flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > The GOOD and the EVIL


Pick one of only 2 options:
GOOD
57%
 57%  [ 4 ]
EVIL
42%
 42%  [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 7

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
DOS386



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1901
DOS386
.
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/15/george-bush-final-speech
.
.
Mr. Bush said:

Quote:
But good and evil are present in this world, and between the two there can be no compromise


So if only those 2 options exist, we must stick to the EVIL, right ?
Post 16 Jan 2009, 14:58
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2897
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
Can we move beyond the dualism already!? When a choice must be made then we take action as best we know how. Even the "evil" ones are making decisions in the same manner - however difficult that may be for some to believe.

To force the discussion into good verses evil is a ploy used by the evil.
Post 16 Jan 2009, 16:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8867
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
a perfect circle, if view from slightly differerent angle, wouldn't be perfect anymore.

they are like the yin yang, co-exists.
some evil might resulted good, and some good might resulted evil. they are just cycle imo.
Post 16 Jan 2009, 18:09
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
neville



Joined: 13 Jul 2008
Posts: 507
Location: New Zealand
neville
One man's good is another man's evil

_________________
FAMOS - the first memory operating system
Post 16 Jan 2009, 18:44
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
asmcoder



Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 784
asmcoder
[content deleted]


Last edited by asmcoder on 14 Aug 2009, 14:53; edited 1 time in total
Post 16 Jan 2009, 21:05
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
I think there is. Simplest example would be (though by NO MEANS elaborate): bite the hand off the guy who would offer it to you, had the situation been reversed Wink

I think that's pretty obvious, where teh evils and teh goods are Laughing

Very simplistic definition:

Good --> altruistic, tries to think about others and realize what they need, not just him (good can fight as well, in 'defense' of others!)
Neutral --> ignorant, but tolerant. Doesn't care about others, but doesn't want them suffer either (avoids situations in which he makes others suffer by collateral damage, so to speak) --> i.e leave me alone, I'll leave you alone.
Evil --> the one who is teh manipulator and wants to control or make others suffer for his own goals or pleasures, and not in 'defense' Evil or Very Mad

Razz

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 16 Jan 2009, 23:41
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17248
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Good is not absolute. Evil is not absolute. What is good for you may be evil for me. What is good for me may be evil for you.

And what about the saying "It is cruel to be kind"?
Post 19 Jan 2009, 10:44
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
What is especially interesting for me is that recently even many christians (and religious people in general) take this position that there is no absolute measure for "good" and "bad", even though that renders actions of their god (described in their scriptures) unjust.

PS: I think that you have too few options there. I expect: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, chaotic evil. That is much more convenient separation based on viewpoint.
Post 19 Jan 2009, 11:08
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
discussing the quantity of options available for the poll, vid wrote:

I think that you have too few options there.
While I concur with your statement, I wonder about your alternative: 9 choices: appending "lawful", "chaotic", and "neutral" to good, neutral, and evil. What about doubling that, by appending "just" and "unjust" before each of your nine categories? Then, someone else could come along, and double that new group of eighteen, by inserting some other qualifier,.... eventually reaching a maximum corresponding to the current world population....

The (continuing, ?perpetual?) conflict in Gaza highlights this dilemma. Let us invite into the discussion a neutral observer from the Korean peninsula, of Buddhist persuasion, and another from the Kalahari Desert, of animist philosophical/religious belief. Neither of them is, or has been, influenced by the Abrahamic philosophies which have led to the several thousand year internecine struggle between various groups of semitic peoples in Palestine.

From their own perspective, these two neutral observers recount history, especially archaeology, demonstrating horrific conflicts in the area for several millenia. Will these two observers be satisfied with vid's nine groups of choices, or will they prefer more, or fewer alternatives? In other words, does not the method of describing moral choices available to us, influence our thinking about the moral choices themselves? Are there n quantity of categories, among which one can invariably classify all human moral choice?
Imagine a new weapon, which would instantaneously destroy ALL human life in Palestine, without contaminating the environment. Further, imagine that now these two observers, with their families, and their clans, were invited to repopulate the area. How long would it take, before conflict arose, over water for irrigation, fertile soil to plant, roads to construct, and so on....? How much time would elapse before linguistic confusion led to disharmony, and ultimately, warfare between the two groups of immigrants?

Imagine, in the alternative, that some horrific disease process destroyed 95% of the population of Palestine. With only a few survivors among the Jews and Muslims, how long would it take before warfare broke out among the surviving 5%?

Words like "lawful" are misleading, because they refer to human sociological processes, not laws of science.
Wikipedia's article on Thomas Hobbes' 1651 publication, Leviathan, wrote:
the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short
Post 19 Jan 2009, 13:24
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
tom: you apparently didn't play enough AD&D Razz
Post 19 Jan 2009, 14:24
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
revolution wrote:
And what about the saying "It is cruel to be kind"?
You can consider it cruel and thus not allow others to be kind to you (and usually if you are consenting, the "good" ones won't bother you, as long as you don't bother anyone/anything, see below) -- I mean, good can usually be done both ways. Good can also "attack" if it does so in defense (see below).

The thing here is that this "subconsciously" solves the greed problem as well. Since influence usually determines this. Why is evil "evil"? Well for one, you usually take away someone's freedom with such acts (for example, killing), without him taking anyone's freedom (or anything's freedom, depending how extreme you are Wink). And it cannot happen both ways. That is, you take something from someone, and if you did that something to yourself, you wouldn't be able to do as well as before (compare this to altruism --> if a person helps another one, that other person has actually better capabilities of helping it in return -- although that is NOT REQUIRED, at least it shows why it is good; i.e it is the CAPABILITY that is important, not the ACTUAL action).

Usually even "defense" does not make you good, but merely neutral (if you do so without being evil, see above). If you are good before, and you kill for defense (let's say you kill Hitler), then you will remain good.

Of course, this is simplistic, there are specific situations where, for example, collateral damage is unavoidable etc...

also the beauty of this system is that it doesn't use the term "human"anywhere -- it works for ANY race, ANY species and could work for even objects (but better would be to use 'environmental balance' -- small things are insignificant, but large ones (e.g completely modifying the Earth or polluting it) could be considered 'aggressive' or 'evil', depending on the scale). (since it's not black & white)

It is not a concrete system. Like any absolute system, we don't know 100% of it and we will never but at least what we know is that it can exist (if we are willing to acknowledge and ANALYZE a situation from a NEUTRAL point of view, not biased), and get like 80% of it.

vid wrote:
PS: I think that you have too few options there. I expect: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, chaotic evil. That is much more convenient separation based on viewpoint.
Yes well I only put a one dimensional line of Good--Neutral--Evil, not the other social alignment (Lawful--Neutral--Chaotic). You can have more complex alignment systems if you want but still Good/Evil scale would be similar.


tom tobias wrote:
Imagine, in the alternative, that some horrific disease process destroyed 95% of the population of Palestine. With only a few survivors among the Jews and Muslims, how long would it take before warfare broke out among the surviving 5%?
What is this about? I mean, who cares if those people will act a certain way, alignments are not mostly about prediction unless you know everyone's intents to every bit of detail.

They are about classification.

For example, you can call a fat person "fat". It's classification. It doesn't mean he will necessarily eat a lot in the following days to remain fat, though it makes it more likely. Just classification Razz

tom tobias wrote:
Words like "lawful" are misleading, because they refer to human sociological processes, not laws of science.
"Laws" of science is actually misleading. There is no such thing as "law" in science. Because electrons don't obey OUR laws, we DESCRIBE their behavior with models. So it would more correctly be called "our models of science".

If those were absolute laws of the Universe, it would make them irrefutable, and holding absolute truth (for a certain thing) correct? Science cannot be irrefutable, it's the thing that makes it different than religion.

Therefore, either "law" is an incorrect term to use, or you are transforming science into a religion.

As Planck said:
Max Planck wrote:
We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 19 Jan 2009, 15:26
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.