Would You Remove Evil?

[Tani Coyote]

Well, would you?

Imagine if, for some reason, you had the ability to remove evil from yourself and all life. Would you do so? Would you remove the temptation to steal, to be greedy, to murder, to torture, to rape? Would you remove such vile emotions as hatred, rage, jealousy, greed, vanity?

It's a common theme in fiction that frequently raises questions.

In religious circles, the creator of the universe often leaves the ability to do evil intact because freedom of choice is meaningless if we don't have the full range of choices.

===

I say no.

I consider evil to be forcing your will on others for personal gain. Ergo, removing evil is evil in and of itself, no matter how noble.

 

[Synobun]

No I would not. I would probably reduce it slightly, but get rid of it altogether? Nah. It would remove the balance and it would remove a vital aspect of civilization and normal life.

 

[innonimatu]

Evil is relative.

 

[Defiant47]

Under my system of morality and ethics, I am compelled to say yes, and stand by my answer.

 

[timtofly]

Well, would you?

Imagine if, for some reason, you had the ability to remove evil from yourself and all life. Would you do so? Would you remove the temptation to steal, to be greedy, to murder, to torture, to rape? Would you remove such vile emotions as hatred, rage, jealousy, greed, vanity?

It's a common theme in fiction that frequently raises questions.

In religious circles, the creator of the universe often leaves the ability to do evil intact because freedom of choice is meaningless if we don't have the full range of choices.

===

I say no.

I consider evil to be forcing your will on others for personal gain. Ergo, removing evil is evil in and of itself, no matter how noble.

So science only progresses when a mistake is made?

 

[useless]

Evil is such a subjective term, it cannot be described rationally, and instead relies on ones religious (or lack of), Moral and social views. Hitler is considered "good" in Neo-Nazi circles, as are serial killers (Richard Ramirez has a few women who desire to marry him).

Not only that, but what about the age old problem of "One man's freedom fighter, is another man's terrorist"? Another example; I believe Ron Paul's beliefs on race are evil, but I do acknowledge that his beliefs, according to some, on the state and the economy are good, or at the very least positive, according to those people who support him.

You can never remove "evil" or the acts that cause or lead to it, you can unfortunately only deal with the aftermath of it.

 

[Murky]

No, but if I could, I would prevent bad things from happening to the innocent.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Evil is relative.

Evil is such a subjective term, it cannot be described rationally, and instead relies on ones religious (or lack of), Moral and social views. Hitler is considered "good" in Neo-Nazi circles, as are serial killers (Richard Ramirez has a few women who desire to marry him).

Not only that, but what about the age old problem of "One man's freedom fighter, is another man's terrorist"? Another example; I believe Ron Paul's beliefs on race are evil, but I do acknowledge that his beliefs, according to some, on the state and the economy are good, or at the very least positive, according to those people who support him.

You can never remove "evil" or the acts that cause or lead to it, you can unfortunately only deal with the aftermath of it.

Yes yes, I understand "evil" and "good" are subjective and whatnot.

But, that's dodging the question.

Would you remove what YOU consider evil, if given the chance?

So science only progresses when a mistake is made?

What? How is this relevant? I'm confused.

 

[GoodGame]

Evil is a tax law loophole.

 

[useless]

Of course I would, I believe so would everyone else.

 

[wapamingo]

Yes, remove it.

 

[warpus]

If you remove evil there will be no good left either.

So no.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Of course I would, I believe so would everyone else.

That belief is wrong, then. Starting right from the OP, you can see some don't believe such a thing would be proper.

I side with the idea that freedom of choice without choice isn't really freedom at all. You can be who you want to be... within certain cosmic constraints!

Generally, controlling someone else is seen as evil. So isn't removing evil evil in and of itself, as you are preventing people from being whatever they wish to be? It's like killing the killer to prevent the killing.

 

[Rashiminos]

___, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

It's not my place to make this decision, albeit with one notable exception.

 

[useless]

That belief is wrong, then. Starting right from the OP, you can see some don't believe such a thing would be proper.

I side with the idea that freedom of choice without choice isn't really freedom at all. You can be who you want to be... within certain cosmic constraints!

Generally, controlling someone else is seen as evil. So isn't removing evil evil in and of itself, as you are preventing people from being whatever they wish to be? It's like killing the killer to prevent the killing.

I concede to some degree, but we aren't really "free" technically, in any sense, legally or socially.

I guess for the latter part of your post that doing so is a... necessary evil eh?

 

[Bootstoots]

Why yes. In fact I recommend a blanket ban on everything evil, with harsh penalties for anyone caught practicing evility. We must fight the War On Evil until Good prevails!

Seriously, whoever came up with the concepts of good and evil should be damned to everlasting Hellfire. We would be much better off as a species if we didn't assign arbitrary dualistic values onto everything and instead saw the world of human action in its full, glorious complexity.

 

[Rashiminos]

Seriously, whoever came up with the concepts of good and evil should be damned to everlasting Hellfire. We would be much better off as a species if we didn't assign arbitrary dualistic values onto everything and instead saw the world of human action in its full, glorious complexity.

Some people wish to deny the full, glorious complexity. Why should we insist on telling them otherwise?

(Others wish to hide FGC for their own ends...)

 

[GoodSarmatian]

How evil is evil ?
Genocide? Rape ? Slavery ? Yeah, remove it.
Supply side economic policy ? I'm not a fan, I see how someone could define it as 'evil' and I think the world would better without it, but I wouldn't 'remove' it (i.e. destroy it and kill every single proponent).

If 'evil' is to be destroyed, evil should be defined as something that at least 80% of the world population agree to be abhorrent, everything else is personal opinion.

 

[wapamingo]

I see nothing complex about rape and murder that add value to the glorious complexity of the human soul.

There are certain acts that are evil, and this evil behavior (if possible) should be purged.

 

[Rashiminos]

If 'evil' is to be destroyed, evil should be defined as something that at least 80% of the world population agree to be abhorrent, everything else is personal opinion.

Aah, the battle for hearts and minds.