Old Project Avalon Forum (ARCHIVE) - View Single Post

MacGyverCanada · 11-04-2008, 04:16 PM

I'm going with my buddy Nietzche on this one... 'good' and 'evil' aren't anything but concepts in the human mind. There are many opinions on what it means to be 'good' or 'evil', with variations based mostly on culture. Because of this, I don't believe that there is a purely evil figure (anti-Christ) that will descend upon the world. There will almost certainly be a figure(s) who we would describe as being evil who will stir up some nastiness in the future sometime, but I don't believe that there will be any religious significance.

Take this as an example: Lets say that there are two tribal villages of 100 people, and each has a chief. Over several years, drought ruins the food crops. Suddenly, each village is faced with a monumentous problem: It will be three months before the first harvest of the year, and there is only enough food left for 20 people. One village chief (A) gathers 19 other strong and intelligent villagers, and proceeds to slay all others. He and the small group with him survive the drought and are eventually able to rebuild the village. in the other village (B), the chief decides to try and spread out the food resources to everyone. After two months, everyone has died.

Which chief would you consider to be 'good'? You could argue that (A) is an evil man, who killed his neighbours in order to save himself, and the good man is the compassionate chief of (B). Likewise, you can argue that (A) is the good one because he ultimately saved his village and some of its people, and that (B) is the evil one because he was unwilling to make the necessary emotional and physical sacrifices needed to save his own village.

Does willingness to sacrifice create goodness, or is that a sign of cowardice in the face of challenge?

Is goodness defined by giving to others? By giving up his share of food and thus perishing, would the village doctor be contributing to or taking from the 'greater good'? What IS the 'greater good'?

In my personal belief system, the 'greater good' is that which benefits Humanity. As I consider it, humanity should be regarded as a single unit. I'm not too worried about the Earth to be honest, except in terms of Humanity. If the planet gets messed up by whatever means, Humanity, as well as most other life, may certainly perish. But life is extremely robust, and something will certainly survive. It might mean evolution would have to start from scratch, but it would return.

For now, I believe that we have to figure out how to get Humanity to think as one unit, so we can function as one organism. If Humans work as a single unit in terms of self-preservation and self-betterment, then we will acheive so much more than we ever have before. There is a long way to go without some radical changes in thought. The loss of the individual is a possibility... as is a socity which could be Brave New World'esque.

I'm ranting like a drunken NeoCon... any thoughts on all of this?

11-04-2008, 04:16 PM	#1
MacGyverCanada Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: NS, Canada Posts: 39	Defining GOOD and EVIL I'm going with my buddy Nietzche on this one... 'good' and 'evil' aren't anything but concepts in the human mind. There are many opinions on what it means to be 'good' or 'evil', with variations based mostly on culture. Because of this, I don't believe that there is a purely evil figure (anti-Christ) that will descend upon the world. There will almost certainly be a figure(s) who we would describe as being evil who will stir up some nastiness in the future sometime, but I don't believe that there will be any religious significance. Take this as an example: Lets say that there are two tribal villages of 100 people, and each has a chief. Over several years, drought ruins the food crops. Suddenly, each village is faced with a monumentous problem: It will be three months before the first harvest of the year, and there is only enough food left for 20 people. One village chief (A) gathers 19 other strong and intelligent villagers, and proceeds to slay all others. He and the small group with him survive the drought and are eventually able to rebuild the village. in the other village (B), the chief decides to try and spread out the food resources to everyone. After two months, everyone has died. Which chief would you consider to be 'good'? You could argue that (A) is an evil man, who killed his neighbours in order to save himself, and the good man is the compassionate chief of (B). Likewise, you can argue that (A) is the good one because he ultimately saved his village and some of its people, and that (B) is the evil one because he was unwilling to make the necessary emotional and physical sacrifices needed to save his own village. Does willingness to sacrifice create goodness, or is that a sign of cowardice in the face of challenge? Is goodness defined by giving to others? By giving up his share of food and thus perishing, would the village doctor be contributing to or taking from the 'greater good'? What IS the 'greater good'? In my personal belief system, the 'greater good' is that which benefits Humanity. As I consider it, humanity should be regarded as a single unit. I'm not too worried about the Earth to be honest, except in terms of Humanity. If the planet gets messed up by whatever means, Humanity, as well as most other life, may certainly perish. But life is extremely robust, and something will certainly survive. It might mean evolution would have to start from scratch, but it would return. For now, I believe that we have to figure out how to get Humanity to think as one unit, so we can function as one organism. If Humans work as a single unit in terms of self-preservation and self-betterment, then we will acheive so much more than we ever have before. There is a long way to go without some radical changes in thought. The loss of the individual is a possibility... as is a socity which could be Brave New World'esque. I'm ranting like a drunken NeoCon... any thoughts on all of this?