Battle between good and evil

[Corbenik]

This has been on my mind for years.  It takes quite a bit of thought.

There are those who wish to destroy evil.  There are those who wish to destroy good.

My opinion on this subject is, there cannot be only one side.  There must be both.  Otherwise, neither would exist.  Therefore, existance would also be destroyed.  This issue has had my brain working overtime.  Can one exist without the other?

[Kay Alett]

Whats really gonna bake your noodle is; Can all acts of evil have ultimate outcomes acting for the greater good and vice versa?

Evil exists, but not in the volume most believe. The majoraty of folk seen as being 'evil' are only doing what they see as an act of good. No one ever does something simply because it's evil, they do it because they see their actions as making the world a better place.

Let take some examples of evil and examine them and see how their evil actions can have ultimately good outcomes from their perspectives.

The Joker: This is a portrait of madness and evil on a grand scale. The Batman villain The Joker lives to torment others and bring chaos wherever he goes, stealing and murdering how he pleases. Certainly it's easy to see this as evil, but his actions have a purpose other than destruction at times. He seems to want to make the world into a shifting paradigm of chaos where no one has secrets from one another. In his mind, if everybody were as open and honest with each other and themselves as he is, the world would be better and he seems to strive for this. Albeit in the most destructive manner possible because you must tear down the old to make way for the new.

Now lets look at real evil.

Adolf Hitler: Need I say anything about what this man has done? We all know his crimes and atrocities well and have worked to make sure the world never sees someone like him again, I'm not going to try and defend his actions so don't think I'm a sympathiser okay? He wanted to rule the world in his own dictatorship where he had all the power and was in control, but under this control he saw the world as being united and at peace. Order would be maintained and the human race would move forward with only the strongest, brightest and best of us all creating the next generation and letting nothing stand in the way of progrees, not morals, not conscience, not anything.

Now these are both very powerful figures of unquestionable evil and if we examine hard enough we can see that in their own ways, their own views, they were only trying to improve the world.

Yes good and evil cannot exist without each other, but one must also ask themselves: are they are on the right side?

In America, our forefathers are heroes, patriots, men whose examples of leadership and independace are to be admired and followed, but in England they are seen as terrorists and traitors to the crown, men of evil who shun the rule of King Henry for their own selfish desires.

The true difference between good and evil ultimately rests with you and your own point of view.

EDIT: Just realised I mispelled "England"

[Traumerei]

Kaloyan just took the words out of my mouth.

I believe "good" and "evil" are just based on perspective. You can view one's actions as evil, although they could very well see them as contributing to the greater good.

[Corbenik]

Very well spoken, Kaloyan.  Very well spoken indeed.

It is mainly about perspective.  The other factor is exactly what The Joker created.  Chaos.  Is chaos neccessary?  Is it needed to keep the balance in the world?  If there wasn't any chaos, would reality crumble?  And now the question that many, MANY people have asked.  Is a perfect world without chaos possible?

[Kay Alett]

No.

Humanity possess free will and that cannot always be predicted. People influence one another and we all create impacts on each others lives and behaivior. One can argue that humanity itself is an act of self controlled chaos: Chaos that recognises itself and attempts to control itself. The act of trying to conrtol chaos is also itself an act of chaos because you cannot predict its outcomes 100% of the time.

But a disscusion about chaos is kind of off topic though.

[Kaiyoki]

What defines Chaos and Order? Good and Evil?

A world without Chaos would not be Order, it would just be Normal. If there is nothing to contrast it to, how can it exist?

For example, if through the universe, only 2 fruits ever existed, like an Apple and an Orange. You need to call one "Apple" and the other "Orange", so as to define each as separate from the other and an object as itself. Both are "Fruit", however, if the "Orange" were to be stricken from Memory, Physical Manifestation and Metaphysical Manifestation, "Apple" would be "Fruit". There is no longer a need for "Apple" and "Orange". There is no longer any need to tell anything apart from the other, since that significant "Other" does not exist.

Striving for the absolute Order over any assemblance of Chaos is madness. Who defines what Order and Chaos is? To pull a Shakespear quote;

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by another other word would smell as sweet."

When it was first suggested that, contrary to popular belief, the Earth Revolved around the Sun, was not the person who brought it forth called "mad"? The idea was, wrong, out of order, "Chaos".

Look now, who was right? What is the current "Order"?

As essential as Chaos is, Order must not be forgoten. With order there has been given rise to intelligence, the ability to think and organise what as been created by Chaos, to communicate with another being of likewise order in their minds. If the human race had to start from primordial ooze every few million years, it would have to make those mistakes again to relearn from them.

Chaos and Order of Genes, Order and Chaos of the Mind; Evolution and Imagination, two things that hold life as we know it.


*Edit: Good and Evil is a wide blanket to thrust over many such topics, Chaos and Order being one of them?

[Yip]

Good and evil do not really exist. These are just terms that we use to describe things we see. And as such, just as Kaloyan said, it depends largely upon one's prospective. Very few "villains" see themselves as such. People are generally motivated to do what they think is good from their own prospective. And of course this can vary widely from person to person.

In some ways, it is impossible for a world to exist without "good" and "evil"; what would be defined as such would simply be different. For example, in a world without evil, not telling someone goodbye before you leave may be seen are pure evil simply because there is nothing worse to compare it too.

We see this sort of thing in our day to day lives (though of course generally not to that extreme).  Most of us have it pretty good, and as such the things we have as our problems are things that during times of crisis would be considered petty.  For example, one of my recent "problems" was trying to find a way so that I wouldn't have to constantly carry exact change for the bus.  Or course I'm not saying this is evil, just illustrating how the way we value things can vary depending on situation and prospective at the time.

*Edit: Good and Evil is a wide blanket to thrust over many such topics, Chaos and Order being one of them?

Perhaps in some sense. Though chaos isn't necessarily evil, and order isn't necessarily good.  For example, a storm is chaotic, but it's not evil (it's not evil or good, it just is). And a complete dictatorship would likely be very highly ordered, but yet we tend to classify those as evil.

[Kada-Ru]

The true difference between good and evil ultimately rests with you and your own point of view.

This is SO very true!

What I might see as good versus evil doesn't mean others might see it the same way.  Take the furdom for example.  We don't see it as evil.  We see it as something good.  Though there are plenty of those that we know of that think the furdom is evil and not good at all.

I think if there weren't both, life would be pretty dull.  No one would have to make choices with their lives.  Without both, how does one learn from their own mistakes and those of others?  Without both I don't believe there would be progress.  In any thing.  How could there be?

This topic is definitely food for thought.

[Corbenik]

What can sometimes be seen as a bit...disturbing...Is that some of the worlds greatest technological advancements were made during wars.  Take both WWI and WWII.  During both, in terms of technology, the world leaped up the ladder of technological advancement.  Computers, tanks, guns, cars, space exploration, the list goes on and on.  So, in a way, the battles between opinions/good and evil, actually help to evolve the world even more so during peace.

[Avan]

Despite the differences in definitions for good and evil, good and evil are non-inclusive and opposites, and thus what one is directly shows what the other is by what the first is not. Thus you get good and evil at the same time, representing what the other is through the very opposite nature of what they are.

For example, say I have a number. This number is 1.
1 is 1, therefore, 1=1. I also know that 1=/=k for all values k=/=1. Therefore, 1 is not 2, and 2 is not 1. 1 is not .23098 and .23098 is not 1. 1 is not everything but 1, and everything but 1 is not 1.

Such as the set of valid x values for the graph of (x-1)/(x-1): x can be anything but one, and thus x is not one. (I know if you simplify it, or take the limit, you CAN have x, but simplifying changes the premise, and taking the limit is a completely different action)

[Yip]

Despite the differences in definitions for good and evil, good and evil are non-inclusive and opposites, and thus what one is directly shows what the other is by what the first is not. Thus you get good and evil at the same time, representing what the other is through the very opposite nature of what they are.

I disagree. "Good" and "evil" are not mutually exclusive. Which is to say that it is a mistake to see things in terms of purely good or purely evil. Such simplistic classification never truly fits. The vast majority of things lay somewhere in between.

For example, say I have a number. This number is 1.
1 is 1, therefore, 1=1. I also know that 1=/=k for all values k=/=1. Therefore, 1 is not 2, and 2 is not 1. 1 is not .23098 and .23098 is not 1. 1 is not everything but 1, and everything but 1 is not 1.

Such as the set of valid x values for the graph of (x-1)/(x-1): x can be anything but one, and thus x is not one. (I know if you simplify it, or take the limit, you CAN have x, but simplifying changes the premise, and taking the limit is a completely different action)

So...  mathematically you can separate one set from another. Ok...  so whats the point? This does not even begin to show how good and evil fit such a model. You are simply asserting that this is the case. Showing an example of something that fits the model of a dichotomy in no way shows that good and evil follow this model.  In fact they don't; good and evil if anything would be closer to a spectrum with most things falling somewhere in the middle. But of course even this model is flawed since where something falls on the spectrum depends upon the observer.

[Avan]

The point I was trying to make was that the information encoding what each is exists as long as its counterpart exists. I was thinking of it in a very boolean manner.

The idea I'm showing is that the gradient you are viewing shows the sum of the good and evil components.
Say you see such and such action is 5 because it has 10 and -5, but you simply place it on the scale as 5, neglecting its components.
What I'm saying is that such and such action is 10 + (-5) = 5, and thus factoring in the specific reasoning as to each individual component of that action, thus being able to sepparate them in the end, so that the 10 is not the -5 and the -5 is not the 10.

I shall now take a classical idea (I'm not saying if it is correct or incorrect, I'm just using it as an example to illustrate a point)
'Killing is evil'
A person kills a murderer trying to attack another person.
Now what could be done is simply add it all up and slap it on a scale, and that's valid for some terms of measurements, but when you look at the components that make it up, we have various things such as
'he killed the guy'
'he stopped a murder'
etc. etc. etc.
and each of those singular binary actions can be placed each into one category or another.

And then, my system is based off of only definitions and assumed ideal conditions, and nothing beyond that, so thus it's rather impractical in any sort of real use.

[Yip]

The point I was trying to make was that the information encoding what each is exists as long as its counterpart exists. I was thinking of it in a very boolean manner.

The problem is that it doesn't work in a boolean manner, even if you try to break it down. What one person considers "evil" isn't necessary so to anyone else. Also, even the same act isn't necessarily good or evil, nor made up of good and evil elements. To try to fit it into a dichotomy is far too simplistic and just doesn't doesn't work in the real world.

For example, I'm now going to type a letter:  EJ

Was that evil? Was it good? Does it even matter? No. 
I realize that you could claim that it's "good" as its helping me to illustrate a point, or you could try to claim that it stands for evil, but such things would just be confusing the issue and ignoring the point. Things are not comprised of good or evil; these are just terms we use for communicating.

[Avan]

The point I was trying to make was that the information encoding what each is exists as long as its counterpart exists. I was thinking of it in a very boolean manner.

The problem is that it doesn't work in a boolean manner, even if you try to break it down. What one person considers "evil" isn't necessary so to anyone else. Also, even the same act isn't necessarily good or evil, nor made up of good and evil elements. To try to fit it into a dichotomy is far too simplistic and just doesn't doesn't work in the real world.

For example, I'm now going to type a letter:  EJ

Was that evil? Was it good? Does it even matter? No. 
I realize that you could claim that it's "good" as its helping me to illustrate a point, or you could try to claim that it stands for evil, but such things would just be confusing the issue and ignoring the point. Things are not comprised of good or evil; these are just terms we use for communicating.

Well, we could start talking about Relative Morality vs. Objective Morality, but that's a whole different debate for a whole different day. 

If it is Relative Morality we are dealing with, and thus everything would be nothing more than descriptors, yes, you wouldn't have good and evil to begin with other than what each person would define it as in the first place, making the entire discussion moot because you'd be dealing with too many definitions, so good and evil would thus both exist, one would exist without the other, AND none would exist, all simultaneously due to the relative nature of the matter and all the different definitions (or lack of definitions) that cause each of those various states to exist.

[Yip]

Well, we could start talking about Relative Morality vs. Objective Morality, but that's a whole different debate for a whole different day. 

If it is Relative Morality we are dealing with, and thus everything would be nothing more than descriptors, yes, you wouldn't have good and evil to begin with other than what each person would define it as in the first place, making the entire discussion moot because you'd be dealing with too many definitions, so good and evil would thus both exist, one would exist without the other, AND none would exist, all simultaneously due to the relative nature of the matter and all the different definitions (or lack of definitions) that cause each of those various states to exist.

Yes, but it must by necessity be "Relative Morality" we are dealing with because "Objective Morality" doesn't really exist.