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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9533571" data-attributes="member: 42856">Because there is no guarantee that Good (as defined) winning is a good (=desireable) outcome. What is a victory of Good? It would mean that Evil is removed. An absolute Good victory would mean that there is no more Evil (ie, people no longer have the choice to be Evil) or that Evil is extremely controled (police force everywhere so if you attempt an evil act, you're removed, obviously not by lethal force because it would contradict the definition of Good, but through coercion that would be dire enough so nobody attempts Evil). A Muscular Neutral group who isn't necessarily an Evil jerk could fight against Good because they either support free will as a moral principle and don't want a state that would brainwash them, even if it's to do things they don't object, because who knows what would happen if the intent of the brainwashing system owner change in the future, or object a police state where, while evil can be rooted out, individual liberties are at risk. They can't envision "Good winning" without one of these bad outcome being enacted, and oppose this, even knowing that the proponent of a Good victory are really wishing well.To have a victory over Evil, a Good society would ban alcohol and drugs because they know that drunk and drugged people sometimes can kill people, even without meaning it, by driving under influence for example, and see that teens drinking lead to unwanted pregnancy, and so on, so they determine that access to substances is something they want to prevent in order for removing the possibility of violations of their core tenets (altruism, respect for life and dignity) happening. They'd be Good, following the intent given you the OP's definition, and would need this prohibition since they must be in the position of removing Evil for MN to intervene. MN could oppose that on the basis that it's everyone personal responsability to know when to stop drinking and not driving, and they wouldn't be evil jerks for opposing a Prohibition state, despite the inevitable murders that would arise by allowing alcohol.You can do the same reasoning with access to weapons. Is it being an evil jerk to fight a good government that would prevent access to wands of fireballs? Or swords? On the basis that widespread availability of these tools increase killings a lot, so they are absolutely enforcing the Good mandate while doing this?A Good society would enforce altruism, and could do so by creative a massive wealth redistribution system, where inequalities in income and wealth are eliminated or greatly reduced. You can theorically oppose this, like a MN group would, without being an evil jerk, if you value private property more than you value the removing of inequalities. Maybe on a good intentionned basis, like the possibility of getting richer than your neighbour being a necessary drive to actually produce wealth.A total victory of Good could be a society where there is massive supervision, video everywhere, so an Evil act can immediately be identified and dealt with. MN coud oppose this, and people who oppose drones with camera everywhere or the government reading every mail wouldn't necessarily be "evil jerks".We don't need gods for a scenario where MN oppose Good to emerge.Basically MN would oppose Good from winning totally because they can't envision a scenario where killing, inequalities and disrespect for each other would be absolute while maintaining individual freedom and free will. In a setting with magic, there is nothing preventing a Good group to try to cast a spell that woud worldwidely prevent killing (by temporarily paralysing the person trying to remove life). I can see a group of MN opposing this.</blockquote>

Verification