A while back I was randomly thinking on the current state of our world and on the human condition, and something occured to me. In our world right now there is more good done for the sake of good than there is evil done for the sake of evil. But on the other hand there is much more migitated evil, which is evil done for some real or percieved advantage, than there is migitated good, which is good under the same context. Is this right or wrong? Thoughts?
-David
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Wait, evaluate my examples and tell me if I understand what you are talking about.
Good for Good - Church organization goes to Africa to build houses and teach children.
Evil for Evil - Person A destroys Person B's prized possession in spite.
By advantage, do you mean a goal that would seemingly benefit the world? And all of that part I'm confused about. Do you mean mitigate instead of migitate?
As far as Migitate vs. Mitigate, you're right, my bad. As far as your examples, kinda sorta.
Good for Good- you are right on the mark, good without thought of reward or percived advantage. The only thing wrong with your example is participants in such an endeavor might be working for some promise of spiritual gain or reward.
Evil for evil- Close, even the destruction of a prized posession out of spite is something that is evil done for a percieved betterment of ones self. The perception being a feeling of satisfaction/vengance for whatever caused the spite to exist in the first place.
And by advantage I mean any advantage, looking better in someone else's eyes, feeling better, having an extra milk at lunch, anything that would in some way, large or small, bring a real or percieved advantage to the doer of said action. Evil for the sake of evil would look like (this reference feels wrong used in a school setting for a serious purpose, but here goes) The Joker from these recent Batman movies. Someone who seeks no advantage for their doings, and instead serves only to "be the kind of criminal this city deserves" so to speak. Evil without thought of gain, evil simply to be evil, and for no other reason. Does that help?
Ok, i get it now, haha. Yes, i agree with you that there is less evil for evil (its almost nonexistent) and more good for good (despite there sometimes being spiritual reward). There is also more evil done for benefit and actual reasons and good as well. The evil for evil thing doesn't really apply much in the real world because we are educated enough; even hitler had his own (distorted) reasoning for doing what he did. Good for good doesn't really apply either because, if you think like me, all people have inbuilt greed and self-centeredness. We always do things for reasons in the real world (unless we lack the ability to think) because there is no point in doing something if it we don't benefit from it (this can be a mental contentness or a physical reward).
Well I kind of understand what you're saying, but the question really makes no feasible sense...
By the way mitigated means lessened, which makes no sense in context of what you're saying...
I suppose you mean to break it down by : action for reason. good for good, good for personal advantage, good for global advantage, evil for global advantage. I threw out evil for personal gain and evil for evil cause they are obviously wrong, and evil for good cause it's contradictory.
I think the reason the question is so confusing is that you didn't specify what you were asking was right or wrong, and those specifications were ambiguous to start with. I'd also argue that good for global advantage is the same thing as good for good. And obviously good for good is right, so what is the question?
I think the real problem is obvious answers as to right or wrong... so here's the only 2 debatable circumstances I can find.
Is Evil done for perceived global advantage bad? Is good for personal gain bad?
Examples - Illegal experiments to find a cure to cancer, Suicide bombing as an act of religion (PERCEIVED advantage) Helping out and volunteering to win an election, etc
I wasn't really asking a question, just asking for opinions on what you thought of my thought.
I dont think Evil is ever done for the sake of Evil. At least not in the eye of the 'doer'. It always has some gain.
Hitler is a good example because everyone can recognize what he did. He looked at it like that church organization going to Africa looked at their work. They both were 'helping' for a spiritual gain or simply doing a 'good deed'. At least in the eye of the 'doer'.
Whoa, that is a very large generalization to make about the state of humanity. Call me an optimist, but I do not think you give enough credit to the "mitigated" good deeds, like making cookies for a friend who has had a bad day. However, I can see how "evil" might be perceived as more prevalent based on sense perception. For example, the newspapers sell themselves by reporting primarily the bad or serious news. There is little reason to report good news because it does not require public awareness or address. Likewise, it is oftentimes the situations or actions with negative implications that we are inclined to notice because they directly confront our reason and emotion. But good we are generally ok with.
I agree with what Ben W said. I think that it is impossible for one to be evil for the sake of being evil. If one commits an evil deed, it is to do good for themselves in some way or another.
However, I believe that its likely that one would commit an evil deed solely for the purpose of watching another suffer, out of spite or revenge.
Post a Comment