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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6688553" data-attributes="member: 4937">I think that selfishness fits well under the definition I've provided above, but it would require a bit of twisting to get selfishness to fit what I see as the totality of evil.  For example, the above definition includes a lot of examples of the destruction of self-worth, and casual disregard for the health and well-being of the self.  It does not claim that gluttony is merely bad because in wasting goods it deprives others of their use.  It would claim that even in abundance gluttony would remain evil because of the destruction of self.  So it's not actually the selfishness, or at least not only the selfishness, that would be seen as evil.  Likewise, the above definition condemns a suicide bomber, not because of the suicide bombers selfishness alone or the suicide bombers destruction of others alone, but also as much for the act of self-destruction.In other words, while it agrees that selfishness is evil, it believes it is evil because it is destructive.  If ever selfishness could not be destructive, it wouldn't be evil.   In that sense, it also does not occur to me to limit evil to one aspect or behavior, such as selfishness.But as far as the value of the self goes, I think the issue is more complicated.  I see CG as individual centered, self actualizing, intrapersonal goodness that is fundamentally rooted in the self as the source of goodness.   Consider for example the statement, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."   That statement is meaningless without self-worth and introspection, and it makes as a standard each individual's judgment (and is consequently criticized by some from what we may call the 'lawful' perspective as a very flawed rule).  I'd rather not consider real world examples too deeply, least of all Nazi's, but as a point of fact this isn't true.  However, what is true about the chaos surrounding the death of Hitler, is that it is deep evidence that whatever the overall stated purpose and organization of the Third Reich as whole, they way Hitler ran the inner circle was actually deeply Chaotic and suggests that the whole project was to a great extent a front for Hitler's personal ego and ambition.   However, again, I'd rather we invent examples as much as possible or speak theoretically.  Too much history or religion here will eventually bring strife. Again, I would suggest that as a whole, the dominate alignment of National Socialism was lawful evil.  As someone has already noted, they had an ethos.  The description I gave is very specific to Neutral Evil, and the particular spin given by LE and CE is only briefly and indirectly touched on.   However, I will say again, that if you look at the inner circle, you'll find examples of individuals that appear to be nihilistic and fit the above description rather nicely, and you'll find that each of the inner leaders was taking his own section of the movement in different directions with different spins on them.But I don't think there is a lot of profit in trying to classify at a distance real world movements and groups, particularly not at least until the definition is understood and accepted.  If you go about classifying groups using a different set of facts and particularly a slightly different version of the definition, then we'll just end up passionately truly arguing pointless things.</blockquote>

Verification