Berzerker
Deity
maybe thats why God allows evil 
too much trouble, like answering all them damn prayers
too much trouble, like answering all them damn prayers
Would You Remove Evil?
- Thread starter Tani Coyote
- Start date
Mango Elephant
Deity
I can't think of anything to say to this, so I'll edit l8tr or something.
How is it possible that a child should starve, if there is no evil that the child could do in which to make themselves guilty? How else is a child deserving of starvation if they can do no wrong?
Starving yourself is inherently evil (with obvious exceptions in this world with evil). Starving yourself destroys your body and makes you weaker and more likely to die. If you die, you probably have lots of loved ones who will miss you, and that makes it evil, not to mention the suffering that happens to yourself is evil, unless you like that particular brand of suffering. Starving yourself is only ok if no one will miss you if you die, and you enjoy suffering.
In a world without evil, would no one giving a child a loving home be allowed? No, because every child needs love and every child needs a home, and that means that someone has to bond with that child to make that happen. Because of that, a child starving itself to death would be evil (and therefor not allowed) because of the pain it would bring to the loved ones who watch the child deteriorate and die.
I believe I have a different idea of how evil would be destroyed than you do. You seem to think that to destroy evil, you must do it yourself. Not that that's wrong, I just see it differently. I believe that you have a choice to destroy evil or not, and if you choose to destroy evil you don't have to do anything after that, it all disappears and is destroyed. If you remove evil, it wouldn't matter if you interact with the poor man or the evil man at all, because the evil man would automatically be destroyed because he is 'evil,' and you need not interact with him in the slightest way (except for destroying him, obviously, when you made the decision to destroy evil).
lol I obviously meant in the scenario, where ignorance doesn't exist.
Who cares about their former wishes, if their wishes are evil, begone with them! I don't see how it's 'evil' to make someone 'better', or 'good.' I don't subscribe to the belief that free will is good, and certainly not the belief that having free will is better than not having free will. I'd rather not have free will and be happy, than have free will and be miserable. Take someone's free will away, I don't see it as an evil thing (in this scenario, of course, taking away free will irl can be bad sometimes).
Evil is relative, in this world things like this don't have an order, a pattern, or a divine property. The definition of evil would be disorder and chaos, because different people would disagree on what evil is. Because disorder and chaos are evil in themselves, they would be abolished, and therefor the definition of 'evil' would have to have a set definition, listing what is evil and what is not, and everyone would know it. Manipulation is evil, and therefore the 'machine' cannot manipulate the definition of 'evil' to suit it's purposes, because that in itself would be evil.
I realize I listed 'disorder', 'chaos', and 'manipulation' as evil. Those are only completely evil when everyone agrees that they're all evil, and everyone must agree with that because disorder and chaos are evil and cannot exist. That's circular reasoning, and I know that's not a good thing. I'm just really tired right now, I might edit this later.
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
^Eating may be wrong. Without eating, you'd have starving.
Most likely. If, and I must emphasize the warning implicit in the word 'if,' you were to earnestly believe there was no such thing, and got everything else to believe likewise, there would be no such thing.
I originally had something about millstones and justice, but at some point I had to drop it. I'll leave this cryptic clue instead. How much do you care about people who do evil things? Be honest with yourself.
Perfection
The Great Head.
You are implying that removing evil is forcing your will on others for personal gain. Why should we presume that personal gain is the primary motivating factor here? Could one not remove evil for the gain of others?
EnglishEdward
Deity
How can one have 'up' without 'down', 'hotter than' without 'colder than', 'left' without 'right'?
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
Evil is best understood as the privation of good. You cannot really remove the absence of something. You can try to plus gaps, but that just creates more smaller gaps. It is not a dichotomy between black and white bur rather a matter of degree. What is evil compared to a greater concentration of good is good compared to a lower concentration.
I doubt we have a greater understanding of a world without evil, than we do of a world without death. Both would be utterly different places.
Also it is theorized upon in psychology that "evil" is born out of fear of retribution of the small child's sadistic thoughts. It is said that children before 2-3 years old have no ethics at all, because they know nothing of good or evil, since up to then those sadistic thoughts and the fear of being punished for them have not appeared.
So it would follow that if we had no evil, we might be something greater, but surely we would have been first and foremost something not human.
Also it is theorized upon in psychology that "evil" is born out of fear of retribution of the small child's sadistic thoughts. It is said that children before 2-3 years old have no ethics at all, because they know nothing of good or evil, since up to then those sadistic thoughts and the fear of being punished for them have not appeared.
So it would follow that if we had no evil, we might be something greater, but surely we would have been first and foremost something not human.
Narz
keeping it real
This.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
If there is no evil, you'd have nothing to compare "goodness" to to judge that it is in fact good.
Narz
keeping it real
Not really, they'll still be plenty of apathy, ignorance & folly.
People don't grow from evil, they grow from wisdom. Much wisdom may spring from suffering but suffering need not grow from evil, stupidity, ignorance & delusion do fine on their own without evil.
Anyone who's really seen or suffered pointless evil should want a world without it.
I don't buy the whole, "You need to know evil to appreciate good", my daughter hasn't known nearly as much evil as either me or her mother & yet her appreciation for good is waaaaay higher than mine. I'd go so far as to say too much evil blocks off our ability to take in anything, including good.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
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.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
That would just be the lack of knowledge? Someone who is greedy and puts himself above others may do it out of self preservation and ignorance, but being shunned as a result will either give him the knowledge to stop being greedy or try harder the next time, yet convince others he is "right" in being greedy.
It is very easy to rationalize when one causes evil, that it was not intentional. That is why we have laws to give people that knowledge. One should not have any excuse if he enjoys the privilage of a society, yet continually breaks that societies laws.
Bad things happen even if there is no knowledge of a natural law. How many attempts at jumping off a cliff did it take for man to learn that the result is bad? Now a sign may be placed there, that states "Do not jump off this cliff". That sign may be really restrictive to some and they may object loudly that they are free to do whatever they please. Just because some human put up a man made law, does not change the end result, but it did cause resentment. Removing the sign is not removing the evil. How would you remove the evil from the equation?
IMO we would have to remove all consequences that end in the bad. Or remove all laws that had bad consequences. How is one going to remove the natural laws that have bad consequences without supernatural help? There have been people who have avoided bad things, because they had the knowledge to avoid making the choices that would result in bad things. Some people have to gain that knowledge first hand, and experience bad things. Some people, due to the billions of people, are just recepients of other humans actions. There is a natural law that the larger the group, the less the individual choice affects just that individual. The larger the group, the more responsibilty is placed on each individual when it comes to making choices that will affect the whole group.
Avoiding bad things is good. Having the knowledge to do so is responsibilty. It should be quite plausible that if every one was responsible that communism, socialism, and capitalism would work equally well in a group setting. It is not because evil has been removed, but because every one has committed to be responsible with the knowledge they have.
galdre
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,859
Why would you have to remove bad consequences to remove evil? I could jump off a cliff because I misunderstand the laws of nature, but that is not an evil act. Evil is the willful attempt to do something that harms; which is why people always try to argue that they didn't know what the results of their actions would be. If they truly did not know, then the act can not be considered evil.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
@timtofly
Sorry, I'm not really sure what the thesis of your post is and how exactly you disagree with what I said.
I'm talking about removing evil from the universe permanently, which would also remove our knowledge of it.
I might also be wrong.. have been thinking about it. It's hard to think about because it's impossible to just remove evil from the universe..
Sorry, I'm not really sure what the thesis of your post is and how exactly you disagree with what I said.
I'm talking about removing evil from the universe permanently, which would also remove our knowledge of it.
I might also be wrong.. have been thinking about it. It's hard to think about because it's impossible to just remove evil from the universe..
Removing evil? Thats what we all do actualy. Slowly and steadily the evil is being removed from our lives by ourselves living more consciously. But I believe in deeper sense there is no such thing as evil. You can look at it positively as lesser truth. No doubt there are horrible things happening in this world but in ultimate analysis and truth it is the only a Creator having experience through the Creation. Removing evil is essential for fulfilling the purpose of creation but it rarely happens all of sudden like by some miraculous power. It naturaly happens in course of millenia of outwardly uncertain but inwardly innevitable evolution of Spirit out of Matter.
Aleksey_aka_al
Smiley
Yes, I'd remove these: consumerism, utilitarianism, anthropocentrism, and the cancer of course!
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
perhaps because as an individual, your POV will always be a subjective one, regardless of how many "facts" and how objective you pretend yourself to be?
it's seems to me to be quite gradiose for any particular person to "know" what evil is and how to remove it...even if that person's opinion is held by a majority
Similar threads
