Do the good guys really win? Or do the shadowed, backstabbing SOB's win?

I remember when I was younger a man said, the good guys win whenever a man safely returns home from work with food on the table and indoor plumbing available... HMMMmmm

Yet many bad guys get wealthy from the commodities. I have come to the conclusion that all men have goodness in their hearts, they merely become involved with the wrong groups of friends, and perhaps even people pyramids, so they become stuck in the gears of opposition, which began when time did, which actually never began, consciousness has always been, as hard as that may be for our human minds to comprehend.

Good must always oppose evil's want for laziness and thus power over others. I argue that some measure of laziness is OK, but there is a point when a person becomes too lazy and too powerful, and good guys naturally appear to oppose, or evil men will arise to oppose each other to cause a balance.

Truth be known: A world where no one had to struggle would be too easy, a world where each moment was a great struggle for survival would be too hard........... This is the part where my article becomes too deep to actually argue. :D

Perhaps the "bad" guys get financial success, but those who learn to not define success by such materialistic means know they are the real winners.

The mafia always wins....money that is and they aren't the best people in the world.

Truth is beyond good and evil.

Truth is beyond good and evil.

Who's truth? Your's, mine or theirs?

The truth in between - objective reality.

In the short-term, evil will always dominate. In the long-term, however, the good will surely prosper.


Kadark

What happens to half good/half evil things?

What happens to half good/half evil things?


They turn into halfings.

http://home4.inet.tele.dk/l-hansen/halfling/halfling.gif

..sorry

Where the good begins.-- Where the poor power of the eye can no longer see the evil impulse as such because it has become too subtle, man posits the realm of goodness; and the feeling that we have now entered the realm of goodness excites all those impulses which had been threatened and limited by the evil impulses, like the feeling of security, of comfort, of benevolence. Hence, the duller the eye, the more extensive the good. Hence the eternal cheerfulness of the common people and of children. Hence the gloominess and grief - akin to a bad conscience - of the great thinkers.

from Nietzsche's The Gay Science, s. 53, Walter Kaufmann transl.

What is new, however, is always evil, being that which wants to conquer and overthrow the old boundary markers and the old pieties; and only what is old is good. The good men are in all ages those who dig the old thoughts, digging deep and getting them to bear fruit - the farmers of the spirit. But eventually all land is depleted, and the ploughshare of evil must come again and again.

from Nietzsche's The Gay Science, s. 4, Walter Kaufmann transl.

Nietzsche really had this shit down pat.

Was he as intolerant as you are?

Good and evil are archaic notions that have no basis in reality.

First, they are subjective, which immediately makes the whole idea moot. It's not truly good or evil unless it's completely objective.

On that point, what is good? Evil? You cannot give me an example of something that is truly one or the other. I could say the attacks on 9/11 were evil; you could say they were the heroic actions of an oppressed people. You could say Mother Theresa was a saint; I could say her actions were of an intolerant, ignorant wench that was only in it for the fame.

I wish we could move on from such an archaic notion.

Perhaps the "bad" guys get financial success, but those who learn to not define success by such materialistic means know they are the real winners.

I agree, if a man can live less materialistically and more contentedly, things are better that way.

The mafia always wins....money that is and they aren't the best people in the world.

I would agree. Mafias are all over the planet, the dirt bags have people in many organizations, using masses of money and drugs to control lesser small time thugs to do their bidding.

Truth is beyond good and evil.

Truth is neither good nor evil, it what people do with it that makes it evil. The instinct for laziness in humanity makes "mutual blackmail," a key piece to the power structure of evil.

Knowledge is power, and many men have the instinct to gain power to obtain laziness and meaningless pride.

In the short-term, evil will always dominate. In the long-term, however, the good will surely prosper.

Kadark

I think its a mix of both, in many of the world situations. If, for example, a "good man," obtained eternal life, and after 20,000,000 years of life, he would become extremely bored and eventually, pure evil.(unless safeguards were created before that consuming boredom of the ancients became him) Time is the erosion. An idle mind or bored mind is indeed the devils work shop.

What happens to half good/half evil things?

Perhaps they obtain an eternal dreamless sleep after death?

Good and evil are archaic notions that have no basis in reality.

First, they are subjective, which immediately makes the whole idea moot. It's not truly good or evil unless it's completely objective.

On that point, what is good? Evil? You cannot give me an example of something that is truly one or the other. I could say the attacks on 9/11 were evil; you could say they were the heroic actions of an oppressed people. You could say Mother Theresa was a saint; I could say her actions were of an intolerant, ignorant wench that was only in it for the fame.

I wish we could move on from such an archaic notion.

Yet if a man came in your house to kill you and pillage all your wealth, surely you would not consider him a good man? A desperate/needy man, he would be, and from your perspective, definitely a bad thing.

Was he as intolerant as you are?

How am I intolerant?

How am I intolerant?

I wouldn't worry about it.

I wish we could move on from such an archaic notion. Why?
Would it make things better?

Why?
Would it make things better?

(:p)

Why?
Would it make things better?

Yes.

Better is a degree of Good, is it not?

(Oh, this is nice, I don't have to do anything.)

Better is a degree of Good, is it not?

I answered from my POV of course.

(Oh, this is nice, I don't have to do anything.)

LOL

I answered from my POV of course.
So you meant that you would like it and did not mean that it would be better for others also? IOW one's point of view can still be an opinion about objective improvements.

I asked 'Would it makes things 'better'? (gooder)
which is not the same thing as asking 'Would you like it more?'

So you meant that you would like it and did not mean that it would be better for others also? IOW one's point of view can still be an opinion about objective improvements.

I asked 'Would it makes things 'better'? (gooder)
which is not the same thing as asking 'Would you like it more?'

In my opinion, it would be better for everyone.

Yet if a man came in your house to kill you and pillage all your wealth, surely you would not consider him a good man? A desperate/needy man, he would be, and from your perspective, definitely a bad thing.

From my perspective, yes. But what about his perspective? What about his starving family's perspective? That is why there is no good or evil...it's all subjective.

Why?
Would it make things better?

Without question. The concept of good and evil are childish, and absolve people of personal responsibility. It also allows leaders to use hyperbole to rally his or her people to an unjust cause.

It's time to grow up. Good and evil are for fairy tales, not for public discourse.

Without question. The concept of good and evil are childish, and absolve people of personal responsibility. It also allows leaders to use hyperbole to rally his or her people to an unjust cause.

It's time to grow up. Good and evil are for fairy tales, not for public discourse.

It sounds like you are arguing that it is 'good' to give up these concepts.

I do get the sense you are critical of Good and Evil as archetypal entities and perhaps pure ones, but still, it seems you have notions of what is good - and implicitly what is bad. Can you distinguish your sense of good from the one you do not like?

In my opinion, it would be better for everyone.

But you do understand that 'better' means 'gooder' or more good? So if you think it would be good for everyone, what are you talking about, and aren't you contradicting yourself?

Good and evil are archaic notions that have no basis in reality.

First, they are subjective, which immediately makes the whole idea moot. It's not truly good or evil unless it's completely objective.

On that point, what is good? Evil? You cannot give me an example of something that is truly one or the other. I could say the attacks on 9/11 were evil; you could say they were the heroic actions of an oppressed people. You could say Mother Theresa was a saint; I could say her actions were of an intolerant, ignorant wench that was only in it for the fame.

I wish we could move on from such an archaic notion.


Would you not agree that some things are evil?, say somebody enjoyed taking little children locking them up for 20 years while beating them, starving them, sexualy abusing them, getting hot metal pokers and proding them, and made there life a living hell until the day they finaly died from the constant abuse and violent struggle they had to endure. You would in turn say "no that is not evil it is just subjective, it is not good or bad because some people may find it entertaining".

This is where society needs the moral and philosophical enlightenment to guide them. Otherwise any evil bastard can get away with anything they want, no matter howmuch torture and harm they inflict upon innocent people. If our society truley did not believe in good and evil these kind of things would be legal because everybody would be so robotic and logical minded that they show no signs of love and compassion. When talking about it in cold hard scientific logic your fine saying there is no good or bad, or love and evil. But if it came to your own daughter being raped and tortured for years on end maybe you would change your attitude and see those sick evil bastards for the deamons they are.


Without good and evil to set standards by our society will plunge into complete lawlessness and decay, there would be no science to study, no philosophy to ponder, no cities to improve, no goals to achieve as a working society and community. We would all be doing terrible things to innocent people. I would never see things the way you do I will stand up for what is good and just, I have not lost my integrity or honour and I never will.


peace.

But you do understand that 'better' means 'gooder' or more good? So if you think it would be good for everyone, what are you talking about, and aren't you contradicting yourself?

I hate when words have 2 meanings. In good & evil, we're discussing morals, motivations, what causes people to do the things they do.
It'd be better for everyone is meant like it's better for people to have food than not.

How about I blow all your nutsacks off with a 38 special for no apparent reason and call it subjective.


peace.

The devil made you do that.

BTW, what's so special about it???

The devil made you do that.

BTW, what's so special about it???

It's lightweight, practical, easy to maintain, never jams, and blows the nutsacks right off infidels in the name of subjective killing spee's.

I shot the devil right in his third horn for being too left wing, he claimed he did things because he enjoyed evil deeds. I told him he was more of a pussy than god is, if he was truley evil he would be such a badass that he was beyond moral evilness, I do things for cold hard logical gains, which is way more evil than evil is.


peace.

I do things for cold hard logical gains

But what do you really gain when your life is at its end?:shrug:

I hate when words have 2 meanings. In good & evil, we're discussing morals, motivations, what causes people to do the things they do.
It'd be better for everyone is meant like it's better for people to have food than not. I think it is very hard to separate the two meanings out, if there really are two meanings. I sympathize with your point, but 'good' for whom?

You could say something like
'Humans in general would feel less stress.'

IOW try to put it in terms that are not value laden. Then you can say that you, personally, would like a world where people feel less stress. That avoids it, I think.

But once you start saying the it would be better in general (ie. for everyone or most people) if the concepts of good and evil are gone I think there almost has to be a contradiction there. People like these beliefs and would not agree with you. Are you sure you know what is really good for them - and damn, there is that word.

If you translate that word into something more measurable, it is a different story.

But the truth is, I think, that most people who think Good and Evil should be gone think the ideas are bad. And this is a contradiction.

But what do you really gain when your life is at its end?:shrug:

I was role playing from a logical subjective persons opinion, I believe in good and evil. I didn't used to though, I used to hold the "everything is subjective apart from reality" point of view but that has changed now.

Im not sure what we gain when life is at it's end, but im staring to believe life is only the starting point. Maybe we gain nothing when all is lost, maybe we gain everything when we lose it all.

I cannot see all ends, I do not know much, because I am wise.


peace.

From my perspective, yes. But what about his perspective? What about his starving family's perspective? That is why there is no good or evil...it's all subjective.

That man should consult men of greater income for gifts, if they don't wish to help him get a job, and/or teach him better attitude or education, and/or obtain food for his family or refer him to some one else who he knows would help, then they are working negatively....

Surely you cannot say that greed and gluttony benefit the starving?

It sounds like you are arguing that it is 'good' to give up these concepts.

I do get the sense you are critical of Good and Evil as archetypal entities and perhaps pure ones, but still, it seems you have notions of what is good - and implicitly what is bad. Can you distinguish your sense of good from the one you do not like?

Nice try, but I'm not saying it's "good" to give these things up in the good/evil sense. I'm saying that it would benefit us to give them up. Your notion of Good vs Evil isn't Beneficial vs. Non-beneficial, it is an archaic notion of right and wrong.

Would you not agree that some things are evil?, say somebody enjoyed taking little children locking them up for 20 years while beating them, starving them, sexualy abusing them, getting hot metal pokers and proding them, and made there life a living hell until the day they finaly died from the constant abuse and violent struggle they had to endure. You would in turn say "no that is not evil it is just subjective, it is not good or bad because some people may find it entertaining".

Who says it isn't good? You?

It is absolutely subjective, Chi. As much as it pains you, it's the truth.

That man should consult men of greater income for gifts, if they don't wish to help him get a job, and/or teach him better attitude or education, and/or obtain food for his family or refer him to some one else who he knows would help, then they are working negatively....

Surely you cannot say that greed and gluttony benefit the starving?

Sounds easy, at least until it's you starving in the street. And no, I'm not saying that greed and gluttony benefit the starving...where did you get that from? All I'm saying is that your simple notions of good vs evil are completely subjective, which makes them completely imaginary in the objective sense.

Could it be deemed "good" for an old man to have his way with whichever young boy he desires? Yes, it could be, and it has been. Could it be "good" for a person to rape another? Yes, it could be, and it has been. Now, today's Western societies don't see it that way, but that's just us, that's not everyone.

When regarding morality as subjective, what basis does one have for decrying (I'm not sure what the right word is here) someone's behaviour?

Nice try, but I'm not saying it's "good" to give these things up in the good/evil sense. I'm saying that it would benefit us to give them up. Your notion of Good vs Evil isn't Beneficial vs. Non-beneficial, it is an archaic notion of right and wrong.

In what way is "Beneficial" different from "Good"?

In what way is "Beneficial" different from "Good"?

In every way. As long as we're talking about good as it relates to evil. Explain this...how is it beneficial to you to not run inside someone else's house and take their money and jewels and clothes? How does it benefit you to not kill someone? Laws aside, because that's not what we're talking about here, how is it beneficial that you cannot kill a man for looking at you funny, or sleeping with your daughter, or talking to your wife?

Of course, it would be beneficial to you to do all of those things. But they wouldn't be "good" in today's view.

JDawg, it seems like your "Beneficial" is just "good" with a different value system, where personal satisfaction is deemed "good".

I don't think doing those things would be beneficial, for I would be wracked with guilt over doing such terrible things. Of course, that "terrible" is just in my head, just as the pleasure is in the head of the guiltless murderer/thief when he enjoys his feeling of dominance and his new possession of jewels and cash.

Better is a degree of Good, is it not?

The meaning does vary depending on what you mean by "good." There are distinctions that can be made between good, in the sense of "good versus evil," and good in the sense of "good versus bad."

If I see a show on Broadway and decide that it is terribly written, I might think the play was "bad" but i would never think that it was as a result "evil" (save in jest). In that sense, "bad" is a different quality than evil (though in some cases things can be both "bad" an "evil" and the two terms can be used as near synonyms, in other contexts there is a distinction between them.

Good in the good/evil sense (GE), and good in the good/bad sense (GB) seems to have the same semantic distinction. Something or some event that is conducive to the functioning of my preferred lifestyle can be described as "good" in the GB sense without in any way invoking the notion that a contrary circumstance might be "evil." In the same way I can imagine things that are GE "good", but that are so contrary to what pleases me that, despite the morality associated with them, I receive as "bad" news. Suppose, for example, the governor decides to spare a murderer from the death penalty on moral grounds. The mixed feeling I may have over such an event would be because of the conflict between the GE act of mercy as compared against the practical "bad" of not giving the killer the punishment I may feel he deserved. In any event, while I could describe the pardon as "bad", even if the killer later escaped and murdered many more people I still could not think the pardon was "evil," even though my belief in its being "bad" might be greatly magnified.

The distinction I see in ancient Greek and Roman thought, I believe, turns on this distinction. I believe their philosophies were based more often on the dichotomy of good versus bad more than good versus evil. Even where "evil" is used, I think it's somewhat of a mistranslation. Our notion of evil descends from the Judeo-Christian notion, and a thing can be evil even when done to an enemy. The Greeks and Romans had strange views under that paradigm, as (for example) the Romans seemed to think very little about the "morality" of killing non-Romans. Their laws gave the head of the household the right to kill or sell into slavery anyone living under his direction, especially one's wife, children and slaves, and no time was spent fretting over the "evil" of murder in those cases. In other cases, though the Romans were clear that murders were to be condemned. It would be a very fluid system of "evil" if certain killings did not trigger it, but it's easy to justify if the salient principal of that the "bad" ones are the condemned ones. In particular, killings that undermined the public order, those were the "bad" ones, whereas killings that shored up the social order as they saw it, with Romans on top and Roman men atop the women and children, those were not "bad."

To me "better" tends to suggest GB, more so than GE. It can be used in connection with either concept, but it is more often associated with the former.

There is nothing good or bad but that thinking makes it so.

Something or some event that is conducive to the functioning of my preferred lifestyle can be described as "good" in the GB sense without in any way invoking the notion that a contrary circumstance might be "evil." I think the boundary is much fuzzier, actually. But the problem with the positions I was reacting to is that they are arguing that Good and Evil are subjective. Something that is implicit in both senses of 'good'. Implicit, it seemed to me, in their opinions, was the idea that objectively it is better - and to me it does not matter which 'good' is tucked into that 'better' - if we move past notions of Good and Evil, because these latter are hallucinated, subjective notions projected into objective entities.

This happens also with either form of 'better.'

If they had said

I would like it better - or would be more happy - if Good and Evil were no longer considered real

I would have had no real problem with what they are saying.

But once you use constructions such as

It would be better

you are projecting subjectivity onto objectivity. Which is fine, unless you are making a case against it.

Even more important however is that in my experience every single person who believes this are better if we do this or that, will, when cornered, considered other evil if they resist these changes or continue to refuse to change.

IOW some people have this idea that they do not believe in good and evil and are mere utilitarians, but in my experience this always breaks down under pressure.

There is nothing good or bad but that thinking makes it so.and therefore thinking it is good or bad cannot be seen as bad or good from this position.

Gurgling, where the hell do you get "personal satisfaction" out of what I wrote (I mean, aside from the sparkling prose)?

Also, did you ever consider that you might be wracked with guilt simply because you have been taught that stealing is bad?

The devil made you do that.

BTW, what's so special about it???

lol its normaly the other way round 'god made them do it'

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/a_monmouth_county_jury_has.html
http://trailerpark.blog.ca/2008/01/22/donnelly_god_told_me_to_kill~3613340
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4625603/

The association between sacrifice and worship is perhaps something that will always be around in whatever form...killing in the name of good Inca,Roman,Christian,Nazi,Suicide bomber,Biblical morality to court room tragedy....lol the double whammies of the witch hunts 'if you drown then we are really sorry and all will be forgiven in the next life,but if you live we gonna have to burn ya'.

Good..just an excuse to do evil things