Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Galethorn" data-source="post: 1658291" data-attributes="member: 7888">Then there isn't a [Good] solution. Period. Sacrificing the few for the many is most definately not an evil act, but it's definately not something that a good person wants to do.Here's another way of looking at morality, without the motives having any bearing on it...(Harm being physical, mental, emotional, monetary, social, moral, and so on, including any kind of inflictable malaise)If it causes a net gain in harm, then it's 'evil'.If it results in a net loss in harm, then it's 'good'.If the resulting harm is equal to what you started with (an eye for an eye, as an example), it's neutral.Now, here's the part that makes it interesting...Harming an innocent is evil.Harming a non-innocent is evil, but not as much as harming an innocent.Doing uneccesary harm, even to prevent greater harm is evil.Preventing harm to others is good.Preventing harm to youself if neutral.If you add all of those bits together, you can 'quantify' evil to a certain extent, but obviously there's the problem of measuring harm.Which is more harmful? Loosing a finger, or $50, or a family member, or your sanity?But, it works for my example (sort of).Killing 10 innocents: EvilPreventing the deaths of 10,000 (many of whom are non-innocents): GoodSo, you could say it produces a net loss in harm, but it still requires you to do evil, hence my saying that it's a neutral act.</blockquote>