Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Epic Meepo" data-source="post: 9533952" data-attributes="member: 57073">To recap, my current understaning of the thought experiment is this:Premise 1: Evil is harming, killing, or oppressing others.Premise 2: Good is selflessly helping others.Premise 3: It's possible for Good to win with no harmful consequences.Premise 4: If Good wins, Evil acts are prohibited, but everyone is otherwise free to pursue their personal goals in a manner of their own choosing.Question: What reasonable motivation would Neutral have to prevent Good from winning?Premise 4 essentially means a win for Good has no negative impact on Neutral. (Being non-Evil, Neutrals would have no interest in perpetrating Evil acts.) So we’re essentially being asked, “If a win for Good has no negative impact on Neutral, why would Neutral oppose total victory for Good?”I suppose Neutral might oppose Good if Neutral wants Evil to destroy itself, or if Neutral wants to be the one to land the killing blow. If there’s some benefit to one of those circumstances, Neutral would need to prevent Good from defeating Evil in order to let some other faction land the killing blow.</blockquote>