Is doing evil a necessity of life?

karenmansker said:
IMO, We live in a dualistic, comparative 'universe' of thought and existence. Some obvious examples: light vs dark, yes vs no, full vs empty, cold vs hot, etc. ad infinitum.
Click to expand...
Hot v cold and light v dark are not valid opposites.

And there is only heat, to a greater or lesser extent. It is a one-way street.
(A dumb error that plagued the movie Day After Tomorrow, where a giant storm "sucked the cold down from space".

There is only light, to a greater or lesser extent. Also a one-way street.
(A silly supervillain character called Darkon thought that light was only the absence of darkness.)

Not that that invalidates the point...
 
This is why we have undergone social evolution over milennia to form larger and larger tribes. It's more efficient and more survival-friendly.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, if you eliminate competition, you do the tribe a different disservice:
Reduce the efficacy of both individual and group action by failing to distinguish which members are best fitted to lead. You may find other ways of discovering who is best at archery, botany, midwifery and pottery, but only competition sorts out leaders and followers. This competition can be amicable - sports and games - without losers, because everyone has a place and a function. Children who feel secure do this kind of sorting quite naturally. Children who feel threatened and uncertain are more likely to bully and victimize one another.

The greater danger is to thwart evolution. There will be no selective improvements without open competition for mating rights.
And, in fact, we have seen no improvement in the human stock since the dawn of civilization, when human selection was made artificial.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Hot v cold and light v dark are not valid opposites.

And there is only heat, to a greater or lesser extent. It is a one-way street.
(A dumb error that plagued the movie Day After Tomorrow, where a giant storm "sucked the cold down from space".

There is only light, to a greater or lesser extent. Also a one-way street.
(A silly supervillain character called Darkon thought that light was only the absence of darkness.)

Not that that invalidates the point...
Click to expand...

You missed thought and existence

No way these are on any sliding scale together

They are not even opposites

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
True

Maths is maths

Numbers are numbers

Objective

Agree

But the discussion is not about numbers

It is about ' goodness ' <<<<<<<

Goodness is subjective

:)
Click to expand...

In most cases, I agree. But not in all cases.

The good of the many outweighs the good of the few seems to be an objective moral tenet that I cannot refute and make subjective.

Test it for yourself.

Regards
DL
 
DaveC426913 said:
Presumably the logic of God is that we could all love thy neighbor. Two small tribes might compete, but they would be stronger if they cooperated as a single, larger tribe. This is why we have undergone social evolution over milennia to form larger and larger tribes. It's more efficient and more survival-friendly.
Click to expand...

This is true but as the smaller tribes merge, the strongest will take the lead position. They would compete to leadership as part of the merging process.

Regards
DL
 
kx000 said:
Your either bad, or both evil and bad.
Click to expand...

Your on a varying sliding scale between good and evil

You have a personal view of where you fit

Others have their view of where you fit

Neither you or them are RIGHT

Neither you or them are WRONG

Both views are only OPINIONS

:)
 
Greatest I am said:
The good of the many outweighs the good of the few seems to be an objective moral tenet that I cannot refute and make subjective.
Click to expand...

seems to be an objective moral tenet

which is strange

But no stranger than many other odd ideas

seems to be an appear to be the operative words

Replace with them with is not and your on a winner

But since you appear not to be able to call it subjective I don't know where that would leave you

:)
 
Greatest I am said:
In most cases, I agree. But not in all cases.

The good of the many outweighs the good of the few seems to be an objective moral tenet that I cannot refute and make subjective.
Click to expand...
It is a statement of perspective. Individuals are not usually called-upon to make such judgments in their daily actions, but political leaders are always forced to base policies on that tenet, and then citizens have the choice of supporting or opposing that policy. And, of course, jurists are required to weigh each contested interaction of citizens against the general principles as stated in law.
But we're still on a sliding scale of "the good" as well "the many" and "few". What degree and priority of "good" is under consideration in any given case and what part of the population?
For example, are we comparing the survival of the tribe to the pride of the warrior caste, or the convenience of the majority of adults against injury to a dozen children; the economic ruination of a town against the wealth a landowner or the political ascendancy of a dominant tribe against extirpation of a subordinate one?
There is always a cost/benefit ratio to consider, including direct and indirect consequences and fallout, over a long and short term.
Greatest I am said:
Grammar is boring.
Click to expand...
Many boring things are necessary.
 
Greatest I am said:
Grammar is boring.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I find it can be very interesting. If you were not aware of grammar, you would reduce the ability to communicate. You might, for example, write "your" instead of "you're" which is incredibly confusing, and on the downward slope to just grunting.
 
Jeeves said:
Or Newspeaking, or Trumpeting or Twittering.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed. Just recently during an informal language lesson, I explained the English word "twitter" to a Spanish girl as the noise little birds make. She was puzzled because she uses twitter, and said that birds just make a meaningless noise, so why did twitter have that name. I said I thought it was obvious.
 
Modern education! Birds do not make meaningless noises: every tweet, chirrup, cackle and screech has purpose and content.
On the other hand, teaching ESL is a bottomless source of surprise, amusement and enlightenment.
 
DrKrettin said:
I disagree, I find it can be very interesting. If you were not aware of grammar, you would reduce the ability to communicate. You might, for example, write "your" instead of "you're" which is incredibly confusing, and on the downward slope to just grunting.
Click to expand...

Grunt oh ar willy willy bang bang grunt

And if you disagree with that

Grunt grunt

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top