I'm starting this thread at the suggestion of other members, since some of my comments in another thread veered away from the topic, the link to which can be found here. Essentially, this thread is to discuss whether acts of good outweight acts of evil, or vice versa. I am of the belief that, at least in real life, evil is more prevalent and more impactful than good, based on personal experience and perspective. I won't repost my examples, but it would be interesting to see other's input on their ideas and experiences. I will state this here that I don't intend to offend anyone's beliefs with this discussion, only come to an understanding. I'm not here to convince people that my thoughts on the topic are correct, only gain insight. Thank you all for the consideration =)
I second this. I don't think evil is more prevalent in the world than good. I think bad is just something we react far more strongly to, therefore we're far more likely to remember it better and tend to put more emphasis on it. When it comes to people and characters, for me, I like to think that people can do good things to be redeemed of most things, but the motivation for these good things has to be taken into account.
I agree as well. I wasn't really looking for a debate on it, just a discussion. Maybe they'll let it stay. And I'm in complete agreement with @The Dapper Hooligan. @MythMachine Your previous example about your father (which, I'm sorry to hear that) is what I wanted to respond to. My own father passed away from lung cancer over a year ago. They didn't find it until much too late to help him, despite having many tests that it showed up on. They either knew and didn't care, or they are appalling bad at their jobs (at least when he went). The thing is, they do still help people, so I don't think you can lump them all in and say they're evil and nothing they ever do will be good enough to outweigh it. We are all good and evil, and do things that are good and things that could be seen as evil. I don't think it automatically pushes you to the evil side of the scale.
Dear @Wreybies @minstrel or other beloved Mod. We here have decided that this shall not be a debate, nor will we treat it as such. We promise to behave, if you could please remove the word "debate" from the title, as it was a group mistake. We would be ever so grateful and humbled by your generosity.
But isn't that emphasis enough? The idea that evil holds more impact and is something we react more strongly to reminds me of something I was once told, though I can't remember the whole of it. It was something along the lines of "the more we acknowledge and accept evil as a part of life, the stronger and louder evil becomes." I do feel the same could be said for "good", but I have yet to actually see that on the same level. In fact, I often see people react negatively to the most positive of events, but rarely do I see positivity in the face of the worst of events. I'm sorry to hear about your father as well, it must have been very difficult to cope with. If, for instance, I were to have cancer, and the same clinic that failed my father managed to cure me, I still wouldn't be able to forgive them, or see good in their actions. I'd only ever be able to see them, at best, as rendering a service paid for. A dying man paid thousands for under the pretense that his treatments would accomplish something, when, from the very beginning, the doctors were well aware that they would not, and took his money anyway. My father can't have been the only case either, there are likely millions of people suffering in the same way that he has, only to have their hopes beaten down by the greed of others. It's cruel and despicable.
As to this, I see it as a balance. A maddeningly nonsensical (most times) balance, but a balance. And I actually don't think it holds more impact so much as that, because it hurts, we hold onto it longer. Who's responsible though? It doesn't mean that every nurse, doctor, and desk worker is evil. It means that someone sold hope, and whether it was false hope or real hope, it was still hope they were selling. I don't know who would be considered the till holder though, and, personally, I wouldn't ever be able to lump them all together in one.
Just because we react strongly to something doesn't mean it has more of an impact, though. I remember very distinctly one time I was in the bush when I was a kid and a moose snuck up on me when I was clearing some brush. I was terrified and thought I was going to die, but, (and I hope this is obvious) I didn't die. Though I still carry a very healthy respect for moose, especially during rutting season, that experience, as strong as it was does not have more of a total impact on me than all of the times that I've forgotten when my parents put food on the table or did whatever they could to keep me safe. As for positivity in the worst of of events, literally how many times has a tragedy happened and people from all over rallied to help. Most recent event that I was connected to was the forest fires last year in Form MacMurray, Alberta. Around 2000 people lost their homes and the support they got from people that didn't even know them was astounding. Even Russia and China offered aid. I am also sorry to hear about your families. Losing people isn't easy, that I know.
It's my bedtime, folks. I hope this is still here in the morning, and I look forward to continuing then. Goodnight all
The capacity for good and evil exists within all of us, so they are ubiquitous in that sense. The world is also full of things that most people would agree is some degree of evil. Defining the more nuanced tones ultimately boils down to defending a moral philosophy, and none are perfect. Same with defining good. It doesn't mean the discussion isn't worth having -- you just have to accept from the get-go that there's not going to be a winner or a clear solution. As to whether there's more evil or good -- I don't know. Evil hurts more than good, and it's remembered more clearly. Evil is the cookie jar that most media reaches into for stories, so it's much of what is seen by anyone who engages with any sort of news outlet. Personal experiences of evil certainly color one's world view from then on. Not irreversibly so, but it never quite fits back the same. I have faith that people are generally good, or at least that they will act good, if only to appease people or gods. But I think this is all I can really offer on the topic. Edited for spag because I wrote this right at bed time.
I agree with @archer88i A lot of us are brought up with weird expectations and beliefs. We think we deserve such and such or someone else's behavior is offensive, never ours. It's hard to really call a specific person "evil." I do personally believe in a spectrum that ranges from cowardice to heroism. We move up and down this spectrum on a daily basis, based on daily actions-although most of us probably don't move around that much, and are somewhere toward the middle. You're not a hero when you see someone starving in the streets and do nothing about it. Or when you hear about all the orphans in India and instead decide to go on a vacation. You're more of a hero if you're a fireman vs a salesman, and probably more of a coward if you're sitting in the fourteenth floor office of a bank. We all have our own aspirations in life and become accustomed to whatever environment we live in, but I think some occupations more often require one to make heroic choices in order to excel (fighting a fire) whereas others more often require cowardice (taking campaign money from big corporations so you can get reelected). Maybe as a news reporter I'm required to write propaganda. I don't want to do it. I want to write real news. But if I don't do it, I lose my job. I'm not an evil person trying to lie to to the public, I'm just giving in to a corrupt system. It's cowardice, but it enables evil. A healthy person will take care of their families and make a living, whereas a sick person might be a kleptomaniac or an alcoholic, but good happens when someone takes a stand, and evil happens when someone does not. You can judge a person's actions by how they act in any given institution. Do I think some institutions are inherently good and others inherently evil? Yes. Academia is inherently good. It advances society and preserves knowledge. Fire fighting and hospitals are inherently good. They save lives. Insurance agencies are inherently bad. Their main purpose to make a profit. Politics is inherently bad, because deception is a natural part of the profession. It is also largely about reallocation of resources, as opposed to creation.
Why is that balance necessary though? I, for the life of me, cannot understand why empathy and compassion would need to be balanced by suffering and disharmony. And when it comes to repairing, protecting, and preserving another life, I don't believe it's about responsibility, its about duty. When you're in the medical field and are more worried about profit than you are about the people you are medicating, you are shirking that duty. On the other hand, information is not static. All practitioners and nurses involved in the application of medical treatment to the patient need to coordinate their knowledge and observations regarding treatments so there are no holes and consistent records. There can't be just one person to blame for what happened to my father. There was a collective effort in the wrongdoing, which means everyone involved is equally as responsible. As an analogy, when several people are involved in a murder, the shooter is not the only one that should be punished. The lookout and getaway driver, despite not pulling the trigger, are equally as responsible. This isn't to say they killed my dad, but everyone with the knowledge and capability to stop the situation from progressing is at fault. Doing nothing is just as bad as contributing, if you have the power to prevent it from happening. And yet, I've never even heard of that forest fire, or that 2000 people lost their homes, or that Russia and China were even on good enough terms with us to offer us aid. On the other hand, 16 years ago, a handful of men were able to kill well over 2,000 people, the impact and effects of which still resonate today. I remember exactly where I was, what I was doing, and the people who were around me when I found out, and at the time I was just a young kid with no worldly opinions or knowledge.
While the sample size is, so far, very small, I find the results for the poll very interesting. Myself and one other person voted that "evil" acts can have more impact than good, while 2 other people have voted neither over power the other. And yet, no one has voted in favor of good acts? This intrigues me. As for my reasoning, I feel most heroes are driven to action by their villains, or the direness of their circumstances. A line from the movie Candyman that's always stuck with me: "What do the good know except what the bad teach them by their excesses?"
"Good" is when a character enjoys doing something they perceive to help others. "Evil" is when a character enjoys doing something they perceive to hurt others. Someone who is good may be doing terrible things, the other way around, or have no real effect at all. They're all just tools for story, and not even necessary ones, but optional.
Good & bad are abstractions derived from perspective, like hot & cold. The character from that other thread – Bonesetter: A mad doctor who is part of the four horsemen group who harvests bonemarrows of his victims for his dying and comatosed wife – offers an example of what my friend calls 'the synthesis of paradox': good within evil, and the understanding that the two constitute an interdependent duality.
Except cold doesn't really exist. It's basically how we describe the absence of heat. So if good and evil are like hot and cold, then evil would be the absence of good. Which kind of makes sense because you seem to have to put more energy into a system for there to be more good than bad, which follows the first law of thermodynamics. But that means that as the universe expands, good energy will be spread further and further apart, which means we'll have to work harder and harder to maintain a certain level of goodness in the world. So that's why the world is going to hell: Entropy. I blame Neil Degrasse Tyson.
I've just changed the name, as you asked. If any participant does not behave, please report it and we'll move the thread to the Debate Room (and deal with the offender as seems fitting).
There's a young cyclist who is currently on trial for the manslaughter of a woman he collided with, and who died. My feeling, based upon the press coverage, is that he's something of a child. He's being portrayed as the "killer of a mother"...they're glossing over the fact that she walked off the pavement whilst engrossed with her mobile...it looks as if both parties wanted to "teach" the other that either a bike has right of way or it doesn't. What I haven't seen is ANY press coverage whatsoever for the thousands of miles I've cycled without killing a woman (or anybody else!). Face it, "Guy cycles safely to work" just isn't going to make a good story. A story, almost by definition, has to have bad things happening; something for the MC to triumph over.
I don't see it as a very complex issue in my head. Everything in the world is flawed in a way. Even the most beautiful sunset may be "evil" in the sense that, say, it cannot be seen by a blind man. The point is that depending on the perspective you take, something could be good, evil, or both. Now, some people believe that there is a source of pure good. Being a Christian, I'm one of these people, and I believe this source is God. This one source of pure goodness becomes a benchmark for anyone to define and measure what is good. Goodness would, therefore, be anything like the character and attitude of that source. (It doesn't necessarily need to be God. Some people believe that human nature is naturally good, for example. As long as that source is believed to be stable, then we can make that judgment). By that logic, evil would be anything unlike that pure source of good. Or as someone has said, and many of us agreed: Without an unchanging pure source of good (or evil), I think the line between the two of them would be blurred. As a character from one of my favorite anime once said: "The essence of good deeds and evil deeds is the same. They're both no more than a person's actions to make up for a defect in themselves." I don't necessarily agree, but one could easily reach this conclusion in this scenario. Now as for stories, I think both "good" and "evil" could make a lasting impact on the reader/watcher. The "good" virtue in heroes can inspire people in real life. Similarly, "evil" deeds or characters in stories can make a lasting impact on many people. Think of Dickens' anti-hero in David Copperfield, Uriah Heep, it even inspired the name of a band! So as long as characters have flaws, as people do, then their story could make a lasting impression.
I agree on everyone who had the opportunity to rectify the situation being also at fault - except what if they have to. If the facility has a policy that only doctors can challenge a diagnoses, treatment, etc. and if the (fictional) nurse mentions anything she's going to be fired - doesn't the nurse have a right to self-preservation? Maybe she's a single mom with four kids and she doesn't agree with what's going on, but she really needs that paycheck. I can see this making her a coward (as @123456789 mentions in his post) but I don't see it making her evil. She's doing the best she can with what she has on her plate. And I know a nurse is who told you, but how long was she involved in the process before she spoke up? Does that raise or lower her evil score? In my father's case I spent months (he showed irrefutable symptoms in October, and it wasn't 'found' until February) researching each symptom, blood tests results, reviewing timelines, etc. I spent all of my time telling them to find the cancer, because I knew it was there, and they still took months to admit it was there. After he passed, and I got his complete medical records, it was clear (on x-rays, scans, blood panels) they had known about it for years - and never said a word. Is that evil? Oh yes. Who is to blame though? Too many to count, or the system that gags them? They have families to feed too. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. And I remember where I was then too, and I also remember who I was with and how I felt. Is what you're saying here that because the forest fire was natural it was less devastating then the devastation caused by people? Not sure if that's what you're saying, genuinely asking.
I still occasionally see news coverage about one man that ran over 5000 kilometers and he died before a couple of years before I was even born. In Canada we even have a coin with his likeness on it
Leaving alone that this analogy is slightly mind-blowing, there quite a few figures of speech that are commonly used that fit the concept as well. Murderers and rapists are considered "cold-blooded" or "cold-hearted", while the generous and selfless are said to "spread warmth". So evil people are those who have lost the "heat" of being good. The comparison is almost too similar. Perhaps it's for the best that I haven't done the ice bucket challenge? But evil and good are based on intent and desire, the sunset can't "intend" or "desire" to be unseen by the blind man. In fact, the blindness could have been a direct result of the blind man's decisions. There is a "grey area" involved in most things, but there are also many shades of grey (not just fifty either, har har). The problem that muddles everything between good and evil is underlying circumstance. But should circumstance make evil LESS evil, and good LESS good? I'll continue this further down in my post. So, because she had four children and isn't in a job that can properly support those children, she feels the need to take advantage of a dying man to accomplish that goal? And because she has children to support, that somehow makes the act less evil? What if a robber is in the process of stealing from a house, and shoots the homeowner, which damages his spine and renders him incapable of working to support his own family and children. Is the shooting somehow less evil if the robber also has a family to support? Is it somehow less evil if he was laid off from his job and has had a hard time getting another job due to discrimination, or lack of availability? This nurse was involved in all of my dad's treatments. A person with good intentions would never put someone through something that could kill them, knowing the result. If I were working for a corrupt institution, knowing what evils were occurring, I wouldn't hesitate to leave. I'm not even someone who can be called a good person, but I could never take advantage of the dying person, even to support the people I love. It would feel too dirty, and I think it would cheapen my way of life. That could just be me though. Not saying it was any more or less devastating. I was talking about the impact of the people who generously provided assistance to those who lost their homes, not disaster caused by the fire itself. So many people pitched in to help, but I've not heard of them OR the fire. I confess I don't watch the news, but even then, there was not word of mouth about it, like with 9/11. Members of my family never mentioned it at gatherings, nor did friends or coworkers. There were no national days of remembrance as there were with 9/11. After the attacks, wide-sweeping changes affected the every day life of US Americans, and probably the citizens of many other countries as well. But the donations made to assist the victims of the fire have not made nearly such large impact, even though Russia and China were even involved. I would feel like such good acts would make waves, but even though it greatly helped the people involved, there wasn't as much resonation to outsiders, as you would see with terrorist acts, or other major acts of violence.
It means that I, personally, don't believe it's a black and/or white world. There are many shades of gray in between. She may hate the job, she may be looking for another job, she may be reporting the things that are happening to other services that can do something about it. Or she may be happily and gleefully participating. Or - she might really just need to make her mortgage payment and be doing what she's told. If the intent is good, I think it makes a difference. It doesn't change the punishment, it doesn't change what he deserves, but if I had to steal to provide for my kids - I would. If that was my only option, I wouldn't hesitate to do it. If my father hadn't had the money/insurance for pain medications when he was dying and I didn't either - do you really think I wouldn't have found a way to get them for him? I would have. Whatever it takes. If my kids were looking up at me, hungry, starving, and I was striking out on every front? I would do it. I have no illusions about who I, personally, am and that means I don't get to sit on a high horse and judge someone else's decisions. But maybe that's just me though. I think there's a difference between doing something because you don't care about the outcome or you find joy in other people's pain, and doing it because you truly believe you're out of options and see no other way. The first one I would define as evil, and the second I would define as desperation. I like to think that I would too, but I don't know that I would. Seriously, if it comes down to my kids having food and a roof over their heads, I'll do what it takes. Period. If that makes me evil in some people's eyes, that's fine with me. Sometimes the only problem you can deal with is the one that's right in front of you. I don't think it's evil to do the best you can, even if that means not reaching the level of Mother Theresa. Well, I'm pretty sure this happened in Canada? I think that's where @The Dapper Hooligan is from, so I don't think we would have heard about it the way you think. I'm sure it's not all over their news every time a forest fire burns through California or Tennessee or anywhere else. Of course, I'm not there so I don't know, but it kind of feels like you're comparing apples and oranges here. The main resonance from 9/11 for other countries was because it was a terrorist attack, and if it could happen to us - it could happen to them.
