Would You Remove Evil?

[GoodSarmatian]

Aah, the battle for hearts and minds.

If there's a battle, you've missed my point.

 

[stormerne]

Imagine if, for some reason, you had the ability to remove evil from yourself and all life. Would you do so?

Personally I think this is the wrong question as it's a logical impossibility, but not in the way you may think, so let me explain...

Here's an idea. Let's say evil is whatever works AGAINST the survival of a group, whether that group is a tribe, a country, a whole human culture or an animal species. Let's therefore say that good is whatever works FOR that survival. (These are philosophically simple and fairly common statements, and not so far fetched.)

What's good for the eagle is often not good for the rabbit if one is feeding on the other! Although it's often in a predator's best interest to allow some level of survival of the prey, when there are competing predators for the same prey it's not quite so friendly.

So here's the logical impossibility. You can't guarantee to "remove evil from yourself and all life" as what's good for the survival of one group may be to the detriment of another. It's the wrong question.

So what's the right question? Is there one? I would rather reword your original question, and substitute the word "suffering" for your word "evil". So the question becomes: "Imagine if, for some reason, you had the ability to remove suffering from yourself and all life. Would you do so?" And my answer is YES.

 

[Rashiminos]

If there's a battle, you've missed my point.

Perhaps, but in that case, you did not actually present it to begin with. What you stated was a challenge. If some group can get 80% of the world to agree with them, then their cause is legitimated, whether through persuasion, elimination, or some other method I have not the imagination to conceive at this moment.

So what's the right question? Is there one? I would rather reword your original question, and substitute the word "suffering" for your word "evil". So the question becomes: "Imagine if, for some reason, you had the ability to remove suffering from yourself and all life. Would you do so?" And my answer is YES.

Have you considered that this might lead to a variation of the same question?

 

[timtofly]

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.

it has been. God did not remove the free choice to engage, but the devil made it look tempting.

@ OP

Having a variety of good decisions is much more favorable than a mistake that may ruin things in the long run. Evil is knowing that one made a mistake. It would not be a mistake if one does not have that realization. Bad things make us hurt for a reason, yet we keep repeating them over and over again. Why is it so hard to stop being self destructive? Because we know we will survive.

 

[Mango Elephant]

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.

There are children starving in the world, isn't that evil? If we were to remove evil so the children don't starve, that wouldn't be for personal gain, imo.

An evil man is going to kill poor man tonight, would removing evil be for personal gain even though you're doing it to save the poor man?

If you benefit from getting rid of evil, even while the starving children and the poor man will benefit as well, but you refuse to get rid of evil because you believe it would make you evil, and therefor you would curse yourself, would that decision in itself not be evil, because you would let innocent people die before condemning yourself, a selfish act?

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

So no.

Why would good have to be destroyed with evil?

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.

Why is controlling someone else evil?

 

[Joecoolyo]

What is good without evil?

In fact, what is good, and what is evil?

What is love... baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more...

 

[Rashiminos]

Why is controlling someone else evil?

There are examples of people who have tried to do so. There is a certain arrogance in the concept that one person knows what is best for another. It's likely that the former does not actually know. Even if that person did know, the logical extension of this is a hierarchy, with a dictator enthroned at the top.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Perhaps, but in that case, you did not actually present it to begin with. What you stated was a challenge. If some group can get 80% of the world to agree with them, then their cause is legitimated, whether through persuasion, elimination, or some other method I have not the imagination to conceive at this moment.

The 'some group' in question was all of humanity, across all cultural borders.

 

[Rashiminos]

The 'some group' in question was all of humanity, across all cultural borders.

And if 80% of humanity were to be convinced?

If 80% of humanity agreed after dissenters were slain?

... were to be ...?

 

[Tycho]

Without evil there is no good. Ergo, no difference in what you removed. So no, evil should not be removed because freedom of choice, no matter how vile is still a part of humanity.

 

[Rashiminos]

There are children starving in the world, isn't that evil? If we were to remove evil so the children don't starve, that wouldn't be for personal gain, imo.

It can be. If the children are at fault (unlikely), then my intervention may teach them a wrong lesson (about becoming a parasite). If I place my sense of fairness over the child's needs (note that I'm doubting my ability to accurately perceive the child's needs - that's important), then I'm replacing (not adding to) the child's view with my own view. I'm creating more people like me because I like me, and I'm serving myself.

An evil man is going to kill poor man tonight, would removing evil be for personal gain even though you're doing it to save the poor man?

It can be. If the poor man earnestly wants to die, I violate his wishes in saving his life. My act is thankless, and serves neither him or the evil man. That leaves just me.

If you benefit from getting rid of evil, even while the starving children and the poor man will benefit as well, but you refuse to get rid of evil because you believe it would make you evil, and therefor you would curse yourself, would that decision in itself not be evil, because you would let innocent people die before condemning yourself, a selfish act?

Sometimes letting things play out is the right thing to do, and intervention is the evil (especially if our intervention is informed by ignorance).

 

[NetGear]

Even if we eliminate evil, there's still going to be bad things happening all the time. People with good intentions commit bad actions. It wouldn't make that much of a difference imo since. Most evils in the world isn't commited by comic book villains. But I guess it would be nicer knowing there aren't totally dbags in the world anymore.

 

[KaiserElectric]

Evil is relative.

Pretty much what I would have said.

 

[bernie14]

i think the worst evil always has the best intention

 

[Mango Elephant]

It can be. If the children are at fault (unlikely), then my intervention may teach them a wrong lesson (about becoming a parasite).

Of course we all have different views of a world without evil, but in my world without evil there is no such thing as a parasite, because everyone gets what they deserve and everyone deserves the best, because they all try hard and do all their work.

If I place my sense of fairness over the child's needs (note that I'm doubting my ability to accurately perceive the child's needs - that's important), then I'm replacing (not adding to) the child's view with my own view. I'm creating more people like me because I like me, and I'm serving myself.

If I understand correctly, you're saying that just because you don't want to starve, doesn't mean that everyone doesn't want to starve? While I'm sure there are some people out there that wouldn't mind starving, hasn't it been proven that starving yourself causes many problems with your body? Therefor, starving yourself (or wanting to starve yourself) is evil and cannot exist when we destroy evil. Everyone wants to be well fed, and everyone is well fed.

You also might be saying that you cannot understand exactly what a child should eat, how it eats, and how much it eats. I agree, none of us are gods. However, if we remove evil, I can think of two possible scenarios as to how things are determined 'evil'.

Either a higher being, eternally wise, decides what is evil and what is good, and therefor our perspective of a child's needs is irrelevant because we would not be deciding it's needs in the first place. When I say higher being, I don't necessarily mean a 'god'. It would be the entire universe, knowing exactly what a child needs, and able to deliver.

Or because evil is destroyed, ignorance and stupidity is destroyed as well. All of us are perfectly smart, capable of understanding (and we would understand) all the intimate details of the universe. Therefor, we would completely understand a child's needs, and give those needs to the child.

It can be. If the poor man earnestly wants to die, I violate his wishes in saving his life. My act is thankless, and serves neither him or the evil man. That leaves just me.

In a world without evil, a man would not want to die. Or maybe he would, I don't know the details of that world. And if the man wants to die, we must kill him in a humane fashion, without evil. Is killing a poor man evil? I should think so, unless the man wants to die that way, then it would not be evil. So I do agree with you. Now, I am regretting the way I worded the question. I assumed the man would not want to die, when in fact I must specify his wishes.

I will now form a completely different scenario.

An evil man is going to kill poor man tonight. The poor man is in his 20s, has many friends who would miss him, loves life, and does not want to die. would removing evil be for personal gain even though you're doing it to save the poor man who does not want to die? You do not know this man, will never meet him, and will never interact with him. You removing evil does not benefit yourself at all when it comes to the poor man who is saved.

Sometimes letting things play out is the right thing to do, and intervention is the evil (especially if our intervention is informed by ignorance).

See my fourth and fifth paragraphs. The intervention of destroying evil would never be formed out of ignorance.

There are examples of people who have tried to do so. There is a certain arrogance in the concept that one person knows what is best for another. It's likely that the former does not actually know. Even if that person did know, the logical extension of this is a hierarchy, with a dictator enthroned at the top.

So is that the main reason why controlling someone else is evil, because of arrogance? This is the definition of arrogance, according to a dictionary I found online -

overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors.

This sounds at least a little bit evil to me, and therefor would not exist when evil is destroyed.

 

[Hygro]

I would. I would remove my definition of evil and I'd be careful in doing so. There are things I used to think are bad but were really just not my way of relating to people, that I would have done away with when I was little.

 

[Rashiminos]

Of course we all have different views of a world without evil, but in my world without evil there is no such thing as a parasite, because everyone gets what they deserve and everyone deserves the best, because they all try hard and do all their work.

We'll get back to this at some point.

If I understand correctly, you're saying that just because you don't want to starve, doesn't mean that everyone doesn't want to starve?

Yes, actually. The act of eating involves consuming the life of another. Some people would rather starve than to do such. To them, sustaining the body any more than necessary (and what's necessary is not what you would think it to be) is by definition a selfish act.

Either a higher being, eternally wise, decides what is evil and what is good, and therefor our perspective of a child's needs is irrelevant because we would not be deciding it's needs in the first place. When I say higher being, I don't necessarily mean a 'god'. It would be the entire universe, knowing exactly what a child needs, and able to deliver.

If the universe decides the child should starve?

Or because evil is destroyed, ignorance and stupidity is destroyed as well. All of us are perfectly smart, capable of understanding (and we would understand) all the intimate details of the universe. Therefor, we would completely understand a child's needs, and give those needs to the child.

If the child, in its perfect smartness, chose not to eat? Would you give the child its need of starvation?

and (you) will never interact with him.

If I cannot interact with him, my ability to protect him is lessened. That leaves the evil man. I can warn him, to the degree he is receptive to such warning, about the possible effects of his actions, but his evilness is liable to allow him to ignore me. If I have no real part in this process, on what sound basis do I assign guilt to myself? It is the evil man's concern what the murder shall do to him, and the poor man's concern of not dying is his. I have no power or control over this, and it's unclear that I should deserve such power or control.

See my fourth and fifth paragraphs. The intervention of destroying evil would never be formed out of ignorance.

Post-colonial Africa would beg to differ.

So is that the main reason why controlling someone else is evil, because of arrogance? This is the definition of arrogance, according to a dictionary I found online

It's behind the justifications involved. Controlling someone else supplants their view of the world with one's own, regardless of the former wishes of that someone. Asking to remove the evil here is asking something to come along and make you part of its machine, just as long as it can avoid doing something you would consider evil. First step that something would take is to redefine your sense of evil, so as to lessen the likelihood of such an event. "Evil is relative."

It is, after all, what you deserve, when you ask someone to remove your "evil."

 

[azzaman333]

I'd redefine evil to be anything that negatively affects me, then remove it.

 

[Berzerker]

probably, but I'd like to know what purpose it serves first

 

[innonimatu]

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?

I'd rather dodge that question!

But yes, though I would be wary of the whole imposing my views on others, it is unavoidable to some degree. On that which I would intact with, sure I would remove what I considered evil, were it within my power. Playing god over all life? No thanks. I'd settle for just playing god of small things.