69 replies to this topic

[Amalthe]

Rlyeh, on 19 November 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

You're obviously not thinking this out.
"It would make sense to be evil?" Can you imagine what such a world would be like? You're ignoring the biggest factor, consequences. The more power you seek, the bigger the target you become.

By logical thinking i surely can imagine such a world. It would naturally organize itself in pyramidal scheme of power, where the Boss who is on top is the one who makes rules. Those who are less powerful than the Boss would take positions beneath him, where they would command those beneath them and so on. It is law of the Nature itself, forming a chain of food, or survival of the strongest, where strongest define the rules.

And history shows us that such system is not only possible, but was prevalent in the ancient time. Rulers were often tyrants who defined what is good and what is bad, who lives and who dies, and it worked just fine as long as they were alive and strong enough to maintain such system. It destabilized into anarchy only if the ruler died, but soon would reform with new ruler and so on. Even today, democracy as a system where all are truly equal before the Law is an exception, not a standard.

And logically thinking, when considering evolutionary principles,  person being evil in therms of breaking the rules has great advantage over those who always play by the rules, so again I would go with C235, being evil is just plain better, as long as you can get away with it.

[Rlyeh]

Amalthe, on 19 November 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

By logical thinking i surely can imagine such a world. It would naturally organize itself in pyramidal scheme of power, where the Boss who is on top is the one who makes rules. Those who are less powerful than the Boss would take positions beneath him, where they would command those beneath them and so on.

And how would this come together? By magic?
Being evil usually doesn't grant you a myriad of followers.

Quote

It is law of the Nature itself, forming a chain of food, or survival of the strongest, where strongest define the rules.

In nature, even the strongest play by the rules (e.g, environmental, and genetic factors).

Quote

And history shows us that such system is not only possible, but was prevalent in the ancient time. Rulers were often tyrants who defined what is good and what is bad, who lives and who dies, and it worked just fine as long as they were alive and strong enough to maintain such system. It destabilized into anarchy only if the ruler died, but soon would reform with new ruler and so on. Even today, democracy as a system where all are truly equal before the Law is an exception, not a standard.

No, even rulers back then were usually smart enough to work out their power had limits. History is full of assassination attempts and revolutions when someone had enough.

Quote

And logically thinking, when considering evolutionary principles,  person being evil in therms of breaking the rules has great advantage over those who always play by the rules, so again I would go with C235, being evil is just plain better, as long as you can get away with it.

Be evil as long as you can get away with it. So live on luck and in constant fear of being caught? I must have missed the better part. This is short term thinking. Compared to rulers who were expected appease the people isn't quite the same.

Edited by Rlyeh, 19 November 2012 - 01:38 PM.

[Hasina]

Knowing that a god existed? Nah.
Knowing a specific god existed? Maybe.

[Amalthe]

Rlyeh, on 19 November 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

And how would this come together? By magic?
Being evil usually doesn't grant you a myriad of followers.

In nature, even the strongest play by the rules (e.g, environmental, and genetic factors).

No, even rulers back then were usually smart enough to work out their power had limits. History is full of assassination attempts and revolutions when someone had enough.

Be evil as long as you can get away with it. So live on luck and in constant fear of being caught? I must have missed the better part. This is short term thinking. Compared to rulers who were expected appease the people isn't quite the same.

Hm, I find it strange that you refuse to consider what is actually well known historical fact. Take any tyrant ruler in the history of the world as example, he rules by fear, and he has followers who enjoy such system because it also gives them power though fear. But anyway, your comparison with magic clearly shows me that you have no intention to be honest and use logic to oppose my standpoint, you just want to ridicule me.

In nature there are no rules of conduct. Genetic and environmental factors are not rules in this sense of discussion. If you consider some ground nature rules, like Newton law, or the size of habitat, then were all bound to these rules, but we were not discussing here about those rules.

Assassination attempts, that's true. But in democracy, ruling people are also getting killed, imagine that.
Smart tyrant would survive such attempts, as history has proven. But successful tyrant must be strongest and smartest and for him, there is no limit to his power, because HE makes the rules.

Why would he be afraid to get caught, when he IS the one who hunts? I don't understand why is ruler expected to appease people? I mean, you really didn't take into account any example from entire history of human societies??

This checking historical facts should be easy to accept, yet you either seem to not care or don't know.  So either my understanding of what you are writing is completely wrong, either you're too biased to honestly accept logical thinking, just because my standpoint is different. In both cases, there is probably nothing more I can write to open your mind, so i guess, take care!

[Rlyeh]

Amalthe, on 19 November 2012 - 02:04 PM, said:

Hm, I find it strange that you refuse to consider what is actually well known historical fact. Take any tyrant ruler in the history of the world as example, he rules by fear, and he has followers who enjoy such system because it also gives them power though fear. But anyway, your comparison with magic clearly shows me that you have no intention to be honest and use logic to oppose my standpoint, you just want to ridicule me.

Instead of cherry picking history, why are you unable to keep with the real discussion of "evil is better"?

Your examples require the "evil" ruler to already hold some form of power. That shows power is better, not evil.

Quote

In nature there are no rules of conduct. Genetic and environmental factors are not rules in this sense of discussion. If you consider some ground nature rules, like Newton law, or the size of habitat, then were all bound to these rules, but we were not discussing here about those rules.

Hang on, you earlier said "It is law of the Nature itself, forming a chain of food, or survival of the strongest, where strongest define the rules."

So you're saying in nature, the strongest define the rules, however there are no rules in nature. That's a pretty glaring contradiction.

Edited by Rlyeh, 19 November 2012 - 02:50 PM.

[_Only]

Hasina, on 19 November 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

Knowing that a god existed? Nah.
Knowing a specific god existed? Maybe.

I think a mess of confusion was caused when he chose not to capitalize the G, unintentionally implying a god to many here.

Edited by _Only, 19 November 2012 - 06:21 PM.

[Magicjax]

notoverrated, on 17 November 2012 - 05:14 AM, said:

be honest, if you knew for a fact that there was a god would you change anything? and how would it impact you. personaly i cant see to many changes in how i life my life if i knew for a fact that there was a god.

If I found out without a doubt that there was a god. In other words a grain of evidence. I'd admit he's real but I still wouldn't like him. An all knowing all powerful doesn't equal good to me. Would I fear him? Certainly. But fear isn't something I care to bow to. And it certainly doesn't earne my respect.

[freetoroam]

notoverrated, on 17 November 2012 - 05:14 AM, said:

be honest, if you knew for a fact that there was a god would you change anything? and how would it impact you. personaly i cant see to many changes in how i life my life if i knew for a fact that there was a god.

it would change how I thought, because I do not believe in a god. But if it was proven, then i would draw up a list of questions I would want to ask him, like, if he was there all the time, was he watching the wars and all the deaths it brings? was he watching while mother nature ripped through the Earth killing many on its way? there may be some with a biblical explanation, personally, if there is a god and he did nothing, well i would next have to question his sanity.

Edited by freetoroam, 21 November 2012 - 12:43 AM.

[HavocWing]

Magicjax, on 21 November 2012 - 12:19 AM, said:

If I found out without a doubt that there was a god. In other words a grain of evidence. I'd admit he's real but I still wouldn't like him. An all knowing all powerful doesn't equal good to me. Would I fear him? Certainly. But fear isn't something I care to bow to. And it certainly doesn't earne my respect.

I wholeheartedly agree, me too.

[Beany]

Rlyeh, on 19 November 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

Instead of cherry picking history, why are you unable to keep with the real discussion of "evil is better"?

Your examples require the "evil" ruler to already hold some form of power. That shows power is better, not evil.

Hang on, you earlier said "It is law of the Nature itself, forming a chain of food, or survival of the strongest, where strongest define the rules."

So you're saying in nature, the strongest define the rules, however there are no rules in nature. That's a pretty glaring contradiction.

There may not be any rules of conduct in nature, but the behaviors that ensure species survival usually stay in place. the same is true of human society. Are there aberrations? Sure. But none of the "evil empires" lasted for very long, because the behavior didn't allow for a sustainable future. And, as time goes on, as communication becomes easier & quicker, I suspect that human consciousness will continue to evolve. Look at history. We no longer draw & quarter people, or put them on the rack, the Geneva Convention prohibits torture. The Chinese no longer bury criminals in sand up to their necks on a busy road, no one in the US would dream of deliberately spreading a deadly contagious disease like small pox. I think the idea that "evil is better" is outdated and disproved by modern civilization, and is a species-killing idea.

[JGirl]

notoverrated, on 17 November 2012 - 05:14 AM, said:

be honest, if you knew for a fact that there was a god would you change anything? and how would it impact you. personaly i cant see to many changes in how i life my life if i knew for a fact that there was a god.

nope. i live my life the best way i know how. having confirmation of a supreme being would not change anything

[SpiritWriter]

The knowledge of God alone, is not what does a spiritual work in you. Many people "know" that God is real but it has no affect on how they conduct their lives.  As another poster mentioned, the Devil didn't change by knowing about God, in fact it would seem it just makes him more angry.

If you became aware that god exists it would be because the spirit of God has shown himself to you. This would change you on its own accord, not because of some decision you made about it. You can make the choice to change, but more naturally God leans on you, your mind merges with him/her, you receive new spiritual understanding and you change because of that....

Edited by SpiritWriter, 21 November 2012 - 04:40 AM.

[Kazoo]

I would probably spend the majority of my extra-time saying snarky and sarcastic remarks about how I could of done way better at creating the universe.

Other then that I would be doing the same thing.

[UFO_Monster]

It depends on who this "god" is. Is he kind and loving? If so, I would do anything to please him or her. But if this being was a merciless despot, I would refuse to bow to him or her.

[Amalthe]

Beany, on 21 November 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

There may not be any rules of conduct in nature, but the behaviors that ensure species survival usually stay in place. the same is true of human society. Are there aberrations? Sure. But none of the "evil empires" lasted for very long, because the behavior didn't allow for a sustainable future. And, as time goes on, as communication becomes easier & quicker, I suspect that human consciousness will continue to evolve. Look at history. We no longer draw & quarter people, or put them on the rack, the Geneva Convention prohibits torture. The Chinese no longer bury criminals in sand up to their necks on a busy road, no one in the US would dream of deliberately spreading a deadly contagious disease like small pox. I think the idea that "evil is better" is outdated and disproved by modern civilization, and is a species-killing idea.

I think i see your point, development of human society shows us that people are more productive and society as a whole advances quicker, when there are rules and regulations which are same for all. But i think we misunderstood each other here in relation to definition of "evil empire".  In my opinion, evil doesn't necessary equals lunatic behavior like that of Caligula for instance, but it equals any ruler which defines according to his will what is the law and what is allowed. For instance take into account Henry VIII and his desire to have male heir. In order to achieve this, he changed the laws, forced executions, split religions, did everything which he though is necessary to achieve his goal. Hence, he was evil because he didn't take into account the rights of other humans in the process. I understand that rulers often had to take into account principle of "choosing lesser evil" when making decisions, but still that doesn't make them just and fair, for lesser evil is also evil.

To have absolute freedom of action doesn't make someone evil "per se", but whenever you use that freedom to unjustly limit the freedom of any other individual, you are evil.

And in that matter, i believe our current democratic government is exception in the history of mankind. Whenever human society gets into a crisis, the democratic laws become "stretchable" and society will do whatever it takes to preserve itself.