Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Epic Meepo" data-source="post: 9533343" data-attributes="member: 57073">In my proposed thought experiment, the Neutrals aren't maintaining Evil. Some amount of Evil will always exist, without needing anyone to maintain it. And at no point was it proposed that Neutrals go about killing Good people.There's no requirement that Neutrals commit Evil acts. Nor is there any requirement that Neutrals believe they are Good. Neutrals oppose Evil (possibly for selfish reasons) without also seeing the necessity of Good as defined in the OP (they could, for example, beleive a pragmatic society built on enlightened self-interest is more sustainable and beneficial than one that requires universal altruism.)Muscular Neutrals aren't preventing Good from landing the killing blow. Good is and always will be incapable of landing the killing blow, and there's nothing Neutral can do about it. Muscular Neutrals are preventing prideful people with Good intentions from dealing collateral damage.That's not the definition of Neutral that I'm proposing. Neutral isn't trying to prevent Good or Evil from winning. Neutral has come to the realization that it is ontologically impossible for Good or Evil to win, so Neutral acts to prevent either side from causing (intended or unintended) collateral damage to bystanders.Technically, in my thought experiment, Evil can't be destroyed. If I was interpreting you too literally, and you are using "something bad happens if evil is destroyed" as a stand-in for "Good actions can have bad consequences," then I concede my argument. I absolutely agree that Muscular Neutral only works if it's possible for Good actions to have bad consequences.(Just including this last part of your post for completeness. I've already addressed it above. Muscular Neutrals don't have to believe they are Good. They just have to oppose Evil for whatever reason.)I don't believe I'm redefining Good. I'm using the working definitions of Good and Evil provided in the OP. To paraphrase what Good and Evil mean in the proposed thought experiment:Good = altruism and respect for othersEvil = harming and oppressing othersNote that these definitions of Good and Evil don't require Good to be "that which produces the best outcome for everyone." In fact, a Good character (who is genuinely altruistic and respectful of others) can cause Evil outcomes (which result in harm and oppression) without willfully taking any Evil actions. Being 100% Good provides no guarantee that one's actions produce beneficial results.Good characters fight to protect the dignity of all sentient beings. Evil characters fight to harm or oppress anyone who gets in their way. Muscular Neutrals fight to make sure all these non-Neutral parties are going to war wielding Nerf weapons, so bystanders who get caught in the crossfire are merely bonked on the head, instead of being maimed or killed by idealogical warriors.</blockquote>

Verification