Good and evil, distilled

OverCoronavirus Pressure

OverCoronavirus Pressure

Mayberry = War Room, WR = OT. Shit.
Banned
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
62,762
Reaction score
25
It's all levels of selfishness.

What we call "good" often refers to altruism: doing things that benefit society or our neighbors.

What we call "evil" refers to selfishness directly, especially if it's "fuck everyone else, I'm'a get mine!" style.

Religious thought don't enter into it.
Good and evil are simply words we use to describe selfish behavior.

Agree, disagree?
 
What is this "self" you speak of, and who's asking anyhow?
 
There's is no selfish without self son, so the question stands.
 
Overpressure said:
It's all levels of selfishness.

What we call "good" often refers to altruism: doing things that benefit society or our neighbors.

What we call "evil" refers to selfishness directly, especially if it's "fuck everyone else, I'm'a get mine!" style.

Religious thought don't enter into it.
Good and evil are simply words we use to describe selfish behavior.

Agree, disagree?
Click to expand...

A little more complex but more or less, Morality is based on an evolutionary survival instinct coupled with our intellect.
 
Proudly evil then.
 
Overpressure said:
It's all levels of selfishness.

What we call "good" often refers to altruism: doing things that benefit society or our neighbors.

What we call "evil" refers to selfishness directly, especially if it's "fuck everyone else, I'm'a get mine!" style.

Religious thought don't enter into it.
Good and evil are simply words we use to describe selfish behavior.

Agree, disagree?
Click to expand...

As Nobel laureate Ronald Coase pointed out, there is no such thing as alturism - rational humans are utility maximizing agents, and will always operate out of self interest (what makes you the happiest).

People find this world view distasteful, but operating out of self interest is not incompatable with what are perceived to be altruistic deeds. A single mother who goes without dinner so that her kids can eat is doing what makes her happiest (seeing her kids eat), the alternative (eating the food herself) would actually result in disutility.

The issue is that people are piss poor at evaluating what is actually good for them, and what will yield the greatest utility (due to imperfect information). A guy who cuts down all the trees in the forrest before anyone else may think he is "getting his", but over time, he would have been better served cooperating with the community to harvest the forest sustainably.

With respect to your question, good and evil are largely fluid and inexact concepts. There are few, if any actions, that result in all affected parties being made "better off" - as such, there will always be winners and losers. Winners will view the actions as good and moral, while losers will view the actions as unjust.
 
Overpressure said:
It's all levels of selfishness.

What we call "good" often refers to altruism: doing things that benefit society or our neighbors.

What we call "evil" refers to selfishness directly, especially if it's "fuck everyone else, I'm'a get mine!" style.

Religious thought don't enter into it.
Good and evil are simply words we use to describe selfish behavior.

Agree, disagree?
Click to expand...

The literature on this subject is overwhelming and probably pretty boring, but something you might like to think on is Kant’s morality of choice; he here said that important is why we make a decision and not its consequences.

I reckon his view on this was as controversial then as it is now, but looking at the same issue through this lens might further your thoughts on it or even validate the ones you currently have.

Good and evil could be argued not to slide on a scale of selfdom but on one of motivation, so it is not evil for Kimbo to have almost killed Dada because his reason why was to feed his six children; almost killing Dada was then good even though selfish.
 
Nah, that seems incomplete. There are plenty of selfish acts that don't bother anyone else, and plenty of evil things that are not really selfish necessarily. For example, many of the most evil people in history did what they did because they thought it was beneficial to humanity, and not only themselves. Victimizing innocent people is evil, drug addiction or laziness are very selfish but not evil.
 
nostradumbass said:
Nah, that seems incomplete. There are plenty of selfish acts that don't bother anyone else,
Click to expand...

Good point. Could it be argued that all selfish acts (e.g., drug addition, laziness) harm at least the agent of the act even if not another? This would complement Overpressure's argument that all selfish acts are inherently evil in that they are away-taking (but here from oneself) rather than giving.

nostradumbass said:
For example, many of the most evil people in history did what they did because they thought it was beneficial to humanity. Victimizing innocent people is evil, drug addiction or laziness are very selfish but not evil.
Click to expand...

But innocence is subjective, no?
 
Valkosen said:
Good point. Could it be argued that all selfish acts (e.g., drug addition, laziness) harm at least the agent of the act even if not another? This would complement Overpressure's argument that all selfish acts are inherently evil in that they are away-taking (but here from oneself) rather than giving.



But innocence is subjective, no?
Click to expand...
That's being a little loosey-goosey with accusations of evil. I wouldn't classify self-destructive as evil either, it's just foolish.

By "innocent", I mean pose no threat to anyone's health or well-being.
 
nostradumbass said:
That's being a little loosey-goosey with accusations of evil. I wouldn't classify self-destructive as evil either, it's just foolish.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but Overpressure has defined for him what good and evil are and per his qualifications for evil, if he accepts the drug-addition argument above, a foolish act that takes away from the self would then be categorically evil. In commonly accepted use of the terms good and evil I agree with you of course, but here am taking a role of devil's advocate.

nostradumbass said:
By "innocent", I mean pose no threat to anyone's health or well-being.
Click to expand...

That's tricky though, mate. Consider a five-year-old girl who cries in her room every night; we will call this girl Ronda. Ronda is of course an innocent child but her crying has caused the woman upstairs to remember her own daughter who died the year prior; we will call this woman Holly. Holly's husband comes home one day and sees his wife sobbing in the bedroom; he learns that Ronda's crying has caused his wife great grief and now both he and Holly want what they consider countermeasure. By most accounts, Ronda is innocent but for Holly, she is a threat to her mental health and well-being.
 
Brampton_Boy said:
As Nobel laureate Ronald Coase pointed out, there is no such thing as alturism - rational humans are utility maximizing agents, and will always operate out of self interest (what makes you the happiest).

People find this world view distasteful, but operating out of self interest is not incompatable with what are perceived to be altruistic deeds. A single mother who goes without dinner so that her kids can eat is doing what makes her happiest (seeing her kids eat), the alternative (eating the food herself) would actually result in disutility.
Click to expand...


So all is evil and evil is good.

Thanks.
 
Ain't nothing evil about selfishness.

erLX2DQ.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,254,446
Messages
56,647,389
Members
175,332
Latest member
inox40000

Share this page

Back
Top