Evil is cool

[fuzzlewump]

No, I think Celebrim and I were originally discussing emotions. Hate. Pride. Anger.

Alright, but I was quoting someone else who was discussing thoughts vs. actions.

Lumping feeling emotions with deciding to take actions as morally equivalent just because they are both in your head is not valid.

I don't see what moral equivalency has to do with anything. Feeling very strong hatred could indeed be as evil as deciding to take an evil action. But I never said they were. I said intention to kill is probably more evil than desire to kill.

So is there a morally significant line between feeling anger at your neighbor and murdering him with a power drill? Or is it just a matter of degree, a minor evil compared to a bigger evil?

A matter of degree.

 

[catsclaw227]

I don't see what moral equivalency has to do with anything. Feeling very strong hatred could indeed be as evil as deciding to take an evil action. But I never said they were. I said intention to kill is probably more evil than desire to kill.

So is there a morally significant line between feeling anger at your neighbor and murdering him with a power drill? Or is it just a matter of degree, a minor evil compared to a bigger evil?

A matter of degree.

See, this is where I disagree. I believe there is a morally significant line between feeling anger and murdering him with a power drill. All humans get angry at another human at some point, sometimes more than once per day. There has got to be more than a matter of degree between that and murdering every day, otherwise most everyone would be filled with minor evil.

 

[Celebrim]

See, this is where I disagree. I believe there is a morally significant line between feeling anger and murdering him with a power drill.

Even if there is, how does this harm my argument? The fact that some line which has some significance can be drawn between being angry at someone and murdering that someone doesn't make being angry at someone right. At this point, I don't even have to get you to agree as to what that line means.

All humans get angry at another human at some point, sometimes more than once per day.

So? Does the health of human society, the great heritage of human benevolence, and our long peaceable coexistance with one another led you to believe that its utterly impossible that humans would be capable of reutine evil? Is greater depravity so rare that its unimaginable that any lesser depravity is common?

There has got to be more than a matter of degree between that and murdering every day, otherwise most everyone would be filled with minor evil.

Why? What is objectionable about, "everyone would be filled with minor evil"? What about your experience with humanity leads you to think that they aren't prone to evils both minor and great? Are they never petty? Are they never irrational? Are they never cruel? Selfish? Inconsiderate? Self-absorbed? What makes you think this isn't a world where minor evil is a day to day occurance?

 

[Garthanos]

Are they never irrational? Are they never cruel? Selfish? Inconsiderate? Self-absorbed? What makes you think this isn't a world where minor evil is a day to day occurance?

The balance of how much one considers ones self when making decisions is not black and white ... so every decision I make must be tinged by "evil"... feh
make a definition too general it becomes useful only to philosophers and everyone else will abandon the word or use there own more comfortable definitions.

minor evil is perhaps an oxymoron ...
I reserve the term evil and perhaps good as well, for things of greater degree... An act of simple consideration is that an act of overt goodness? or just everyday social acumen or following a tradition which you barely think about, shrug... If I act without thinking I will jump out to save an unknown kid in front of a car (I know this). Is that generations of instinct about preserving the young overcoming the other self preservation instinct. Does it deserve to be called good even?

 

[fuzzlewump]

Normal behavior does not necessarily mean good behavior. Normal really has no bearing on good or evil.

The balance of how much one considers ones self when making decisions is not black and white ... so every decision I make must be tinged by "evil"... feh
make a definition too general it becomes useful only to philosophers and everyone else will abandon the word or use there own more comfortable definitions.

Yeah, pretty much. I can see how anyone would be uncomfortable admitting their own evils. I imagine myself as being neutral, really. I'm in college right now because I want money and a job, for myself, which could certainly be an evil motivation (greed.) But I chose the field versus others because I believe it can help others. Just an example.

Is that generations of instinct about preserving the young overcoming the other self preservation instinct. Does it deserve to be called good even?

Interesting. Intentions and motivations aren't the only thing at play here, though. From my point of view, intentions, motivations and outcomes all matter in ethics. If you wanted to save the kid, but didn't make it in time, it's still a good act even though you didn't really do anything. If you didn't want to save the kid, or wanted to for self-absorbed reasons "this will really impress my date!" and then you save the kid, the act is still good.

To answer more directly, whether or not something is an instinct doesn't have much of a bearing on whether it is a good or evil act. A good instinct is good and an evil instinct is evil.

I guess it reminds me of a paper back in high school, where we had to take a side on whether participating in charity with self-absorbed intentions was a good thing or not. Obviously, not everyone agrees, but this is a case where the outcome outweighs the motivation. It puts people in a damned if you do damned if you don't situation, where it's wrong not be charitable and somehow also wrong to be charitable. So in this case, it's the outcomes that matter.

 

[CelticMutt]

Evil can be cool. If done right. The problem is, most when most people do evil, they try to be an entire team of the Joker, or some 80s cartoon stereotype. IE people who can't play well with others, and do their best to screw each other over.

You wanna do evil right, looks at stuff like Secret Six, Riddick, or Black Lagoon. The Secret Six are all evil (though a few of them try to do good now and then), but they (usually) work well together, they don't dedicate their entire lives to screwing people over, and even the times when they do screw each other over, they eventually reconcile because they realize they work well together, and need each other.

Riddick, well I sorta think he's more chaotic neutral than evil, but he definitely does evil things. But again, he does it intelligently, and doesn't dedicate his life to screwing over people unless they've given him a reason to.

As for Black Lagoon, well frankly Revy is pure out and out chaotic evil, and a sociopathic murderer with a massive bloodlust streak. But except for the couple of times where she let the bloodlust control her instead of the other way around, she always does right by her friends and family, and they know they can trust her with their lives. As long as they don't screw her over of course.

 

[Garthanos]

A good instinct is good and an evil instinct is evil.

See now, asserting a self preservation instinct is "evil" seems a disturbed disconnected ivory tower definition... ever wonder why suicide is considered evil in some prominent religions? It isn't people not wanting to be "uncomfortable" with their own evil ... who reject that definition but people who want there words to have "useful" meanings.

In game terms in 4e they came up with unaligned for a reason and in real life infants acting on pure instinct are defined as innocents... not evil.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

As for Black Lagoon, well frankly Revy is pure out and out chaotic evil, and a sociopathic murderer with a massive bloodlust streak. But except for the couple of times where she let the bloodlust control her instead of the other way around, she always does right by her friends and family, and they know they can trust her with their lives. As long as they don't screw her over of course.

Black Lagoon isn't meant to be a look at morality in a serious light, though. It's what you get when you combine Jon Woo with Tarantino, and add a pinch of Sopranos into the mix.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Who said self-preservation is evil? Self-absorption is not the same thing.

 

[Voadam]

Back to the original topic, I was noting this weekend that the 4e PH lists only 4 good gods but 8 evil ones (although the in depth paragraph length explanations are only found in the DMG) out of the 20 gods of the base pantheon.

Putting the evil gods mainly in the DMG though I think is explicitly given to emphasize the fact that they are generally considered adversaries and patrons to adversaries.