[Zatoichi]

I know/sort of agree, that's why I did the quotes around the words thingy.

[jariten]

I don't think in order for a thing, or even a concept, to exist you need to have an example of its extreme opposite.

I've wandered into the middle of this debate, so forgive me if i'm behind. Imagine a world were everyone was hungry. There would be no "hunger", just this one single state of being. You can only make a concrete statement like "i'm hungry" if you know what it feels like to not be hungry. So, stan was right in a sense. Evil, the concept at least, can't exist unless we can label what its opposite is.

[civilian_number_two]

Hmm. That's interesting, J. I think in that world a lot of people would be dying of not-food-gaving, so they'd have a word for it.

I apologized ahead of time for being stupid back there, so no apologies now. I still say it's stupid tp justify "evil" by saying that it's only a concept and that without it we wouldn't have "good," in the same way that we need "up" for "down" and "hot" for "cold." Why say I this? I think my last example should have explained it: we could feed everyone in this world, right now, but we don't and the why, apart from evil and laziness, is this: there are enough people sold on this dualistic universal outlook that they actually believe that in order for some to be well-fed, mass hungeris necessary. For some to enjoy wealth, others must live in abject poverty. These are not true statements; just because the thing is, does not mean it is natural, or should be. The best break-down of this problem should be the simple thought-experiment: you and your friends are the last six people on Earth, stranded in the farm belt of the United States. Two of you decide to eat like pigs. In order for that to be possible, how many of the others must starve to death? (hint: the answer is zero)

I agree that in a world where more people were good, there might be a different standard for evil. Like if we distributed wealth better than we might say that serial killers and rapists were evil, instead of, like we do now, concluding that corporations are sociopathic and that the business model of North America sees third world poverty and violence as a simple necessity of of the capitalist equation. Frankly, I'd rather that stuff were not there so we could focus on the killers and rapists.

That serious enough for you, Z?

[Zatoichi]

Ah, I totally misunderstood what you had said earlier. That explanation was definately well recieved. I think what you are going for is a little off the current train of thought, but I wholeheartily agree. Things don't have to be the way they are. Sadly, the wealthy hold the power and keep the poor in check. The masses must rise up without the making of past mistakes. Except not like Communism, because we all know that so far once implemented it fails. I do not truly believe that the world can be changed within the system (today's Democracies)

I think that a monarchy whose duty is to the people (not feudalism mind you), combined with the conventions of several other forms of government would work best to solve the problem.

[barend]

I just want to adress the good and evil can't live without each other crap...


people take it way too literally.

evil can exist just fine without good, and vice versa.

but good and evil exists in all of us so it is unlikely to have only one or the other.

plus good without evil to triuph over would be boring.
and evil without good to victimise would be less funny.

how did we even get on good and evil?

there's nothing about satanism that is any more evil than christianity...

[jariten]

there are enough people sold on this dualistic universal outlook that they actually believe that in order for some to be well-fed, mass hungeris necessary. For some to enjoy wealth, others must live in abject poverty. These are not true statements; just because the thing is, does not mean it is natural, or should be

Well I agree with you here of course. I was really only trying to argue semantics.

[Mnesymone]

I mentioned this in the god thread but ill do it here - the opposite of evil is evil. Good is somewhere between the two. Also, though all aspects of all spectra are possible, none are necessary to allow any others.

And Civ's thing was right. Also its interesting that this thread was revived, as it was pointless in the first place.

[StantheGarbageMan]

Actually, how CAN you enjoy having oodles of cash if everyone else has the same thing? Humans like being better then someone else.

This post has been edited by StantheGarbageMan: 13 October 2005 - 09:25 AM