Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


On Good and Evil

Reply
- Thu, 09 Jan 2020 12:22:07 EST 65NWSo4c No.209912
File: 1578590527544.jpg -(25432B / 24.84KB, 999x561) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. On Good and Evil
Do "evil" people think they are evil, or that they are doing good? Seems to me you'd find more good people calling themselves evil than evil people calling themselves evil. This is assuming good and evil could even be "objective" states in the first place.

Idk, thread about Good and Evil I guess.
>>
Nell Dedgepock - Thu, 09 Jan 2020 16:41:58 EST te/QDo9y No.209913 Reply
1578606118494.jpg -(62521B / 61.06KB, 790x1059) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Interesting. Although by far imperfect, I enjoy the d&d conceptualization of good, neutral, evil paired with lawful, neutral, chaotic. There's a cool book which has essays analyzing what the different alignment combinations mean: "Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy: Raiding the Temple of Wisdom ".

Lawful good could do things which are bad because they are laws in a similar way chaotic good could do bad because their personal moral compass deems them righteous. Chaotic evil could inadvertently do good if it were in their own interests, lawful evil probably not tho.

Would the actors recognize their alignment? Maybe. Deep down they must know, somewhat at least. For the greater good and other excuses are probably more like half-hearted delusions?
>>
Cornelius Blackfoot - Fri, 10 Jan 2020 12:33:17 EST p+7ufF1/ No.209915 Reply
>>209913
People can't even agree on alignments in D&D. I always felt it was selfish versus unselfish for good/evil and because of how stupid classic law and chaos ended up being it's become more about being more relativistic versus having a hard code. That way lawful characters have a code of honour or rules, and chaotic do what they want. Not because lawful is following laws but rather it's drawing hard lines deciding certain acts are always bad or will so rarely come out well they don't work while chaos is assessing everything based on expected consequence. As with good and evil most people exist somewhere between two points with differing stances in different issues and positions.

Anyway good in real life? In the end we do what makes us feel good or makes us suffer less so it's about what how willing we are to make others suffer or how much we get out of helping them to that end. People who take great joy in helping others and are willing to sacrifice a lot are more good. Good people will do unselfish acts and be happier, or less miserable than if they hadn't, they will find a little self sacrifice is worth the cost and be more willing to take pride in leaving the world a better place and taking the path with better consequences for others. People who aren't bothered by or enjoy people and so consequently are willing to hurt people for small personal gains (or even so hurting them is the gain. though that's usually pretty extreme evil) are evil.

As I said it varies. It doesn't make you not good if you're willing to inconvenience someone to prevent massive personal injury or harm. It doesn't make you not evil if you're happy to risk injury to save a life as you may know you'll be heralded a hero and receive credit and social standing.

It's very hard to draw a line, but some people or actions obviously fall one way or another. Also some people are really ignorant to the effect of their actions on others or can talk themselves into believing that the consequences of their actions were inevitable and didn't do it. I think a lot of politicians do stuff that kills lots of people but are able to rationalise how their policies and choices leading to needless deaths actually weren't the cause and it'd have happened another way or it couldn't be avoided. few people think of themselves as evil and I suspect the most good people don't think of themselves as good but merely trying to do what's right.

Neutral though? What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
>>
Phineas Gumblesidging - Sat, 11 Jan 2020 19:31:49 EST 0E11N9qB No.209916 Reply
1578789109206.jpg -(17707B / 17.29KB, 399x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Good is relativ, Bad is relativ. If you Look it Like that, nothing is Bad and nothing is good.
>>
Cedric Gammleket - Sun, 12 Jan 2020 02:28:36 EST Pr3KJWoH No.209917 Reply
>>209915

>What makes a man turn neutral?

>actually, I'm a centrist
>>
Charles Humblehatch - Mon, 10 Feb 2020 12:24:09 EST hcOExBer No.209951 Reply
1581355449386.jpg -(345153B / 337.06KB, 2210x1473) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209949
But isn't there a near-universal line to cross which defaults as bad no matter what? Is it possible for an action to be objectively bad despite an individual's subjectivity?
>>
Edwin Dinnerwat - Wed, 12 Feb 2020 02:39:34 EST cUbk/tCb No.209954 Reply
>>209951
This is a stupid question and you're wasting your time. Try to find new ways of thinking this one's a dead end.
>>
Fucking Greenville - Thu, 10 Mar 2022 22:45:00 EST Wa/2PG1L No.210716 Reply
>>209912
It's a spectrum
User is currently banned from all boards
>>
Eliza Pettingdale - Sun, 13 Mar 2022 13:51:01 EST jGhoOuYF No.210727 Reply
I'm going to sperg about Nietzsche a bit. In On The Genealogy of Morality, he talks about where our ideas of "good" and "evil" come from, how they evolved. In that work (which is a great read by the way) he compares two fundamentally different ways to think about morality.

There's "master morality", which is where you start by thinking "I am good" and by contrast, "those people who aren't like me are bad." Greece and Rome are two great examples of cultures built around master morality: how do you know somebody is a great hero, say, in the Trojan War? Because they're proud; they had the ability to kill a lot of people and used it. Master morality thinks about morality in terms of loving one's own life and self, and disliking non-self. Master morality doesn't see good vs evil, but good vs bad.

Slave morality is instead birthed by miserable people who get hurt by others, and takes the other rather than the self as the starting point. Slave moralists think, "those others are evil", and by contrast "I am good". Nietzsche has a fun section where he thinks about sheep and birds of prey, and imagines what sort of morality each of the two would evolve. The birds wouldn't hate the sheep - they'd even like them, and think they're delicious. The sheep, on the other hand, would see the birds as the very incarnation of evil. They'd even develop a moral code among themselves, that whoever is the least like a bird is the most good. Judea and Christianity are good example of slave moralist societies/movements. Slave moralists don't think in terms of good vs bad, but in terms of good vs evil. But slave morality is ultimately a cope - it's not like a slave moralist wouldn't do the things they denounce in the other - lust, gluttony, wrath, etc - they just that they're in a weak position where they can't, and convince themselves that makes them better. Just take a look at Christian concepts of hell - Christians say they're all about love and justice, but get off on imagining worse torments for those they call evil than master moralists ever inflict.

>>209912
I once heard someone say that we shouldn't call terrorists evil - from the terrorist's perspective, if you've already dehumanized your enemy and now you see them calling you evil, it doesn't make you think, "Huh, maybe I am evil" but rather, "Great, I've really gotten to them." We should instead call terrorists stupid - they're not working for their own interests, but just pawns of a greater worldly power that's happy to sacrifice them, etc.

>>209951
What does it mean for something to be bad? Once in a while the universe will destroy an entire solar system or galaxy (that may be inhabited for all we know) with the same innocence as a kid kicking down a sand castle - would you call that evil, or bad?
>>
Ronaldo Azbouzou - Sat, 19 Mar 2022 22:55:48 EST dPN+pQLa No.210728 Reply
>>209912
I truly believe that there's no bad intentions even in the most vile people. Perception is such a tricky thing, you could brainwash yourself (unconsciously) into believing and justifying virtually anything. An example could be Eliot Rodgers "paradise" hiding woman away in concentration camps so that no man would have to suffer rejection. He really thought that his "world" was a good thing.
>>
Albert Sucklefoot - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 17:52:54 EST kJvbsLrE No.210738 Reply
1650059574608.jpg -(58429B / 57.06KB, 850x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>210727
>Christians say they're all about love and justice, but get off on imagining worse torments for those they call evil than master moralists ever inflict

Probably my favorite quote by anyone, xtian apologists do some extraordinary mental contortions to square the circle, it's really frustrating how a lot of them just shrug and say it's not MY idea it's GOD'S and try to wriggle their way out of owning their own beliefs, even if you think you don't have the ultimate authority in your belief system they're still you're beliefs, and these beliefs in particular still betray a certain wickedness for being able to accept them at all, I'm not an atheist and if I believed such a vain, petty, and unpredictable God as fundamentalists do actually existed it would be horrifying, I wouldn't worship the beast I would resent it
User is currently banned from all boards
>>
Molly Cerrychire - Thu, 26 May 2022 20:03:07 EST ShF6ZNUX No.210767 Reply
good and evil character relative to good and evil (favorable and unfavorable) events
a good person is source of good events, an evil person is source of evil events
an enemy is always evil, a friend is always good
I am the center of the universe (ironically)

a person wouldn't normally see self as evil
>>
Edward Dartbanks - Wed, 15 Jun 2022 20:40:55 EST 616DYmF8 No.210771 Reply
If good and evil exist, you must make choices
If all is good, you don't need to make choices
If all is evil, you don't need to make choices

Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.