Jump to content
  • entries
    275
  • comments
    3,435
  • views
    213,729

Good And Evil: Points Of View?


bonesiii

2,316 views

goodevil-notjustpovs.png

 

 

Okay, this is partly just an excuse to have a blog entry. tongue.gif But also I wanted to put my answer to the above question here in full. Gravitan asked me about this in my profile comments but the answer looks way too convoluted split up into 400 char segments. tongue.gif

 

But in all seriousness, this is a topic many have brought up, and it is VERY relevant to Bionicle -- the answer is one of the core lessons that Bionicle teaches. On a Bionicle fansite, it's pretty important that we recognize that.

 

So here we go:

 

Are "Good" and "Evil" just points of view?

 

 

QUOTE(Gravitan)

Can it truly be said that good and evil are not points of view?

A (very long tongue.gif) post of yours caused me to wonder about this.

 

 

My answer:

 

Gravitan -- it is possible to "redefine" good and evil so that those words are subjective. It's true that some people and cultures have used the words to just mean "my side" and "my enemy's side".

 

However: the words themselves also mean some real things that have clear differences, and those differences are NOT just points of view.

 

"Good" people are more self-LESS than selfish, wanting the good of others above themselves. Nobody's perfect at this of course, but that's the idea. Good guys don't backstab each other (or rather, when they do, they aren't being good).

 

Evil is self-ISH. Evil beings want everything for themselves above others. They use minions and allies when they need them, but as soon as they don't, they will backstab the heck out of 'em. Again, most of us have aspects of this in us, which is why humans aren't truly one or the other. But it's, again, the basic idea of evil.

 

The above differences simply are not arguable. What's arguable is whether the uses of the word "evil" and "good" are always used accurately. Often they aren't. But that doesn't change the fact that good and evil mean real things.

 

So to say "good and evil are just points of view" is simply false, because it blindly rules out the correct uses of the words.

 

In technical logical terms, t's an Equivocation Fallacy -- it's based on noticing that sometimes good and evil ARE used as points of view, but then equivocating those meanings of "good and evil" for the absolute ones, and trying to say "this proves ALL meanings of good and evil are points of view." It is logically invalid, so it is impossible for it to be true.

 

What about in Bionicle?

 

Bionicle has shown this time and time again, with it being a major theme of 2004, 2005, and 2006 (especially 2006). It's also been strongly implied from the beginning, from the moment the legends told us of a "brother" of the Great Spirit, Makuta, who betrayed Mata Nui and cast him into a slumber (one that we now know is killing Mata Nui) and tried to conquer for his own selfish gain.

 

Bionicle fans really should recognize this basic truth -- evil is selfish. Good is not.

 

However, it is muddled in real life, and thus it makes sense that not ALL "good" and "evil" are really good and evil. The Bohrok were marketed as the "bad guys" and the Toa fought them. But the Toa found out that the Bohrok weren't actually evil. Just not designed to handle people living where they are commanded to Clean It All with capital letters.

 

There's an important lesson there too -- the Bohrok weren't doing that for selfish reasons, but as part of what's needed to wake up Mata Nui, thus for the good of all. So it's important to try not to use the words "good" and "evil" just to mean "my side and theirs". Using those words as points of view is wrong.

 

So pointing it out when it happens is certainly a good thing, and it would be just as wrong to sit here and tell you that "good" is always truly good. Not true.

 

 

In different ways, all of Bionicle since has been reliving those two themes in different ways.

 

The Piraka were the pinnacle of a clear example of how evil stabs itself in the back. The Piraka stand for betrayal with a grin.

 

The Toa Nuva facing off against the Matoran Resistance in the books was another example like the Bohrok, as was the Piraka's pretending to be Toa. The Matoran were fooled into confusing truly evil beings, Piraka, for good guys (called "naivete"), and once they realized this, they were fooled into the opposite, confusing good guys for evil beings (called "cynicism").

 

 

This year, what we're exploring is a different form of evil. One that is (for now) united in purpose, and not backstabbing left and right. It could be mistaken that the Barraki are not as evil as the Piraka. But the Barraki are willing to kill on a whim for their own selfish desires -- they are only on each others' side because it is necessary at the moment, and they're a heck of a lot smarter than the Piraka. They know they have to work together to achieve their selfish goals. They know from experience -- it was how they were originally designed to work back when they were good guys (unlike the Piraka).

 

But watch how they act towards each other. Do they seem like best friends? Carapar hates Takadox, Pridak threatens to rip arms off to get his way, Ehlek zaps whoever annoys him... Etc. Total betrayal isn't all that makes you evil. It's the little things too -- you know the old saying "if you can't be trusted with the little things, you can't be trusted with the big things either."

 

Compare it to how the Toa act towards each other. They tease jokingly, they encourage each other -- but sometimes they also mess up, insulting each other, and in Vakama's case betraying each other. But what did that make Vakama? A bad guy. It's clear that the Toa do what they do self-LESS-ly, even to the point of risking their very lives (or losing them) to protect the Matoran and each other (Case in point, Lhikan, though he was a Turaga, heh).

 

Bionicle clearly shows that good and evil are NOT merely points of view. smile.gif

 

Not only that, but it shows that good is a much better way of life. When neither side has really won, it's muddled and unclear: Which is better? Evil often uses the mistakes of good guys to say "See? See? They're just as bad -- try life our way!"

 

But when you see one side or the other winning, you see the truth.

 

When the Piraka take over Voya Nui, Matoran die left and right because the Piraka really don't care. There is pain and horror and anything but peace.

 

When the Toa Mata defeated Makuta, the Bahrag, when they defeated the Rahkshi, when there were, for the moment, no selfish enemies of power making life miserable, the Matoran had peace. They enjoyed their jobs because they did them willingly for the benefit of others, they were in practically no danger of death or pain, they could see right before their eyes the fact that selflessness produces better results, ironically, for the "self". For each "self."

 

 

Back to the Basics

 

Think about it: If two beings work together to ensure they each have the best life possible, they are both happy and well off. By itself, makes a lousy story, but a great life. smile.gif

 

If one being insults, steals from, attacks, wars against, works against the other being, both beings are filled with negatives. The one with anger and hatred, which inhrerently torment the very person who uses them, and the other with pain and suffering, even if he cowers and obeys order. If he fights back in hatred, both simply have equal amounts of hatred and pain, and both are miserable.

 

Even if one kills the other and has no conscience left at all, heshe has nobody to help them out with chores, enjoy sports with, etc. If the other fights back, not in hatred, but from good motives, he won't suffer the torment of hatred, and won't suffer as much pain if he stops the evil one from attacking, but will always be scarred at least a little because he too has no companion to enjoy life with.

 

 

 

In a nutshell, that is all stories. Just the existence of "conflict stories" should be enough to prove to us that good and evil mean different things -- without conflict there is no story, but without the possibility of good and peace, there also is no story.

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

The answer is yes and no. Sometimes good and evil are points of view, but there are absolute definitions of both words, based on selflessness and selfishness. Good is self-LESS, looking out for others above the self. Evil is self-ISH, looking out for the self above others. To confuse the former definitions of these words with the latter is an equivocation fallacy, which is invalid and logically impossible.

 

True good and evil mean very real things that are opposite and mutually exclusive: evil is deceptive, seeming to bring benefit for the self but ruining the self in the process, while good truly brings benefit not just for others, but also for the self as a bonus.

  • Upvote 1

42 Comments


Recommended Comments



"Right and wrong are not what seperate us from our enemies. It's our different standpoints, our perspectives that seperate us. Both sides blame one another. There's no good or bad side. Just two sides holding different views." - Squall Leonhart, Final Fantasy VIII

 

-Omi

 

Link to comment

Lol, I never knew you'd post a whole entry on account of me. :P

 

Then again, considering how fast you type, perhaps this wasn't as much work for you as one might think. j/k :P

 

This answers the question quite nicely, IMO. ^_^

 

Thanks very much. I am certain that I am not the only one who will find this informative. :)

 

 

(I still feel special though. :P )

Link to comment

I envy you Grav Bones made a whole Blog Entry for you :P Anyway I agree that it is a yes and no answer butI have to comment on the Bohrok here. They are neither Good nor Evil they are Neutral and this is where you disapointed me Bones you forgot about that catagory and still mentioned the Bohrok. The Bohrok are Mechanical being who are programmed to be controled by Krana. The Krana are organic things that aer controlled by two "beings" called Bahrag. The Bahrag are only taking orders from the Great Spirit (or was it GBs or OoMN?). Anyway in this chain the Bohrak are at the bottom as they are mechanical and cannot think for themselves. Neither can the Krana or the Bahrag can think for themselves as they are taking orders. If they are controlled by Evil beings are they trully evil? If they are controlled by Good beings are they trully good? They are neither as they are unthinkingly doing what they are told. Well that's all I have to say anyway Bones do you think you could next time do a entry for me? :P

Link to comment
And he's right, too.

 

 

~D

Who, Omi? Or me? Because everything I said clearly shows why the character Omi quoted is incorrect. :) Unless, of course, the sides in FF actually were using the first definition of "good" and "evil" that I mentioned. So not sure what you meant -- could you elaborate?

 

I've actually been thinking about this exact thing, recently, and I thought of that exact quote that Omi posted.

Yeah, it's been in Omi's sig before. Or something similar or the like... :)

 

 

Lol, I never knew you'd post a whole entry on account of me. :P

 

Then again, considering how fast you type, perhaps this wasn't as much work for you as one might think. j/k :P

 

This answers the question quite nicely, IMO. ^_^

 

Thanks very much. I am certain that I am not the only one who will find this informative. :)

 

 

(I still feel special though. :P )

Took about two hours. Plus another half hour to make the obligatory banner. :P

 

And glad I could be of service. ^_^

 

 

I envy you Grav Bones made a whole Blog Entry for you :P Anyway I agree that it is a yes and no answer butI have to comment on the Bohrok here. They are neither Good nor Evil they are Neutral and this is where you disapointed me Bones you forgot about that catagory and still mentioned the Bohrok. The Bohrok are Mechanical being who are programmed to be controled by Krana. The Krana are organic things that aer controlled by two "beings" called Bahrag. The Bahrag are only taking orders from the Great Spirit (or was it GBs or OoMN?). Anyway in this chain the Bohrak are at the bottom as they are mechanical and cannot think for themselves. Neither can the Krana or the Bahrag can think for themselves as they are taking orders. If they are controlled by Evil beings are they trully evil? If they are controlled by Good beings are they trully good? They are neither as they are unthinkingly doing what they are told.

Fair enough about the Bohrok being neutral. I just meant, they have to do with awakening Mata Nui, which is good. But they don't know that, yeah. :lol:

 

And as to whether they would be truly evil, lemme get back to you on it. I gotta post and go watch Survivor now. :P

 

Well that's all I have to say anyway Bones do you think you could next time do a entry for me? :P

Gimme a fascinating question, and maybe. :P

Link to comment
I envy you Grav Bones made a whole Blog Entry for you :P Anyway I agree that it is a yes and no answer butI have to comment on the Bohrok here. They are neither Good nor Evil they are Neutral and this is where you disapointed me Bones you forgot about that catagory and still mentioned the Bohrok. The Bohrok are Mechanical being who are programmed to be controled by Krana. The Krana are organic things that aer controlled by two "beings" called Bahrag. The Bahrag are only taking orders from the Great Spirit (or was it GBs or OoMN?). Anyway in this chain the Bohrak are at the bottom as they are mechanical and cannot think for themselves. Neither can the Krana or the Bahrag can think for themselves as they are taking orders. If they are controlled by Evil beings are they trully evil? If they are controlled by Good beings are they trully good? They are neither as they are unthinkingly doing what they are told.

Fair enough about the Bohrok being neutral. I just meant, they have to do with awakening Mata Nui, which is good. But they don't know that, yeah. :lol:

 

And as to whether they would be truly evil, lemme get back to you on it. I gotta post and go watch Survivor now. :P

 

Well that's all I have to say anyway Bones do you think you could next time do a entry for me? :P

Gimme a fascinating question, and maybe. :P

I'll get back to you on that :P Oh and I have time. I want a post by tommorow :P

 

Edit: Still waiting Bones...

Link to comment

Da answer:

 

If they are controlled by Evil beings are they trully evil? If they are controlled by Good beings are they trully good? They are neither as they are unthinkingly doing what they are told.

Well, that depends -- are they neutral tools being controlled, like a weapon, or are they programmed for evil, programmed for good? With the Bohrok, they're programmed, but what they were programmed for was only good at the right time.

 

Lotsa selfish people do things "unthinkingly". Many even because that's what they're told.

 

Not saying that answers the question. :P It's debatable, and probably varies from instance to instance. With people it's almost impossible to tell -- do they obey orders because they are forced to, or because they like being forced to? With robots... the question to me is whether they are more like a tool, or more like a self-animated worker that carries out programming. Big difference.

 

I think with the Bohrok, they're more good than neutral, precisely because they have no choice. But in a different way, not like people, and certainly Makuta used them for evil just like a tool, so I wouldn't say "truly good", no.

 

Obviously there are gray areas, whether it's people or robots. :)

Link to comment
Da answer:

 

If they are controlled by Evil beings are they trully evil? If they are controlled by Good beings are they trully good? They are neither as they are unthinkingly doing what they are told.

Well, that depends -- are they neutral tools being controlled, like a weapon, or are they programmed for evil, programmed for good? With the Bohrok, they're programmed, but what they were programmed for was only good at the right time.

 

Lotsa selfish people do things "unthinkingly". Many even because that's what they're told.

 

Not saying that answers the question. :P It's debatable, and probably varies from instance to instance. With people it's almost impossible to tell -- do they obey orders because they are forced to, or because they like being forced to? With robots... the question to me is whether they are more like a tool, or more like a self-animated worker that carries out programming. Big difference.

 

I think with the Bohrok, they're more good than neutral, precisely because they have no choice. But in a different way, not like people, and certainly Makuta used them for evil just like a tool, so I wouldn't say "truly good", no.

 

Obviously there are gray areas, whether it's people or robots. :)

What about people who are tricked into doing stuff beleiving they are doing it for good?

Link to comment
What about people who are tricked into doing stuff beleiving they are doing it for good?

Oh, yes, those make for great stories. :D Simple cause and effect in the most basic sense -- the real fault would lie with the one who did the tricking. But it might depend on whether the trickee chose to ignore facts for selfish reasons that would have enabled himher to see the truth. Wisdom would play a role -- are they thinking... well... logically? :P And if the trickee learns the truth... it can be devestating and hard to really be sure that heshe didn't have some small fault in it too. Only the perfect trickster could pull that off without some mistakes being made on the trickee's part.

 

One example of that would be Vakama being tasked with making the Vahi for Makuta (thinking it was Dume). In that case it was clearly Makuta on whom the fault would lie, if Vakama had succeeded and handed Makuta a Vahi, and Makuta then carried out his plan of speeding time up on the pods and awakening a civilization of brainwashed slaves. Nothing "Dume" had done had given it away that it was Makuta, as far as one maskmaker could tell.

 

Good questions. But none that need a new blog entry yet. :P

Link to comment
Who, Omi? Or me? Because everything I said clearly shows why the character Omi quoted is incorrect. :) Unless, of course, the sides in FF actually were using the first definition of "good" and "evil" that I mentioned. So not sure what you meant -- could you elaborate?

In FFVIII, basically there is Esthar, Galbadia, and SeeD.

 

Around 20 years previous to the game's events, Esthar was being ruled by an evil sorceress named Adel and she wanted to expand her power and also seek out successors (young females she can pass her powers too). Galbadia in a sense revolted against them and protected the young girls. A man named Laguna ousted Adel from power and he became the new leader of Esthar and hid the country from existence (therefore becoming good).

 

Now fast forward to the game. Galbadia is now the bad guys, and being lead by President Deling and also under the influence of Sorceress Edea (who was being possessed by Ultimecia from the future). When Edea gained control of herself, Galbadia went back to being normal. SeeD was "placed" in opposition, even though they can help anyone. They are somewhat a neutral group doing the right thing.

 

So even though the evil leaders wanted personal gain, the sides they controlled were just doing what she wanted and believing in what they were told. Esthar was originally evil, but became good. Galbadia was good, but became evil, and back to good. SeeD actually had their own civil dispute during one part of the game, but are good up to the end.

 

-Omi

 

 

 

Link to comment
Who, Omi? Or me? Because everything I said clearly shows why the character Omi quoted is incorrect. :) Unless, of course, the sides in FF actually were using the first definition of "good" and "evil" that I mentioned. So not sure what you meant -- could you elaborate?

In FFVIII, basically there is Esthar, Galbadia, and SeeD.

 

Around 20 years previous to the game's events, Esthar was being ruled by an evil sorceress named Adel and she wanted to expand her power and also seek out successors (young females she can pass her powers too). Galbadia in a sense revolted against them and protected the young girls. A man named Laguna ousted Adel from power and he became the new leader of Esthar and hid the country from existence (therefore becoming good).

 

Now fast forward to the game. Galbadia is now the bad guys, and being lead by President Deling and also under the influence of Sorceress Edea (who was being possessed by Ultimecia from the future). When Edea gained control of herself, Galbadia went back to being normal. SeeD was "placed" in opposition, even though they can help anyone. They are somewhat a neutral group doing the right thing.

 

So even though the evil leaders wanted personal gain, the sides they controlled were just doing what she wanted and believing in what they were told. Esthar was originally evil, but became good. Galbadia was good, but became evil, and back to good. SeeD actually had their own civil dispute during one part of the game, but are good up to the end.

 

-Omi

Okay - I'm still a leeeetle confused (:P), but it sounds mostly sensible to me. But when you say "good", do you mean from the POV of the game? Or do you mean the selflessness thing I was talking about? And I'm not sure how the guy that gave the quote fits in. Regardless, it sounds a lot like real history -- countries at different times behaving in radically different ways, different allegiances, and certainly different levels of morals. A little to complex to just go "they good guys", heh.

 

Still, if for the moment one side is being more selfless, then objectively (for the moment :P) that side is the most good.

Link to comment

He said that quote because in the game someone asked "why are we fighting" and "what makes us different than the bad guys (as in the guys they were fighting at the moment)" and stuff of that sort.

 

Esthar was good by both selflessness and POV, considering Laguna had no personal gain and wanted to save the world.

 

Galbadia is good cuz of peaceful terms.

 

SeeD is good because they are both selflessness and POV. They were targeted as "bad guys" in the game, although they were the ones doing the good guy stuff.

 

And yeah the game is just like real world stuff.

 

-Omi

Link to comment

Okay, makes sense. Certainly his quote is a lot more eloquent for the situation than my blog entry. :P

 

My point is more the people that say good and evil are "only" POVs; that is what I'm mainly disagreeing with. Because really it both is and isn't. Just depends.

Link to comment

Ooh! Can you make an entry for me, too? I care not about the context, but at least something about the logic behind Rudolph's glowing nose? :P

 

So the Bony Bloggy is not dead... yet?

 

 

Okay, so, your entry is quite interesting. But I think good and evil is more defined as a philosophy.

 

Philosophy,n, def. 9. A system of fundamental and motivational principarl: basis for action and belief 10. A general viewpoint: THEORY 10. The overall values by which one lives

 

Note "general" viewpoint. It does not mean just one's personal preference in the definition betwix good and evil at all, but rather a general standing on the matter.

 

Now, although we can agree that eil and good are indeed opposites, the term "general" cannot be applied unless all parties are represented, evin the evildoesrs. Most criminals have no choice on where to go, so they enter crime, aka evil. For some, stealing the rich lady's purseful of money at gunpoint is a way of life forced upon them. They know it is evil, but they have no choice. (NOTE: Tis is not neuteral as they do know what their actions are and are aware ofany penalties therein.) Thus, the definition is there, but ingorance makes them oblivious to what they do because they know no other way.

 

But as for the definitions of good and evil:

 

Good, adj, 1. Having desirable or positive qualities. Serving the desirable end: SUITABLE.

 

Take this in. In some places in the world, the person with the most shrunken heads gets the bride; the the bigger kahuna who runs a crime gang gets the cut; the one with the more kills gets the prize. These are not "points of view," these are necessities forced upon them that evonled into a class and system of sociology.

 

14a. Of moral exellence: UPRIGHT. b-c. Kind; loyal. 15b. socially correct: PROPER.

 

These can all be translated in a way to reveal the philosophies buried within.

 

 

The definition of evil will of course be the opposite of that of good, but still, what is a definition if the two are just a way of life, and therefor a philosophy?

 

Now, I can see that my comment may actually agree with you on several issues, but I think I got something here...

 

 

~EW~

Link to comment

I wanna get back to you later on your whole post, EW, but real quick before I can't see anymore and must stumble up to bed -- One of the things I've said often on the subject of good and evil is that for something to be truly evil, there IS an element of choice involved. This usually comes up about Toa not killing. Basically, if there TRULY is "no choice" for the criminal, then what he does can't really be considered evil. But in reality, the vast majority of criminals do have other options and they DO have a choice, although admittedly not the easier choice.

 

Basically what I mean is sometimes the law is what's the problem, but usually there IS a choice involved. But to do this subject justice I'll have to spend more time on it tommorrow. :)

Link to comment

Though at the same time laws can prove to be uneeded barriers. An example of this would be the law that homeschooling is illegal in some European states, like Germany. If someone like myself were to move there, I would be forced to go to school, even though I know that that will flounder my grades subtansialy. Naturally, there would be the choice, but if I deceded to do homeschooling there, then would that mean that I had made the worse choice? I may become a victim of geovermental jurisdictiion, but did I truly commit a crime? From the moral viewpoint, a viewpoint based off the mass of homeschoolers, I did not. From the side of the geverment, which set up the laws, I was a criminal. But in a philosophical view, which governs morality and introspect, I did the best choice possible.

 

Therefore, the law is what is flawd sometimes, not the philosophy. 'Course, that was only in response to your comment and not my defense of theory.

 

Lol, now you have two posts to talk about, both by me. :P

 

~EW~

Link to comment
Ooh! Can you make an entry for me, too? I care not about the context, but at least something about the logic behind Rudolph's glowing nose? :P

That doesn't need an entry, man. It's simple. Glowing noses, when red, enable a deer to blend in amongst the christmas trees that grow in the North Pole, since their fruit resembles a glowing red ornament.

 

So the Bony Bloggy is not dead... yet?

 

 

Okay, so, your entry is quite interesting. But I think good and evil is more defined as a philosophy.

That can be argued, because "philosophy" is one of those light and fluffy words that can mean just about whatever. :P But I think of it more as behavior; what you do, related to your mindset and reasons for doing it. If you claim to have the loftiest philosophy of nonviolence in the world but lash out in sheer selfish anger during a temper tantrum and kill somebody, it's your deed that matters.

 

Of course, you could claim temporary insanity, XD.

 

Philosophy,n, def. 9. A system of fundamental and motivational principarl: basis for action and belief 10. A general viewpoint: THEORY 10. The overall values by which one lives

 

Note "general" viewpoint. It does not mean just one's personal preference in the definition betwix good and evil at all, but rather a general standing on the matter.

Yes, all of these definately can apply. But notice that they do refer to a point of view. Remember in situations like with the quote Omi provided, it is a "mass point of view" that's at work, so it doesn't have to be personal only. I think it's important to point out that no philosophy can change the fact that some actions are motivated by selfish reasons and others by selfless reasons. They can dress those up and disguise them, and certainly many do, but not change that basic fact.

 

Now, although we can agree that eil and good are indeed opposites,

On that at least I'm pretty sure everybody agrees, yes.

 

the term "general" cannot be applied unless all parties are represented, evin the evildoesrs.

Right -- it turns right and wrong into a popularity contest, which is very dangerous. Hitler is the case in point. In essence, it relies on an Ad Populum logical fallacy. Most people might, for example, believe that bleeding a diseased patient is good medical help, when in fact it is counterproductive. Or with Hitler most people might support his hatred towards Jews and other "undesirables" at the time (and this was often argued by surviving Nazi war criminals).

 

Most criminals have no choice on where to go, so they enter crime, aka evil.

There's a big difference between "crime" and "evil", though. Crime is what goes against the laws that the country in question happens to have on the books. In my town, for example, there's a rather odd law against riding bikes on sidewalks, even on busy streets. So people who have been obeying that law have been hit by cars, naturally. That's a great example of a time when the law is the problem, not the "criminal". (The law dates before cars, but legislators have been lazy and haven't gotten rid of it.) There's nothing selfish about taking common sense precautions to keep yourself (and those in the cars!) safe by riding on the sidewalk in dangerous areas (slowly enough to not hit pedestrians, of course).

 

So it's an important distinction that for "crime" to be evil, there must be a better choice. The robber that holds up a convenience store could have, in the vast majority of cases, got a job and earned money the honest way. That act of crime is done for selfish reasons; laziness and carelessness towards others leading to a desire to "get rich quick" at others' expense. Thus that action IS evil.

 

If, on the otherhand, there truly was no choice, like if the robber's family was taken hostage by someone else and threatened with execution unless he robbed this place, then it's less clear. Going with this hypothetical all the way, if there really was no way out for the robber, then robbing in that instance was not evil. Another example would be soldiers stealing a car in street battle for battle purposes.

 

Same sort of idea with heroes; if a hero kills an enemy when there was a better way to incapacitate them without risking their escape, getting information from them, etc. then killing them is an "evil" choice, in essence. This is why the Toa "do not kill", yet they did kill the Morbuzahk King Root.

 

 

 

For some, stealing the rich lady's purseful of money at gunpoint is a way of life forced upon them. They know it is evil, but they have no choice. (NOTE: Tis is not neuteral as they do know what their actions are and are aware ofany penalties therein.)

Again, if they truly have no choice, then it is not IMO evil.

 

Thus, the definition is there, but ingorance makes them oblivious to what they do because they know no other way.

 

But as for the definitions of good and evil:

 

Good, adj, 1. Having desirable or positive qualities. Serving the desirable end: SUITABLE.

 

Take this in. In some places in the world, the person with the most shrunken heads gets the bride; the the bigger kahuna who runs a crime gang gets the cut; the one with the more kills gets the prize. These are not "points of view," these are necessities forced upon them that evonled into a class and system of sociology.

Well, it can be argued that that is the definition of "point of view". :P Just not an individual POV, a "mass POV". A societal POV. Which is usually what people mean when they say g&e are POVs.

 

14a. Of moral exellence: UPRIGHT. b-c. Kind; loyal. 15b. socially correct: PROPER.

 

These can all be translated in a way to reveal the philosophies buried within.

 

 

The definition of evil will of course be the opposite of that of good, but still, what is a definition if the two are just a way of life, and therefor a philosophy?

Well, I think you're missing a key part of the equation. In the examples you listed, you have to pay attention to conflict, since that's where any question of good and evil come in. With the shrunken head thing (wherever that is, man :P), what do those with the least shrunken heads think? Do they see practical reasons this idea is seized upon by the society? Or is it arbitrary, selfish on the part of those with the most shrunken heads? (Dude, this example is just weird. :lol:) I'm not even talking consciously, per se -- they might consciously accept the unfortunate situation but deep down they feel that it is wrong. IMO.

 

With the crime gang, the conflict is obvious. Think of that as like TSO. There's conflict boiling everywhere among the DH, hatred towards him, etc. which you don't see among the Toa (not to those extremes, though). They are used to it, but that doesn't mean it isn't harming them. It is.

 

The more kills means there are victims involved -- again, the selfish aspect is an ironclad fact amongst all this that isn't changed by majority opinion or philosophy.

 

Now, I can see that my comment may actually agree with you on several issues, but I think I got something here...

 

 

~EW~

I don't see that it changes anything. But it is how a lot of people approach the issue, yes. Really, though, it seems like what you're picking up on most is individual POV versus mass POV. Both are still POVs, so neither can override the absolute definitions of good and evil that I mentioned.

 

 

 

 

 

Though at the same time laws can prove to be uneeded barriers. An example of this would be the law that homeschooling is illegal in some European states, like Germany. If someone like myself were to move there, I would be forced to go to school, even though I know that that will flounder my grades subtansialy. Naturally, there would be the choice, but if I deceded to do homeschooling there, then would that mean that I had made the worse choice?

Now there's a good question. Well, it's still true in that case that you would have a choice (assuming you spoke German :P) of attending a school of relative quality, so I don't think the "choiceless" aspect can be applied. There is a concept of "letting the fault lie with others". The safe choice is to obey that law.

 

But that one is debatable -- if you were dealing with a school of indoctrination, say if this took place during Nazi Germany, and you were a Jew... Well, firstly you'd want to get out of there if you could... but you get the idea. It would basically depend on the situation.

 

 

I may become a victim of geovermental jurisdictiion, but did I truly commit a crime? From the moral viewpoint, a viewpoint based off the mass of homeschoolers, I did not. From the side of the geverment, which set up the laws, I was a criminal. But in a philosophical view, which governs morality and introspect, I did the best choice possible.

Okay, but remember the selfish/selfless thing. What would the motivations be for choosing this? It would depend on a lot of different factors, and that would, to me, indicate whether it was wrong or right. BTW, technically, yes, you would commit a crime merely because you broke a law. But that doesn't necessarily mean it would be wrong. And let's not forget parents are as much a factor here as the child.

 

If it was merely the child's decision (just pretend here :P), heshe would be putting his parents in danger, at least of legal action. That would be arguably selfish. But if it was the parent's decision to take the risk to better prepare their child for life, that would be arguably selfLESS, because they willingly take on the risk for the benefit of someone else. See the diff?

 

If, hypothetically, you could homeschool yourself totally, then it's harder to judge. If you harm nobody, literally, by risking it, then arguably you aren't being selfish by doing what is logically best for your education, which you can then use later in life to help others. On the other hand, if by doing so you cause problems for people just trying to do their jobs in the government, are you then being selfish?

 

You picked an excellent example of a gray area. :)

 

Therefore, the law is what is flawd sometimes, not the philosophy. 'Course, that was only in response to your comment and not my defense of theory.

 

Lol, now you have two posts to talk about, both by me. :P

 

~EW~

There's no doubt that law would be flawed, yes. But the idea of letting the fault lie with the lawmakers can come into play here. I think it depends on how harm would be judged to be done to you by being forced to go to a normal school. And that could vary quite widely.

Link to comment

Argh! I. Hate. Typos.

 

... And blame Survurlode and his THE Chief Gremlin.

 

 

The shrunken heads example was based upon certain Papuan and Amazonian tribes who use(d) the shrinking-head philosophy in their daily lives. Surely you would know about such tribes, if you listened to your teachers. :P

 

In the examples you listed, you have to pay attention to conflict, since that's where any question of good and evil come in. With the shrunken head thing (wherever that is, man ), what do those with the least shrunken heads think? Do they see practical reasons this idea is seized upon by the society? Or is it arbitrary, selfish on the part of those with the most shrunken heads? (Dude, this example is just weird. ) I'm not even talking consciously, per se -- they might consciously accept the unfortunate situation but deep down they feel that it is wrong. IMO

It is a way of life, a way that has gone on for centuries. It has been held as a way to define the richness and prosperity of the families as long as it has gone on, and those with the least number are seen as weaker beings and they view it as simple twists of fate. So, nothing other than a better way can remove the pagan ways that they hold onto in their system.

 

 

As for the German schooling example, that was entirely based upon current times and events. I do indeed speak German (as I am German. Well, half German), and Germany currently banned homeschooling in favor of more orthodox public methods, blaming the parents of brainwashing their kidns when the actualy performed academically advanced. Several families have been torn apart by the selfless acts of the parents to home educate their kids. Obviously, the act would be a good one according to the parents and kids, seeing as academic exellence is a priority, but according to the goverment, the family is evil. Now, although this may be considered a POV, I see it as the philosophy adopted by the creators of the Constitution of the said country. This is not a question of brainwashing, but rather internal belifes. It can be argued as a POV, albeit individual, but that can also be seen as a philosophy if the parents belive that HSing is the fundamental way for their kids to learn in a quality way.

 

IMO, what defines good and evil depends on the judge, the circumstance and the philosophies in both. Laws cannot make a difference in good versus evil, as Thomas Jefferson once said:

 

Law is not justice, justice should be law.

 

So, just a simple law cannot mean anything to it. Circumstance, yes. Defying the speed limit to ram another car in the fender obviously is evil and against the law, but it was the intent that caused the person to defy the limit i the first place. But defying the limit to get to the hospotal in an unmarked car? No.

 

 

So, in the end, I must confess that you (as usual) have the superior logic. That is what you do. BTW, I intend on making a blog entry defining the differences in our ways someday, and what causes us to be a leeetle varied in our POVs (:P). Along with other essays in the beggining process.

 

~EW~

Link to comment

In reverse order:

You guys lost me before you even said anything :P

 

Edit: How about your next entry be about the orca THE Chief Gremlin raised? Have an interview with it :P

I'm not sure who I'm going to interview, but I'm definately going to try to get somebody soon. With Binky's departure, ironically Survurlode was dealt a big blow just before that has led to a much better server. But the past few weeks Survurlode's started to make a comeback. I was trying to get ahold of Gollaga, but he's an elusive guy. I wanted to ask him what he knows about the One Refresh, and also about his favorite brand of cheese puffs. If I can't get him, I might be able to find the Orca. Of course, I don't speak whale, so... yeah.

 

 

Argh! I. Hate. Typos.

 

... And blame Survurlode and his THE Chief Gremlin.

 

 

The shrunken heads example was based upon certain Papuan and Amazonian tribes who use(d) the shrinking-head philosophy in their daily lives. Surely you would know about such tribes, if you listened to your teachers. :P

 

In the examples you listed, you have to pay attention to conflict, since that's where any question of good and evil come in. With the shrunken head thing (wherever that is, man ), what do those with the least shrunken heads think? Do they see practical reasons this idea is seized upon by the society? Or is it arbitrary, selfish on the part of those with the most shrunken heads? (Dude, this example is just weird. ) I'm not even talking consciously, per se -- they might consciously accept the unfortunate situation but deep down they feel that it is wrong. IMO

It is a way of life, a way that has gone on for centuries. It has been held as a way to define the richness and prosperity of the families as long as it has gone on, and those with the least number are seen as weaker beings and they view it as simple twists of fate. So, nothing other than a better way can remove the pagan ways that they hold onto in their system.

Well, it's hard to tell if that is simply what they say, or even consciously think, and deep down they still resent it. Obviously it would be much different than for you and I, though, so that's more of a guess than anything. Telepathy would be the only way to know for sure, probably.

 

 

As for the German schooling example, that was entirely based upon current times and events. I do indeed speak German (as I am German. Well, half German), and Germany currently banned homeschooling in favor of more orthodox public methods, blaming the parents of brainwashing their kidns when the actualy performed academically advanced.

Ich sehe. I guess I'm not up on my current German events enough... That's too bad. Homeschooling is proven to be effective (though it might certainly vary depending on the parent) -- I'm a case in point. :P I literally would not be a logician if I hadn't been homeschooled for a few years. They don't teach logic in these schools, you know; the Prof in Narnia is right on.

 

Several families have been torn apart by the selfless acts of the parents to home educate their kids. Obviously, the act would be a good one according to the parents and kids, seeing as academic exellence is a priority, but according to the goverment, the family is evil. Now, although this may be considered a POV, I see it as the philosophy adopted by the creators of the Constitution of the said country. This is not a question of brainwashing, but rather internal belifes. It can be argued as a POV, albeit individual, but that can also be seen as a philosophy if the parents belive that HSing is the fundamental way for their kids to learn in a quality way.

Yep, I agree with all of that. BTW, did you mean "beliefs"?

 

 

 

IMO, what defines good and evil depends on the judge, the circumstance and the philosophies in both. Laws cannot make a difference in good versus evil, as Thomas Jefferson once said:

Well, I agree wholeheartedly that the circumstances matter, but I don't see the judge as that relevant -- basically because I'm talking about the "actual truth" sort of thing. If someone chooses an action for selfish reasons, it might be that no "judge" can recognize it or know it, but that doesn't change the action.

 

Differences in how some people or cultures "judge" can change the circumstances, though. Like with the shrunken heads example, that obviously changes how you act, and it can change what you might consider selfish. I assume that society would pressure you to feel guilty for resenting the elitism of those with the shrunken heads. Under those circumstances, it would be possible to hold grudges for selfish reasons, even though the root cause isn't the fault of that person.

 

But it's the circumstances that define that. If someone stands up against that discrimination for selfless reasons; to stand up for justice (which applies to far more than just that someone), a "judge" in that culture would appeal to the tradition as a basis to say "you are committing evil here". But that judge would quite simply be wrong.

 

As far as philosophy, I think we covered that already well enough.

 

Law is not justice, justice should be law.

 

So, just a simple law cannot mean anything to it. Circumstance, yes. Defying the speed limit to ram another car in the fender obviously is evil and against the law, but it was the intent that caused the person to defy the limit i the first place. But defying the limit to get to the hospotal in an unmarked car? No.

Yep, I agree. Again, that's basically what it comes down to; the circumstance.

 

Not sure I agree with the idea that the law "cannot mean anything to it" though. The laws do change the circumstance, although they ideally shouldn't.

 

I agree with the quote from Thomas of Jeffer though. Law isn't justice -- what is it though? Well, it's just what the elites of one society happen to decide they want everybody to act. Even in a "democracatic republic" like America (not to get too political here though :P) It's abstract, and often not rooted in real practicality or logic, heh.

 

So, in the end, I must confess that you (as usual) have the superior logic. That is what you do. BTW, I intend on making a blog entry defining the differences in our ways someday, and what causes us to be a leeetle varied in our POVs (:P). Along with other essays in the beggining process.

 

~EW~

I look forward to it. :)

Link to comment

GB, this is about logic, understanding and good versus evil, not Evel Lord Survurlode, the Orca, THE Chief Gremlin and the now nonexsistent bubblewrap trap. ;) If you had anything to say about that, you could have just posted in his profile with all due sillyness, not an important discussion.

 

But what can I say? I am not a smart skeleton. :P

 

 

In no particular order:

Not sure I agree with the idea that the law "cannot mean anything to it" though. The laws do change the circumstance, although they ideally shouldn't.

 

I agree with the quote from Thomas of Jeffer though. Law isn't justice -- what is it though? Well, it's just what the elites of one society happen to decide they want everybody to act. Even in a "democracatic republic" like America (not to get too political here though ) It's abstract, and often not rooted in real practicality or logic, heh.

True, but I was thinking about the actual intention, not the actual act. In that case, my comment is still valid.

 

And there is a name for such a goverment: kakistracacy. You should look it up, if you have not done so already. ;)

 

Well, I agree wholeheartedly that the circumstances matter, but I don't see the judge as that relevant -- basically because I'm talking about the "actual truth" sort of thing. If someone chooses an action for selfish reasons, it might be that no "judge" can recognize it or know it, but that doesn't change the action.

 

Differences in how some people or cultures "judge" can change the circumstances, though. Like with the shrunken heads example, that obviously changes how you act, and it can change what you might consider selfish. I assume that society would pressure you to feel guilty for resenting the elitism of those with the shrunken heads. Under those circumstances, it would be possible to hold grudges for selfish reasons, even though the root cause isn't the fault of that person.

 

But it's the circumstances that define that. If someone stands up against that discrimination for selfless reasons; to stand up for justice (which applies to far more than just that someone), a "judge" in that culture would appeal to the tradition as a basis to say "you are committing evil here". But that judge would quite simply be wrong.

The judge is rather important. Right now, we are all making judgements on good and evil. Some judges are indifferent, other impartial. Whenever we view an act, we judge it. That effetively makes us judges (hence the name ^^). Of course, how we viw the matter relies of philosophies of individuality and POVs on the actual act. So, actualy, the judge is important in every matter, as heshe is mormaly the deciding factor.

 

In a courtroom, a judge is even more important, as he is the immediate deciding factor and can be currupt (especially with the problematic law thing), so he can certainly make wrong decisions on the matter, even highliting his impotance more.

 

As for the German schooling example, that was entirely based upon current times and events. I do indeed speak German (as I am German. Well, half German), and Germany currently banned homeschooling in favor of more orthodox public methods, blaming the parents of brainwashing their kidns when the actualy performed academically advanced.

 

Ich sehe. I guess I'm not up on my current German events enough... That's too bad. Homeschooling is proven to be effective (though it might certainly vary depending on the parent) -- I'm a case in point. I literally would not be a logician if I hadn't been homeschooled for a few years. They don't teach logic in these schools, you know; the Prof in Narnia is right on.

 

Yep, I agree with all of that. BTW, did you mean "beliefs"?

I heard a rumor once that you were homeschooled at one time or another, I juste never felt like bothering you about a petty thing like that, or worse, make it an arguement with others. Well, now I safely know for sure that you were indeed HSed. :)

 

Remember, I hate typos. :P

 

 

~EW~

Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...