Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 1275179" data-attributes="member: 3146">Actually, all other errors in your post aside, that is not exactly what I did.I advanced several arguments. Some were consequentialist arguments (that good consequences can make deeds good and bad consequences can make them bad). That argument went like this: Killing all evil people would do more harm to society than it would provide in benefits. That's not a reductio ad absurdum. It's straightforward application of the idea behind "the greatest good for the greatest number." (And couched in generic terms so as not to depend upon any particular formulation of utilitarianism).From a natural law perspective, I think it could be framed as saying that the universe is crafted in such a manner as to reward good and that evil bears natural punishments. Since killing all evil people would appear to naturally preclude any functional society, that would Intertwined in that argument was an argument based on the necessity of order: Traditionally, societies have recognized that killing everyone they recognized as evil would not be right. And attempting to do so would work a negative transformation upon society. So it is likely that someone killing all evil people would have to work outside the structures of society--and would thereby undermine them. Any lawful and good character would have to consider the undermining effect of his actions on a case by case basis and weigh it against the good that could be done.I also advanced an argument from authority--that the vast majority of moral codes acknowledged by humans throughout history hold that it is possible to be evil without deserving to die on this earth. And any that did, would probably not be thought of as [Good]. (And, although the code of the Khan came close, it appeared to acknowledge a small amount of low intensity evil that didn't merit death on the first offense. It is also quite dubious whether it is actually [Good].) While the authority of any particular code may be doubted and might not be appropriate to discuss on these boards, surely the combined voice of all humanity through all the ages and of every god they thought spoke on ethics means something.I also made several arguments relating to the individual(s) who would have to do the killing.1. That killing all evil people would be likely to have a negative moral effect on the individuals doing the killing.2. That allowing individuals to do so would Nonsense.  The premise is that human societies' alignments will never reach the point of "Always Good" or "Always neutral." 10-20% of the population is quite sufficient to render irradication a non-option. (So it works whether the society is 60% good, 30% neutral and 10% evil, 20% good, 60% neutral, and 20% evil, or 50% evil, 40% neutral, and 10% good). If you wish to defend the idea that any human society could ever possibly be even be as universally free of evil as the Western world is of illiteracy, you need some argument for it. (Every single fact of human history points in the other direction).The unworkability of eliminating all evil is especially unworkable  because, unlike an extermination program against a race which can be accomplished once and for all, the anti-evil pogrom would have to be ongoing in order to root evil out of both the new generations and those of the old generation who have fallen into evil since the last mass-killing. As I said, a society can--and many societies have--endured massive losses on a one-time basis. No society can sustain such losses on a continuing basis.And the idea that, just because killing them would be the right thing to do doesn't mean it will happen is absurd as an ethical defense of anything. As Kant pointed out, ethics have to be universal. Anything else is ultimately unworkable.</blockquote>

Verification