0
Okay, this is partly just an excuse to have a blog entry.
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. 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) post of yours caused me to wonder about this.
A (very long
) 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.
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.
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.
That sounds better.
Yarr.
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.
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.
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.
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
Naturally, it is only one example of the truth behind TJ's saying.
Very well, agreed.
Never was a truer statement uttered.
~EW~
Ha ha.
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.
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
#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.