Definition of a 'good' character or an 'evil' character

yeah but Lord of Malice or Malicious One just doesn't have quite the same ring as the Lord of Evil or Evil One. Although kind of like Lord of Malice

 

If letting fifty people die to save your mate (I use "mate", because it could be a girlfriend/spouse/boyfriend etc.) qualifies as evil, then I guess I'd be evil the moment something like that happened. If that's evil, (although I don't think true evil exists, like I said), then I honestly believe I might classify as evil. Sure, I know I'd be wrong to save the one person, but I still would probably do it if I really (and I mean really) loved them. Selfish? Certainly, but if that's evil then most of Earth is evil.

Here's an interesting thought; what if God's real, and everything we hold dear is evil by the one true definition? Of course I think that's completely wrong, but what if?
I told you being depressed makes my posts trippy

 

I really hate when people/characters are portrayed as "good at heart" but then they go and partake in something evil (SS guards, people who enforce abusive policies etc). I'm not talking about those who don't even know what their actions lead to on a large-scale level, although I believe it's an individual's responsibility to know this type of thing. I'm talking about those who don't agree with a policy, or think something is ethically wrong, but they participate in it nontheless on the grounds of "I'm not the one who invented the policy" or "I'm only the little guy." If everyone stood up for what's right, large-scale atrocities would not happen because there would be no one to implement/enforce them. It's the compliant, coward sheeple who go against their consciences who make things happen. Once you've got 100000 mindless sheeple following evil orders, results are catastrophic.

 

Mal, if you haven't seen the film "Judgment at Nuremburg", you should.

 

Ok, then every person here is evil. Why? I'll come to that...

This is a good rationalization and the one most people adhere to. It works well enough for us to dismiss the subject without feeling too bad, and get our minds onto something else.

Never the less, it does not change the fact that in this very moment, you and I both have chosen to hold onto our comforts and luxuries, when we know for a fact that if we sacrificed them, lives would be saved. Real human lives. People dying, right now. We favour our red wine, our big screen TV and our cars more than those human lives. This is fact.

Now, imagine that the person you loved the most was struck by a deadly illness. There was a cure, but it was extremely expensive. The only way for you to save that beloved person's life was to sell everything you own. Would you do it? Probably. I know I would. It's just stuff -- it has no value compared to those I love.

Why are you not selling the same stuff to save 50 Africans? They are the 50 people on the bus, and we've both chosen not to save them. Not in favour of saving our most beloved, but in the favour of material comforts.

There's no real away around this: none of us saved the people on the bus.

Why? Because we're selfish.

But I believe that all living creatures are selfish. It's an instictual mechanism of survival. If it wasn't for selfishness, evolution would never have happened.

Everyone's selfish. Only some are conscious of it.

So let's drop this whole "Good and Evil" charade. It only makes hypocrites of people.

 

"...you and I both have chosen to hold onto our comforts and luxuries, when we know for a fact that if we sacrificed them, lives would be saved..."

My point (b) was that we do NOT know that. Certainly, the numbers can be run - by the bureaucrats. I, honestly, do not know how to turn my saving account into food for the impovrished in the world. Do I mail it to Africa? Of course not. UNICEF does a good job I've heard. How much of their donations actually do good - I think (and this is important) they do. Local hunger is helped by food banks/soup kitchens. I know a little more about those organizations and am a bit more certain my money can do good through them - so I am more likely to support them.

It's the old dilema of a panhandler asking for money. If you know they need the money and you know it will go for food/winter coat/shelter, then you are much more likely to give some money. People who won't give a dime cash are willing to give a sack lunch worth a couple bucks or an old coat.

So, back to the original idea, we're left with maybe helping 50 by selling everything for food, or definitely helping one by selling everything for medical care.

You also say "the person you loved the most was struck by a deadly illness". "Struck"? That sounds rather immediate. 50 starving Africans? Sounds like something that has been building and will unfold over a longer span.

So, we have a situation where a relatively immediate action can be taken to certainly save one, or a more long term action that may save 50. Need expert advice and longer term vision? That's what our governments and churches are for. They ARE an extension (cultural) of our selves. So, we give them money, proportionate to the degree we feel it can do good, to make the decisions we are incapable of. And we also save some to be able to take the immediate actions we are capable of.

It can be noted, too, that I was talking about people KNOWING that they were doing harm by their actions. It's hard to say that anyone in the western world knows to what degree, or even if, their actions to live their comfortable life are causing harm/preventing good elsewhere.

I do agree that we've gotten well beyond the whole "good/evil" thing, and are walking our way through more grey areas.

-Frank

 

The word "struck" is somehow relevant, and even critical to the situation? If so, let's say that by some distaster or outbreak of war or whatever, half a nation is struck by hunger. That should settle the semantics.

There's plenty of highly respectable aid organisations that allow us the option to provide for one specific 3rd world person's needs for food and medicine. If you pay a specific amount, that specific person will be saved from starvation. Saying that we can't do the math can only come from a lack of insight -- there's plenty who do the math and give us every opportunity to make a difference. More money makes a bigger difference, period. Still, we have chosen not to.

I'm not blaming you of anything, mind you. I'm as inactive as the next western person out there. I'm just saying, let's not get so high and mighty and think ourselves as oh-so-bloody-good guys, 'cause we're not.

 

I feel like some of my most evil characters still have good somewhere inside of them, it just may be too far gone, too hard to see after all the torment. I actually get torn up with certain "evil" characters I have to kill--sometimes I almost give in and want to leave them looking good in the end, haha! But I feel like evil characters can have good inside them too. As I've said about this sort of thing in other posts, some of them have a reason for why they are the way they are. It may not mean that it's okay for them to be that way, but there is always a reason.

 

That's a shame you didn't enjoy Catcher in the Rye. I guess if you don't like reading about depression and immaturity it wouldn't be very appealing. What I liked was that Holden did a lot of things I wish I had but didn't out of fear. Like telling people off, of course when he does he immediately regrets it. I guess after all the "teen angst", immaturity and drama Salinger was able to create a character that was likable. In the end, I felt Holden always cared about what really mattered and viewed everything else as superficial.

 

Teen angst never appealed to me because none of it felt real...but I have not read Catcher in the Rye.

 

Alignment, as used in Dungeons and Dragons roleplay.

Doesn't apply for every story, of course, but it's an interesting guideline nonetheless.