Is fighting evil necessary and/or sufficient for being good.

[Sejs]

Voted 'sufficient but not necessary', before reading the definitions in the first post. Had I paid more attention I'd have voted neither.


You can be good without fighting evil; you be good by doing good. Very easy to do. You can also be good by virtue of fighting evil, however it's not a binary situation - evil can also fight evil, and neutral can fight evil.

You be good by being good.

But fighting is in itself a neutral action. It's all about why you fight that matters how it affects you.

 

[Meloncov]

I voted required but not sufficient, but I was assuming an abstract and broad definition of evil. For example, I would consider feeding the poor fighting fighting evil, even though it includes no smashing in the heads of evil people.

 

[jgbrowning]

I don't think fighting evil is necessary to be good, but I think fighting evil is one way to be good. I'd prefer someone who both does good things as well as fights evil to the person who only does one of the two.

joe b.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Crap, my radio button-fu failed me. I voted for the third option, but wanted the fourth option.

 

[Rothe]

Based on “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” I'd have to vote that it is at least necessary.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Based on “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” I'd have to vote that it is at least necessary.

Precisely unless you act to stop evil you abet evil and may not truly be good (though you are neutral rather than evil if you don't actively assist evil).

Sufficiency is much, much trickier.

 

[jeffh]

I voted required but not sufficient, but I was assuming an abstract and broad definition of evil. For example, I would consider feeding the poor fighting fighting evil, even though it includes no smashing in the heads of evil people.

Ooh, good point. Hunger is an evil in the sense that, for example, people who discuss the Problem of Evil have in mind, but it is not D&D-Evil (indeed, it doesn't even make sense to ask whether it's D&D-Evil, much less to give the question any particular answer).

Which sense of "Evil" do we mean? I voted neither necessary nor sufficient assuming D&D-Evil, with much the same reasoning as Korgoth. But if we mean evil in the broader sense, then I might have to change that to necessary, but not sufficient.

Either way, fighting evil is positively relevant to being good, in a probabilistic sense. If all I know about Frank is that he's slain nearly a score of demons, I would assign an above-average probability to Frank's being D&D-Good. But if I later find out that Frank is an ice devil who is very active in the Blood Wars, I would of course revise that estimate.

 

[haakon1]

Pacifists can be good.

Pacifists can fight evil.

You don't have to be violent to fight. MLK and Gandhi were pacifists without being pansies.

Pacifism doesn't equal inaction.

Fight the power can mean vote and stay in school, not necessarily burn baby burn.

 

[haakon1]

Based on “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” I'd have to vote that it is at least necessary.

Nod. I voted necessary but not sufficient, with the same thought in mind.

I'm not sure if the no religion rule applies to the discussion of what is Good, but anyhow, too takes on the need to fight evil:
- In Catholicism, there are sins of omission. Good isn't just avoiding sin -- a good person has to act to stop a murderer or whatever.

- In Islam, jihad, in the sense of struggle against evil, is one of the obligations of good Muslims. We all know how extremists interpret that nowadays, but the more broad interpretation is apparently that good means struggling against the evil tendencies within us, struggling to make society nicer, etc.

So I'd say "fighting" evil in the broadest sense -- not shirking from opposing it, even at the risk of your own hide -- is necessary to good.

Even the nun or the happy villagers must have been faced with the choice of opposing evil or tolerating it at some point, like when the big mean villager was bullying someone. I'm not willing to stipulate to the theoretical idea of someone who never saw anything bad happen, ever, in answering this question. That's unimaginable, I think.

 

[Nifft]

Fight the power can mean vote and stay in school, not necessarily burn Hollywood burn.

I smell a riot coming on.
First they're guilty, now they're gone.

- - -

Neither necessary nor sufficient.
But frequently correlated.

Cheers, -- N