blogs_blog_39

Hey I was giving him ideas for the next blog entry so it does belong here as this was where he told me that if I get something good he'll do it.

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.

Well now you just reminded me about the defeat of the bubble wrap, so yeah.

 

Seriously, if we made a list of blows dealt to Survurlode and his minions lately, what would it be? Really, his only success is that every once in a while we still slow down. A little. A tad.

 

 

 

Anyways....

 

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.

Fair enough.

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

Hwatever you say dude.

 

 

 

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.

But what does heshe decide? I'm just saying, the judge doesn't actually cause the act to be good or evil -- it's the motives of the "acter" that do that. But sure, the judge is important. But not for what I was talking about. Basically, the judge doesn't determine the actual truth of the event he's judging. He just forms his own opinion and then consequences for whatever that opinion is follow. Or she. Or they, etc.

 

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.

 

 

~EW~

I shalt duly remember that. Thus, you typed "juste".

 

 

Hey I was giving him ideas for the next blog entry so it does belong here as this was where he told me that if I get something good he'll do it.

Here there, whereeverwhere. I don't care.

 

Rhyme not intended.

Well Bones that was directed at EW not you

Correction os the spelling of a certain word: Kakistocracy.

 

That sounds better.

 

 

)+-->

QUOTE(the same skeleton who can type with his bony fingers( ))

But what does heshe decide? I'm just saying, the judge doesn't actually cause the act to be good or evil -- it's the motives of the "acter" that do that. But sure, the judge is important. But not for what I was talking about. Basically, the judge doesn't determine the actual truth of the event he's judging. He just forms his own opinion and then consequences for whatever that opinion is follow. Or she. Or they, etc.

Let's look at a hypothetical situation:

 

Take a deep breath. Close your eyes. Tight. I SAID CLOSE THEM!

 

... -.-

 

Okay, now, there is a person who has killed someone in a rage because the killee killed his dog (man's best friend, remember?). So, the judge sits before him, gavel in hand. It is the judge who will decide on the fate of the criminal and decide whether he is guilty or innocent (No jury; this is a kangaroo court. What? Yes, that is a term given to courts that have only a judge.) What will he use to figure out the "truth?"

 

The Judge: Is he impartial? Is he negative? Has his affiliation been damaged? Has (heaven forbid) recived bribes? Is ne a noob or a old-timer at the proffesion? Is he upright?

 

The Circumstance: Was the act done under vile pretence? Was it in concordance with the laws, both supernatural and earthly? Was the act done under pressure, anger, spite, etc?

 

The Philosophies: This sums both the above together. Was the killer a thinker or doer? What was his life like? Was he agressive or passive? Is the judge either of those, too?

 

With these things in mind, the answer to the hearing is obvious if you use the choices in the corresponding grid. That is why I view those three things as the things that determine good and evil in earthly prespective (the other being Godly). Though they do not determine the logical truth, they determine the truth that would make or break the fate of the killer.

 

Naturally, it is only one example of the truth behind TJ's saying.

 

Of course, this is my view on the issue on a very limited scale. But I never said philosophers were the most logical people on earth.

 

But, I have my opinion, you can have yours. ( ) j/k

 

~EW~

Question: What stops people from doing evil things that actually benifit them? Is it:

1) Morality

2) Guilt

3) Public Image

If your answer is a combination, can you tell me which is the major factor

Correction os the spelling of a certain word: Kakistocracy.

 

That sounds better.

Yarr.

 

But what does heshe decide? I'm just saying, the judge doesn't actually cause the act to be good or evil -- it's the motives of the "acter" that do that. But sure, the judge is important. But not for what I was talking about. Basically, the judge doesn't determine the actual truth of the event he's judging. He just forms his own opinion and then consequences for whatever that opinion is follow. Or she. Or they, etc.

Let's look at a hypothetical situation:

 

Take a deep breath. Close your eyes. Tight. I SAID CLOSE THEM!

I have no eyelids, remember?

 

 

... -.-

 

Okay, now, there is a person who has killed someone in a rage because the killee killed his dog (man's best friend, remember?). So, the judge sits before him, gavel in hand. It is the judge who will decide on the fate of the criminal

No arguments there.

 

 

and decide whether he is guilty or innocent

Argument there. He will decide whether he is guilty or innocent in the eyes of the court. And that will be what decides his fate (well, part of it). That doesn't mean the judge actually causes the man to be either guilty or innocent, in reality. See what I'm saying? In this example, the actual act is done long before the judge even enters the picture, and it is during that act that "real" built or innocence, in terms of selfishness or not, is formed.

 

The question then becomes if the court/judge/jury will accurately recognize that guilt or innocence (or, more realistically, something like a "not guilty" verdict which doesn't technically judge either way). And of course, that matters to the guy -- it is his fate we're talking about, after all. So not arguing that. Just saying, what determines his fate isn't necessarily his actual guilt or innocence -- it's the court's opinion about his guilt or innocence.

 

 

(No jury; this is a kangaroo court. What? Yes, that is a term given to courts that have only a judge.) What will he use to figure out the "truth?"

 

The Judge: Is he impartial? Is he negative? Has his affiliation been damaged? Has (heaven forbid) recived bribes? Is ne a noob or a old-timer at the proffesion? Is he upright?

 

The Circumstance: Was the act done under vile pretence? Was it in concordance with the laws, both supernatural and earthly? Was the act done under pressure, anger, spite, etc?

 

The Philosophies: This sums both the above together. Was the killer a thinker or doer? What was his life like? Was he agressive or passive? Is the judge either of those, too?

Good sumup of all those.

 

With these things in mind, the answer to the hearing is obvious if you use the choices in the corresponding grid. That is why I view those three things as the things that determine good and evil in earthly prespective (the other being Godly).

Well, no arguments with that wording. I'm simply not talking about a perspective at all, but about the actual truth (which IMO happens to always coincide with the Godly perspective ). Of course, in reality we can never know that, at least this side of the grave, but in fiction, we can, because the author (like Greg) can just tell us.

 

Though they do not determine the logical truth, they determine the truth that would make or break the fate of the killer.

 

Naturally, it is only one example of the truth behind TJ's saying.

Very well, agreed.

Of course, this is my view on the issue on a very limited scale. But I never said philosophers were the most logical people on earth.

Never was a truer statement uttered.

 

But, I have my opinion, you can have yours. ( ) j/k

 

~EW~

Ha ha.

 

Question: What stops people from doing evil things that actually benifit them? Is it:

1) Morality

2) Guilt

3) Public Image

If your answer is a combination, can you tell me which is the major factor

Well, I'm going to approach this question in several ways, A. First (the numbering is for my points, not your list, to be clear):

 

1) The question is so deep and it is asking about the "real" truth I was mentioning above in my response to EW. I also mentioned that it's impossible for us to know that "real" truth about someone else for sure. So everything I say about my opinion on your question has to be taken with a grain of salt (even by me), because you're asking something I could really only know if I was telepathic and could read every mind of everybody alive now, and who had lived in Earth's history. I ain't, I can't. Just so you know.

 

But of course there are ways to get good clues and hints about what it is for each person, because our thoughts usually manifest in something others can see/hear/etc. So I'll give it a shot.

 

2) Before we even get to the multiple choice part, I have to take issue with the question itself. Can we be sure that "evil" things really do benefit the evildoer, overall? Not to get into religious stuff, but there's a concept that evil can be attractive, and even fun at first, but then you find out you were deceived and the results are far worse than the "good" you may have felt at first. So evil would end up harming the evildoer far more than it benefits them.

 

The question would probably be better phrased, "What stops people from doing evil things that actually benifit them, at least in the short term?"

 

3) I don't think the best way to approach this topic can be done in the way that you asked. You want me to tell you which is the most important factor. I think the most important thing to realize about the answer is this:

 

It's all of the above, and quite possibly more, plus it will vary from person to person.

 

You're going to have individuals who don't care about guilt, they live in the now, but the public image will stop them (unless the public doesn't know, they might reason). You're going to have individuals who believe someone knows everything they do, so they will pay attention to morality. You can have subsets of these -- those who think the public will always find out, or those who would avoid evil only because of fear of punishment from someone who they believe knows everything. You will have those who suffer guilt from past "evil", and decide they will avoid "bigger" evil to avoid bigger guilt. You'll have some who have guilt only when they're caught in public. On and on this can go.

 

So yeah. No easy answer.

 

4) Buuuuut, to take your question as you asked it, I want to focus on Bionicle here for now, and I want to add an option. #4, love of good. The best example I can give is of a Toa who really wants to do whatever he can to protect the Matoran, and so he's willing to risk his life protecting them. For a Toa, it is arguably "evil" to flee danger rather than confronting it -- you know, the old superhero quote "with great power comes great responsibility."

 

That might not sound as dramatic as a Toa having to choose between killing an enemy who doesn't need killed or not -- but it's a far harder decision when you think about it. The Toa making the "we don't kill" choice has the upper hand if he can actually choose. The Toa who has to decide whether to fight or flee probably doesn't have that. To him the choice may be like this: "Flee and be safe and comfortable", or "Fight a very dangerous enemy and probably die in vain". Now that ain't easy. In that case, I think you can have guilt, and you can have morality. You can have public image if there's any public left to form an image. But can you see that the love of good can also be a powerful motivating force here?

 

5) But to move totally in line with your question as you asked it, I think the major factor has to be morality. Simple process of elimination:

#3 -- Public image? Most people think that they can get away with a lot more than they actually can, and there are still those, like Jack the Ripper, who totally escape the public eye (at least, his real identity -- if memory serves anyways ). No, public image isn't very powerful at all. People who rely on this will do anything they can get away with. And many will do things that are evil, yet actually enhance their public image. But let's not get political here.

 

#2 -- Guilt? Yes, this is very powerful. To a lot of people, this is certainly a factor. But guilt only comes after you do something, and until you've experienced it, you may think it wouldn't be that bad. Also, people can simply ignore their conscience and literally convince themselves that they have nothing to be guilty about. And different "crimes" will have people have less or more guilt. So think about the Toa who is facing a powerful foe, and kills him. Like with the Toa Inika during that one test -- they didn't even think about guilt until they had "killed" the illusions. If those illusions were real, all the guilt in the world wouldn't help them. But certainly, it does play a powerful role.

 

#1 -- Morality. Morality is basically a system where you identify what actions are considered good and evil, and the results you believe come from them. This covers both public image and guilt, because a system of morals is what you basically need in order to avoid the bad side of those things anyways. Take the Toa Inika example. Guilt in that case certainly helped them form a newer sense of the "Toa don't kill" moral. So guilt can lead to a new morality. But a morality that already exists can be taught and that way, the killing can be avoided in the first place.

 

Also, morality is the only one of these three that deals with the love of good -- if you care for the Matoran, for example, your system of morals ("Duty") tell you that you should go and face the evil, whether in vain or not, and at worst go down to the grave with honor. Public image isn't about that at all -- it's basically selfish, and fickle (look at LoMN with the fake Dume; the public image there was that the Toa were bad guys but they did the right thing anyways). Guilt is somewhat about that, but again, if you decide "I can't do this, I'd live with the guilt all my life", that is a moral, not actual guilt itself. Guilt comes after you've done the evil act, and you wish you hadn't so that the Matoran could be safe. And it is, again, selfish, because you pity yourself for having to be depressed by guilt.

 

Morality is the only one of these three that says "Okay, this is what I must do for the good of everybody involved" and can produce that result everytime, preventing the act of evil, if it's followed.

Say someone had committed an evil act before and they felt incredibly guilty afterwards, couldn't that prevent them from doing something similar again?

Say someone had committed an evil act before and they felt incredibly guilty afterwards, couldn't that prevent them from doing something similar again?

Most certainly. Some criminals will commit a crime only once, then feel that they have learned their lesson and move on.

Say someone had committed an evil act before and they felt incredibly guilty afterwards, couldn't that prevent them from doing something similar again?

Most certainly. Some criminals will commit a crime only once, then feel that they have learned their lesson and move on.

Yep, and I believe I said that, didn't I?

 

But what I'm pointing out is, in that case guilt is the motivating force, but it motivates that person to basically create a new "moral" for themselves: "I won't do that again". Make sense?

And he's right, too.

 

 

~D

 

He is.

I think this is a great blog entry, bonesiii! You analysed this topic very professionally.

 

Since you asked for more inspiring questions I'd like to bring up a new point for you to think about:

 

When a person or an animal kills in order to survive isn't this an evil act, too? According to your defenition anyone who acts for selfish reasons is evil. Killing someone who tries to kill you not only serves yourself but also harms the other person. So, does the fact that this person tries to kill you give you the right to kill them? In the case of Bionicle this could be the reason why Toa don't kill. Another example would be when a lion kills an antelope because it doesn't want to die of starvation. Although the lion acts selfish in this situation it is in genaral not considered evil. One could argue that this is the course of nature and serves its balance but the lion does not eat the antelope because it wants to serve any greater good.

(Sidenote: This is just an example. I don't want to claim that lions are evil.)

 

I'm curious about your opinion on this.

I think this is a great blog entry, bonesiii! You analysed this topic very professionally.

 

Since you asked for more inspiring questions I'd like to bring up a new point for you to think about:

 

When a person or an animal kills in order to survive isn't this an evil act, too? According to your defenition anyone who acts for selfish reasons is evil. Killing someone who tries to kill you not only serves yourself but also harms the other person. So, does the fact that this person tries to kill you give you the right to kill them? In the case of Bionicle this could be the reason why Toa don't kill. Another example would be when a lion kills an antelope because it doesn't want to die of starvation. Although the lion acts selfish in this situation it is in genaral not considered evil. One could argue that this is the course of nature and serves its balance but the lion does not eat the antelope because it wants to serve any greater good.

(Sidenote: This is just an example. I don't want to claim that lions are evil.)

 

I'm curious about your opinion on this.

1) Thanks.

2) You're opening quite a can of worms here. I fear not worms though -- just be aware that there are many different opinions on that one, some of them strong. (So I don't want any flame here, everybody. Feel free to disagree respectfully and hopefully with logic. )

 

3) Well, remember I said that if something absolutely is necessary, it isn't really selfish -- if a person kills an animal in order to survive, that's different. With animals only, morals don't really come into play because they aren't sapient. With people, if it's the last choice left, it's clearly okay.

 

4) Where you're going to find gray areas is when it's not technically the last choice, and especially things like hunting and fishing purely for sport. Like buying meat at the grocery store, eating a cheeseburger, etc. As I do all the time. The disagreements in these areas are based in religion so we can't discuss details of that.

 

5) Logically speaking, my reasoning has to do with mental health and taste; I couldn't stand eating nothing but vegetarian foods. Especially not Vegan. But I'd agree that purely non-religiously speaking, those who avoid killing animals at all costs for nutrition do have the safest moral approach. (But logic forces me to consider the religious viewpoints too.)

 

6) Killing someone who tries to kill you -- depends; is it self-defense? Meaning, the best defense is a good offense -- in that instance, is killing them the only choice? Toa don't kill because it often isn't, at least in Bionicle physics. But is it literally a choice between you dying and them dying? Then it would not be wrong to kill the attacker in self-defense. And keep in mind in the heat of the moment, and the shock of it, it's quite easy to misjudge and in that situation it might be better to "overreact" than to try to think it through, because if you waste time trying to be extra cautious you are likely to end up dead. So usually, killing in self-defense is considered morally sound.

 

7) If they try to kill you, does it give you the right to kill them? It's a good question, because I said a murderer forfeits his life, but if he hasn't actually murdered you yet, has he technically forfeited it yet? Lemme answer that with a question -- would you wait until he had murdered you before you killed him back? It's not even possible (well... barring killer ghosts ). Since he does have the intent to kill, and the intent is what defines evil, he has already forfeited his life by both having the intent and acting on it by attacking you.

 

8) That's not the reason in Bionicle -- the reason is that in most situations the hero does not actually have to kill the bad guy. There are other options, and the Toa use them. If a Toa literally had zero choice, heshe would kill, and they have done this.

 

9) No, the lion isn't being selfish. Remember the difference between selfishness, which seeks to cause unnecessary harm for personal benefit, and taking care of yourself -- i.e. doing what IS necessary for your own survival. The latter is not selfish.

 

10) Of course, if the question is between a human eating another human because it's necessary for survival, that would be a whole 'nother can of worms. (Again, back to religion again, I would say it is still wrong, but it's a gray area.)

 

11) Balance of nature -- well, it is now, heh. Yet again another religious topic; many do not believe it was always this way. But I would just point out that all lions eat meat, so when each one does do what it must to stay alive, it keeps the whole species alive, which does help the greater good. If all lions stopped eating, there would be no baby lions, and nobody hunting for the whole pride, and they'd go extinct. Keeping yourself alive can definately be a good act done towards others, since you can help others when you're alive.

Thank you very much for replying to my questions so elaborately!

 

I still disagree with a few points but I'm okay with leaving it at that.

 

You should really keep up writing interesting stuff like this!

Is Mata Nui good.....or evil, then?

 

I think Mata Nui is SUPER selfish! He doesn't really care what is happening in his universe, he just keep it away from collapsing. When there are Matoran Civil War, he did nothing. So it later weakened him, and cost one Toa's life to healed him. The organization that serves his will, Order of Mata Nui, prevented Makuta from killing 2007 main villains. After he fell asleep, Toa Mata who is destined to awaken him, well.....awoke him, and brought him to his death, then cost another life to resurrected him. The way that his universe connects to him make him "invaluable". He can't die, the others can die (for him).

 

So same question, is Mata Nui good or evil?

Is Mata Nui good.....or evil, then?

Mata Nui is good.

 

I think Mata Nui is SUPER selfish! He doesn't really care what is happening in his universe, he just keep it away from collapsing.

First of all, where did you hear that he doesn't care what is happening in his universe? I can guarantee you that was a false rumor.

 

Second, the last phrase in this part of what you said is what Mata Nui's job is, not what he "only cares" about. Look at it this way -- a police officer's job is to police the "homeland" -- like a city. Yet the policeman isn't overseas fighting a war. Why not? Because that's the job of soldiers. You can't expect one person to do everything.

 

Thirdly, keeping the universe from collapsing is pretty important, isn't it? Isn't it also something "happening"?

 

When there are Matoran Civil War, he did nothing.

Are you saying he should have? At the expense of the universe? Mata Nui should let the universe collapse so he could take over the job of Toa and others who are tasked with dealing with enemies, etc.? That wouldn't work.

 

I might as well argue that when there was a holdup at a bank near your area, you did nothing, so that makes you somehow selfish. That's a rather silly argument, don't you think?

 

So it later weakened him, and cost one Toa's life to healed him.

Because they don't want their universe to collapse! How is that selfish? Sorry, but you're not making any sense.

 

 

The organization that serves his will, Order of Mata Nui, prevented Makuta from killing 2007 main villains.

You state that as if to say "because they wanted them to be the 2007 villains." You didn't mention that the Barraki only escaped because Makuta caused the Great Cataclysm! That's Makuta's fault.

 

After he fell asleep, Toa Mata who is destined to awaken him, well.....awoke him

What? The Toa Mata have not yet awoken Mata Nui. That is what they're trying to do this year, in 2008.

 

, and brought him to his death, then cost another life to resurrected him.

Are you saying Greg should have told a story in which no sacrifice is required, nothing bad ever happens, etc? That would be unrealistic.

 

All you're doing is citing bad things that happened, ignoring the good things, and apparently implying that you have an alternative in which nothing bad ever happens and there's no conflict. That would be a really boring story, don't you think?

 

It's also a common tactic used by irrational critics of someone, or something, who don't understand that everything has both pros and cons. This is usually done by someone who simply hates the someone/something and wishes to discredit them for personal reasons. Dunno why you'd be doing that. But you need to understand that realistically, there are pros and cons to everything.

 

For example, say your boss asks you to work overtime. Con: you work more. Pro: you make more money. But by your logic, it would be selfish because you would look only at the con and complain about it. That makes no sense -- and the alternative suggestion would be what? To make extra money for no work at all? Not happening.

 

The way that his universe connects to him make him "invaluable". He can't die, the others can die (for him).

Nor can he ever stop working. He's basically a slave, is he not? What if he gets tired of that job, and wants to retire on some surface island, and just let the Matoran universe rot? Wouldn't that be selfish??

 

Instead, the guy slaves away for his entire existence trying to keep everybody alive, and you call him selfish for it?

 

So same question, is Mata Nui good or evil?

I hope I've been able to help. I'm not sure why you seem to have something against Mata Nui, so I'd ask you to calm down and think things through a little. He's only a fictional character, so it doesn't make sense to have a vendetta against him, man.

 

First of all, where did you hear that he doesn't care what is happening in his universe? I can guarantee you that was a false rumor.

 

He actually has a character flaw which makes him not really care too much about the universe as long as it's working.

First of all, where did you hear that he doesn't care what is happening in his universe? I can guarantee you that was a false rumor.

 

He actually has a character flaw which makes him not really care too much about the universe as long as it's working.

Really? Can you provide a quote for that one? I'm curious about the "too much" part. 'Cuz it's always sounded to me as if his will is a big part of why the OoMN, Toa, etc. exist as orgs. Which would imply caring, to me.