Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Do you agree or disagree:The evil usually defeats the good.

Page 2 of 2 [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

01 May 2012, 8:28 pm

UnLoser wrote:
Of course morality is very hypocritical at times, but I think it's really a necessity for the functioning of society. The vast majority of people benefit from society's moral rules.

Yes we do moral rules are important for a society



Subotai
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,036
Location: 日本

01 May 2012, 8:34 pm

UnLoser wrote:
Of course morality is very hypocritical at times, but I think it's really a necessity for the functioning of society. The vast majority of people benefit from society's moral rules.


I agree that it is necessary for our functioning as a society, but I still see it as an illusion and not some universal truth as it's often made out to be.
People who put on a show of morality while privately taking a Machiavellian approach are at a great personal advantage.
I also agree most are perfectly content following the conventional morality.


_________________
...and his prowess on the battlefield is surpassed only by his skill in the bed chamber.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 90
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 May 2012, 8:53 pm

It is so easy to be evil and so hard to be good.

ruveyn



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

01 May 2012, 8:56 pm

ruveyn wrote:
It is so easy to be evil and so hard to be good.

ruveyn


It's because people with very little selfcontrole will be more likely to do evil people with a lot of will power can do good.



soutthpaw
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 154
Location: Albuquerque, NM

01 May 2012, 9:03 pm

Well it really depends on your perspective and what you consider good or evil..
As an Atheist, I see much Theism that is evil so yeah currently evil is winning. Being that religion is responsible for more human death and suffering than any other events in history...
Be careful what you ask because you may not like the answer.. Especially when its clear your OP is intending an obvious Theist bias.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

01 May 2012, 9:05 pm

soutthpaw wrote:
Well it really depends on your perspective and what you consider good or evil..
As an Atheist, I see much Theism that is evil so yeah currently evil is winning. Being that religion is responsible for more human death and suffering than any other events in history...
Be careful what you ask because you may not like the answer.. Especially when its clear your OP is intending an obvious Theist bias.


Communist Reigimes have caused more death anything polical has caused much death religion not so much after all politics has been around longer then theism.



Czeslaw_Kowalski
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 24 Dec 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 140
Location: Dolchavia

02 May 2012, 12:32 am

Subotai wrote:
UnLoser wrote:
Of course morality is very hypocritical at times, but I think it's really a necessity for the functioning of society. The vast majority of people benefit from society's moral rules.


I agree that it is necessary for our functioning as a society, but I still see it as an illusion and not some universal truth as it's often made out to be.
People who put on a show of morality while privately taking a Machiavellian approach are at a great personal advantage.
I also agree most are perfectly content following the conventional morality.


Unless God our LORD intervenes,what you say is perfectly correct.The problem is that maximizing a person's gains usually involves robbery.If everyone does this,there would be no contribution and the system is not sustainable.It's the tragedy of commons.If everyone has morality,the society benefits.The problem is that in an immoral society,being moral is bad for you,sometimes morality could even be dangerous to your own survival.



Subotai
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,036
Location: 日本

02 May 2012, 2:40 am

Czeslaw_Kowalski wrote:
Subotai wrote:
UnLoser wrote:
Of course morality is very hypocritical at times, but I think it's really a necessity for the functioning of society. The vast majority of people benefit from society's moral rules.


I agree that it is necessary for our functioning as a society, but I still see it as an illusion and not some universal truth as it's often made out to be.
People who put on a show of morality while privately taking a Machiavellian approach are at a great personal advantage.
I also agree most are perfectly content following the conventional morality.


Unless God our LORD intervenes,what you say is perfectly correct.The problem is that maximizing a person's gains usually involves robbery.If everyone does this,there would be no contribution and the system is not sustainable.It's the tragedy of commons.If everyone has morality,the society benefits.The problem is that in an immoral society,being moral is bad for you,sometimes morality could even be dangerous to your own survival.


God is above our self contradicting system of morality which is based only on our social instincts, at least any God not made in our image.


_________________
...and his prowess on the battlefield is surpassed only by his skill in the bed chamber.


Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

02 May 2012, 2:58 am

AdamAdam wrote:
The common view of WW2 as a fight between "good" and "evil" is pretty skewed. the West had their own reasons for fighting, and it definitely wasn't just to help the poor persecuted victims of Hitler.


You're being a little too cynical, I think. The beginning of WW2 was textbook good vs evil. Neville Chamberlain worked his ass off trying to get peace in Europe, and was willing to appease the Nazis to do so. It was only when the Nazis refused to play ball that a World War became inevitable.



Aelfwine
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 184

04 May 2012, 9:15 am

What would be when there where a couple of A-persons and a couple of B-persons.
Than "evil" persons could prevent themselves and "good" persons could cooperate.
So the answer isn't easy.



edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

04 May 2012, 9:42 am

Declension wrote:
AdamAdam wrote:
The common view of WW2 as a fight between "good" and "evil" is pretty skewed. the West had their own reasons for fighting, and it definitely wasn't just to help the poor persecuted victims of Hitler.


You're being a little too cynical, I think. The beginning of WW2 was textbook good vs evil. Neville Chamberlain worked his ass off trying to get peace in Europe, and was willing to appease the Nazis to do so. It was only when the Nazis refused to play ball that a World War became inevitable.


Yeah he was trying to get peace, but only to preserve the status quo (and thereby British power in Europe). He wasn't interested in peace for peace's sake.

This was all realpoliticks. To pretend otherwise is silly; it was actually stated as such numerous times, and it's been the guiding principle of British foreign policy for a very long time (as far back at least as PM Palmerston, who famously stated “Britain has no permanent friends and no permanent enemies; she has permanent interests.”)



Pyrite
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,247
Location: Mid-Atlantic United States

04 May 2012, 10:48 am

Declension wrote:
AdamAdam wrote:
The common view of WW2 as a fight between "good" and "evil" is pretty skewed. the West had their own reasons for fighting, and it definitely wasn't just to help the poor persecuted victims of Hitler.


You're being a little too cynical, I think. The beginning of WW2 was textbook good vs evil. Neville Chamberlain worked his ass off trying to get peace in Europe, and was willing to appease the Nazis to do so. It was only when the Nazis refused to play ball that a World War became inevitable.


Maybe, but the war is a little less clear cut if you consider it from the perspective of another Axis power, say.... Finland. The Finns fought a war of self-defense in 1940 against the Soviet Union that the allies endorsed as good versus evil, and were even willing to consider joining.

Then they resumed the war in 1941 given the chance to win back what they had lost, but now they were informed that they were, in fact, evil for doing so, because Hitler was attacking the Soviet Union and they were thus aligning themselves with one "evil" to defeat another, although they would politely point out that the allies were doing much the same.



enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

05 May 2012, 1:41 am

The real rule should be that the realism wins over idealism. Here, the Nazis count as idealists, at least starting in 1941-1942, because they did not act pragmatically at all, what with invading Russia, declaring war on the USA, the 1942 summer offensive and the death camps. Strangely, that is also when they started to lose.

"The history of the world is the history of the victory of the hearless over the mindless." - Sir Humphrey, in Yes, Prime Minister!

Declension wrote:
AdamAdam wrote:
The common view of WW2 as a fight between "good" and "evil" is pretty skewed. the West had their own reasons for fighting, and it definitely wasn't just to help the poor persecuted victims of Hitler.


You're being a little too cynical, I think. The beginning of WW2 was textbook good vs evil. Neville Chamberlain worked his ass off trying to get peace in Europe, and was willing to appease the Nazis to do so. It was only when the Nazis refused to play ball that a World War became inevitable.

Neville Chamberlain was working hard for peace, yes, but without regards to the actual reality and the balance of power. In 1936, France would have stopped the reoccupation of the Rhineland had Great Britain supported it, which it didn't -- even if Hitler hadn't instructed his generals to back down in case of opposition, the balance of power would have insured a French and German victory. In 1938, Tchecoslovkia provided for a much better defensive position against Germany than Poland, + the USSR might have supported them against Germany at the time. Blind idealism was the flaw of the UK government (and, admittedly, the British population). The Germans didn't "refuse" to play ball, they were just playing a different game.