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: 9544799" data-attributes="member: 42856">If Evil is defined as "anything that is not good" in a dichotomy, then Neutral would be Evil when they attack Good to prevent the victory of Good over Evil. By definition, for a third side (Neutrals) to exist, it can't be a dichotomy. Good and Evil can be opposite, but this can't exclude a vast amount of Neutrals and maybe even very few actual Good and Evil.The opposite of altruism can also be selfishness, not harming other. Unless you think that just not caring is equal to actively harm other people.Also, even then, the notions don't oppose themselves directly. I can help people and harm people at the same time, that's why I don't see the OP's explanation as an illustration of the opposition. For example, if I institute a rule saying that children must go to school. I am helping them (because they'll be better off in the long run), while harming them by depriving them of their freedom (to choose their education level according to their goal) and the ability to start their life without a load of debt if I choose not to make education free. If you truly believe that giving tickets to people for speeding will save their lives by making them drive safely, you're helping them and at the same time harming them by taking their money by force.I don't think either of these measures would make us Good or Evil.The reverse is also true, if someone uses the tools of Good to promote Evil. For example, a philosopher who would explain that exploitation of the fools is not harm, so there is no reason not to scam people, reasoning that the onus in on them to be intelligent and not fall for it. If the philosopher wouldn't harm, coerce or kill anyone, he would certainly be neither Evil (he doesn't fit the definition) nor Good.The information that Good wouldn't oppress was added in page 3, so someone who didn't read the 40 or so pages and answering the first post wouldn't necessarily know that it was clarified later. It may be the case for the poster to whom you're replying, who goes by the idea that the absolute victory of Good would imply that he loses his ability not to be Good.Part of the clarification was that an absolute victory of Good wouldn't force anything, so there would be noone being forced into anything. Actually, it's even debatable how we would notice an actual absolute victory of Good if everyone can still freely behave evilly as much as they want.</blockquote>

Verification