Would You Remove Evil?

[Agent Cooper]

They are complementary. The actual Truth is both beyond good and evil. The evil will force you to look for good and through good you will find the Truth of the Beyond.
So perhapes what we find evil today will not look as such tomorrow. You cant say about animals that they are evil but if you see human behave as one you will be disturbed. So what you actualy witness is progression from lesser to higher truth.

I respectfully disagree - the scenario you describe might make for interesting philosophical debates of good vs evil, their origins and deeper meaning etc.

But in the real world I don't see that scenario happening at all. As Rashiminos suggests, in the real world throgh the history of man, evil begets more evil. The history books are the witnesses to this very human trait.

 

[Akka]

If you could remove evil, you would be very sick not to do it.

 

[Akka]

The point is that if bad things didn't exist, we wouldn't have anything to judge everything else by, so it'd just be "neutral" to us, not good.

Or you would have "neutral" and "good" ?
Someone impolite to me is not evil. Someone polite, pleasant and smiling is still way better. It's not because nobody will ever try to kill, torture, rape or humiliate me needlessly that it means I'll suddendly stop feeling love, affection, friendship or the like.

The "there must be a balance between good and evil" is something I expect from the gameplay design of an unimaginative and simplistic RPG, not from philosophical thinking. Seriously.

 

[Rashiminos]

If you could remove evil, you would be very sick not to do it.

'Heaven's Gate, right all along.'

 

[Kyriakos]

Or you would have "neutral" and "good" ?
Someone impolite to me is not evil. Someone polite, pleasant and smiling is still way better. It's not because nobody will ever try to kill, torture, rape or humiliate me needlessly that it means I'll suddendly stop feeling love, affection, friendship or the like.

The "there must be a balance between good and evil" is something I expect from the gameplay design of an unimaginative and simplistic RPG, not from philosophical thinking. Seriously.

Seriously, does it matter what you consciously think when in your genes obviously there are memories of good and evil from the time of your birth? Why do you think infants cry when born? They are met with an environment which compared to the womb is very unpleasant.
I think you seriously are trying to think you have a grasp of the issue of good and evil, but do not seem to do at all.

And to spell it even more for you: Imagine the evolutionary disaster that humans would be if they did not have any sense of evil happening to them. They would die out fast, from stronger animals, gaps in the ground (since they would have no sense of pain either, until the final hit would destroy their brains) etc etc etc

But then again, "seriously"

 

[Akka]

I think you seriously are trying to think you have a grasp of the issue of good and evil, but do not seem to do at all.

I'm sorry, does someone who reason that "unpleasant = evil" and "no evil = you feel no pain when you're wounded" is actually trying to tell me I don't grasp what evil is and is attempting to give condescending lessons ?
Oh... Wow.

Not to add that such a theorical and realistically impossible postulate like the one in this thread would require huge changes to the world to actually happens, so trying to make half-backed arguments about the subject while keeping a world that still works the same is just another proof that you are talking way above what you grasp and should, as a pot, refrain from calling a kettle black.

 

[Kyriakos]

If you bother to look you would see that i already mentioned that a world without evil would be a world where beings would not be humans= the difference would be so great, it would be impossible to imagine.
Now this is not the same as what you claim, for you obviously think you can imagine it all, because you seem to think that evil is something you can take out of the equation and be left with, hm, indifference or neutrality in the other end of the spectrum.
Yes, let us examine this brilliant position of yours: If indifference and neutrality were enough to cause evolution to equip a being with a sense which at its peak is termed euphoric, do you think that indifference and neutrality would be retaining the position they now have, when they are in the middle ground, due to evil existing? For it seems more logical to assume that without evil, evil would have to be re-invented, only it would be a lesser evil of sorts.
After all palindromes go both ways, but science itself shows that the human psychical balance is so delicate that even experiments with hypnosis were abandoned due to their detrimental destabilizing effects. (why am i claiming this now? well read the next sentence) Goes to show that you cannot really pick and choose even details in the psychical balance, let alone taking out a huge chunk of it which is evil in multiple ways (either evil itself, or weary of evil etc)

 

[Akka]

Yes, let us examine this brilliant position of yours: If indifference and neutrality were enough to cause evolution to equip a being with a sense which at its peak is termed euphoric

Where did I ever speak of evolution ?
I simply pointed that we don't need evil to appreciate good, and that if someone could (which is completely theorical) remove evil in the world, he would be pretty sick (and, let me add, irresponsible and evil himself) not to do it.

All the energy you spend acting smug and smart-arsy should be better invested in actually getting the points made, rather than speaking to yourself and contering arguments that were made only in your own head.

 

[Kyriakos]

Sorry but i did not mean to sound anything of the sort; maybe you are partly projecting there.
But let me get this straight: your own defense is that you now claim your posted view was all about some "theoretical", impossible, dream-like, only existent in a imagination example?

I think that this is just abandoning the discussion, which of course you are free to do. This is just a forum, and not the thought olympics.

Edit: by which i do not mean to be hostile btw. You live up to your user-title though

 

[Moss]

Moderator Action: Quit the bickering please.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I understand the concept of energy just fine, even though there is no such thing in my universe (as far as I know) as negative amounts of energy. Why couldn't the inhabitants of a hypothetical all-good universe manage to understand goodness?

 

[Shaihulud]

Before I make any judgement, I would like to know how such a thing can be achieved, what are the ramification for removeing this 'evil" from the human society. I also do not have the right to remove this kind of feelings from people, since I am not even sure if I want to remove "evil" from myself.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I respectfully disagree - the scenario you describe might make for interesting philosophical debates of good vs evil, their origins and deeper meaning etc.

But in the real world I don't see that scenario happening at all. As Rashiminos suggests, in the real world throgh the history of man, evil begets more evil. The history books are the witnesses to this very human trait.

I think in the real world you can see actualy both happening. Maybe what I have written applies in the best possible scenario where there is already sufficient good to begin with?
Another thing is that there are different kinds of good and one may see that some good can with the progression of time actualy turn into kind of nuissence if not evil.