The Advantage of Evil

[zerostao]

1 hour ago, Lost in Translation said:

Is it that evil is predatory? A lion kills a lamb and we call it natural.

Is evil an opportunist?

[Lost in Translation]

6 minutes ago, zerostao said:

1 hour ago, Lost in Translation said:

Is it that evil is predatory? A lion kills a lamb and we call it natural.

Is evil an opportunist?

 

Possibly. I don't see a connection between being an opportunist and being evil or being good. A good person can see an opportunity for good and take it. An evil person can see an opportunity for evil and take it.

 

What I do see is an underlying motive. A good person does good because it is good. An evil person does evil because there is something to be gained. In fact, I don't think that an evil person sees themselves as evil. That's an "outside looking in" description.

 

Edited July 27, 2018 by Lost in Translation
fixed wording.

[oak]

7 minutes ago, zerostao said:

http://www.victorianweb.org/art/illustration/beardsley/primorac.html

Thanks zerostao

[zerostao]

Every opportunity is an opportunity for good. This thread is about live spelled backwards.

You think there is always an underlying motive?

Could a spontaneous response act without a motive? for good or evil?

[thelerner]

4 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

I wasn't sure whether to put this in General or Off Grid, so I split the difference and here we are.

I'd like to discuss the advantage of evil. By this I mean the advantage an individual receives towards the realization of their goals by being willing and able to act unethically and immorally.

 

Some examples: A businessman who grows wealthy by engaging in inside trading; A politician who gains office by lying about his opponent; An athlete who wins a competition by cheating; A cultist who gains a loyal following by preying upon the weakness and fears of believers.

 

It's commonly understood that evil will eventually lose. We see this trope appear again and again in    good storytelling and it does appear to hold    some truth in real life. Most people prefer to live in a good society and most criminals are eventually caught (for something, at least). But some evil people do flourish.

 

personally, I don't think there's a karma that punishes 'evil' activity.  There may be no 'thing' keeping score and the sun shines on the good and bad equally, yet  Evil actions tend to be (ultimately) self destructive and 'prizes' won are are not gold, just glitter. 

 

Ultimately character is revealed and has to face the mirror and world it has made. 

 

 

Edited July 27, 2018 by thelerner

[zerostao]

3 minutes ago, thelerner said:

personally, I don't think there's a karma that punishes 'evil' activity.  There may be no 'thing' keeping score and the sun shines on the good and bad equally, yet  Evil actions tend to be (ultimately) self destructive and 'prizes' won are are not gold, just glitter. 

 

Ultimately character is revealed and has to face the mirror and world it has made. 

 

 

My view is the disadvantages of evil outweigh any advantages in the practical sense.

[joeblast]

the advantage of evil is that it provides an excellent amount of plot fodder for for damn near every human tale that doesnt involve love.  and most that do involve love, too

[wandelaar]

5 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

What I do see is an underlying motive. A good person does good because it is good. An evil person does evil because there is something to be gained. In fact, I don't think that an evil person sees themselves as evil. That's an "outside looking in" description.

 

That looks more like a Confucian approach. Confucianists are trying to be good people. I think Lao tzu and Chuang tzu would trust on human nature to work out fine (on average) so that living naturally would be good enough.

[Lost in Translation]

7 minutes ago, zerostao said:

Could a spontaneous response act without a motive? for good or evil?

 

I believe no. Wu wei, as Taoists call it, is beyond morality.

[Wu Ming Jen]

1 hour ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

Perhaps. I don't disagree with you, but I feel there may be more to it than that. How does this explain evil spirits, gods and demons? Do such things not exist? Are at least some of them not evil?

To me there is good and bad relativity. Evil, God and demons is a way to exaggerate the confused mentality as evil does not actual exist in nature.  Mankind...... that is whole different story. We have programmed the humans  not to know their true divine nature. This way we can have a god that makes them not responsible so they can act as evil as they want....how convenient. so God is the devil and the devil is God

Edited July 27, 2018 by Wu Ming Jen

[Lost in Translation]

24 minutes ago, Wu Ming Jen said:

To me there is good and bad relativity. Evil, God and demons is a way to exaggerate the confused mentality as evil does not actual exist in nature.  Mankind...... that is whole different story. We have programmed the humans  not to know their true divine nature. This way we can have a god that makes them not responsible so they can act as evil as they want....how convenient. so God is the devil and the devil is God

 

You say evil does not exist in nature. Does it exist in man? Being of nature wouldn't that place evil in nature?

 

You say we programmed humans to not know their true devine nature. Wouldn't that programming be an evil act? If so, the benefit of such an act is the creation of a god that makes humans feel not responsible for their evil actions. Wouldn't this also be an evil act?

 

Who would benefit from such actions if not an evil being? Who could perpetuate an act of this magnitude if not a divine creature? 

[Stosh]

To look from the viewpoint of inanimate Nature, there is no evil , and we might as well call it all virtue .

But men are not stones , we are animate or sentient , and see the world from a perspective of our own comfort , our perceived need, how close we are to homeostasis , or our desires. 

Satiated , we deem things good ,,, un-satiated , we call this bad.

So we make rules collectively -the paradigm of virtue vs evil , to help us and others  make the world be more good.

We then Judge ourselves and others according to this paradigm,. But it doesn't always work out so hot , and the fallback plan ,is to revert to our innate nature or the lack of standard , in nature. 

The demi-god creating this conflict is us. 

Edited July 27, 2018 by Stosh

[wandelaar]

Evil is not a thing, but rather a vaguely defined class of actions. Evil actions have a tendency to wreck peaceful societies. So there is a reason for societies to condemn evil actions. The same social phenomenon is seen in certain other primates. Thus both evil and the condemnation of evil are part of nature.

Edited July 27, 2018 by wandelaar

[Wu Ming Jen]

37 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

You say evil does not exist in nature. Does it exist in man? Being of nature wouldn't that place evil in nature?

 

You say we programmed humans to not know their true devine nature. Wouldn't that programming be an evil act? If so, the benefit of such an act is the creation of a god that makes humans feel not responsible for their evil actions. Wouldn't this also be an evil act?

 

Who would benefit from such actions if not an evil being? Who could perpetuate an act of this magnitude if not a divine creature? 

This is fun,we are nature when we put human mind over nature we create a false reality. The programming is evil, a great example. Again humans not being responsible is another excellent evil act. The opposite of a divine divine creature yet called and enforced as holy is the best disguise to fool others and keep them from knowing who they are.

 

 

Edited July 27, 2018 by Wu Ming Jen

[Lost in Translation]

15 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

Evil is not a thing, but rather a vaguely defined class of actions. Evil actions have a tendency to wreck peaceful societies. So there is a reason for societies to condemn evil actions. The same social phenomenon is seen in certain other primates. Thus both evil and the condemnation of evil are part of nature.

 

Well said, your observation is excellent!

 

What advantage is there to having evil be part of nature?

 

 

[thelerner]

In Jewish philosophy there is the Evil inclination and the Good Inclination.

Evil inclination (yetzer Harah) is selfishness, only thinking of oneself.  The good inclination (Yetzer Tov) is toward selflessness, helping and caring for others.  While mankind would certainly benefit from more Yetzer Tov, the evil inclination is not without some merit, ie ambition comes from it.  Separating from your parents and building a new family and career and house is also partly driven by selfishness.  Thus we need a need some Yetzer Hara. 

 

Most of Mussar philosophy, Jewish improvement, tends to be exploring the positive and negative areas within a trait, seeing clearly where one is at, and deep reflection leading to action on where one should move in that area. 

[wandelaar]

1 hour ago, Lost in Translation said:

What advantage is there to having evil be part of nature?

 

I don't think nature has a purpose, but one could ask where evil actions come from given nature as we know it. Now social animals (including humans) have a double interest, namely in preserving their own life and well being and in preserving the social group they are part of and depend on. But because individuals differ some of them will be more concerned about their social group and others will be more concerned about their personal life. Evolution will over time correct the extremes. But as chance events (or mutations) both very "good" and very "bad" animals (and humans) will continue to be born sometimes. So I don't think evil (in the sense of extreme selfishness) serves a purpose, but rather that it necessary exists as a side-effect of the mechanism of evolution.

Edited July 27, 2018 by wandelaar

[Lost in Translation]

9 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

So I leave the topic at that. What is the advantage of evil?

 

I change my mind. I won't leave the topic at that.

 

One advantage I see that evil has over non-evil is freedom. Evil is free to choose evil. I'll say that again: evil is free to choose evil. That's something that good can not say. There is nothing to prevent evil from choosing good. That's perfectly allowed. There is a hell of a lot that prevents good from choosing evil.

 

Notice that I say "choosing evil". I do not say "doing evil" or "being evil". Everyone at times will do evil, usually by accident. For example you may break a promise when you realize that keeping the promise becomes too burdensome, such as in a relationship. This causes extreme suffering to the other person and you know this, but you tell yourself "that's life" and put it out of your mind. While doing evil we may be labeled as being evil. But very few people choose evil, at least openly and without rationalization. There's power in that choice. That power is not to be underestimated.

 

[Lost in Translation]

As long as I'm talking to myself I might as well add this: you can't choose to be good unless you can also choose to be evil.

 

 

Here's a mental exercise. Imagine that you choose to be evil. Feel it. Feel the power.  You can take anything you want. You can do anything you want. Rules mean nothing. People mean nothing. There are no consequences. Fear does not exist.

 

 

Let this thought fill you. Do you feel the power? Take your time. Let it simmer. I'll wait.

 

 

 

 

Now take that absolute power, the fearlessness where everyone and everything are straw dogs and only you and your will matter and choose.

 

 

 

Choose to be good.

 

How does that feel?

[CityHermit!]

15 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

I wasn't sure whether to put this in General or Off Grid, so I split the difference and here we are.

I'd like to discuss the advantage of evil. By this I mean the advantage an individual receives towards the realization of their goals by being willing and able to act unethically and immorally.

 

Some examples: A businessman who grows wealthy by engaging in inside trading; A politician who gains office by lying about his opponent; An athlete who wins a competition by cheating; A cultist who gains a loyal following by preying upon the weakness and fears of believers.

 

It's commonly understood that evil will eventually lose. We see this trope appear again and again in    good storytelling and it does appear to hold    some truth in real life. Most people prefer to live in a good society and most criminals are eventually caught (for something, at least). But some evil people do flourish.

 

So I leave the topic at that. What is the advantage of evil?

 

Strict or loose definitions aside, I've almost always seen such things eventually balanced out through consequence or compensation.

[CityHermit!]

11 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

I believe no. Wu wei, as Taoists call it, is beyond morality.

And yet Laozi had three treasures

[Lost in Translation]

Just in case anyone is confused let me state clearly that I am not advocating evil, far from it actually. What I am stating in my often roundabout way is that one cannot be good unless one is also at least capable of being evil. Let's take a reference that everyone can relate to, Star Wars. In Star Wars the Jedi completely eschewed the Dark Side. They wouldn't even look at it since they knew the temptation it represented. Instead they clung to the Light Side. That was all fine and dandy until the Sith showed up. When that happened they were caught completely off guard. Why, you might ask? Well, the Sith were open to the Dark Side. They understood it and did not fear it. As such they were able to master its power, at least momentarily (40+ years in the case of Darth Sidious). The Jedi thought they were good because they clung to the Light Side, when in reality they were neutered because they had no direct experience of evil. Yeah. I went there...

 

[wandelaar]

I think the fascination for top criminals and dictators derives from the secret wish many (or most of us?) have to be able to do absolutely anything we want without having to consider the consequences. The downside of such power is that it will never be enough, and we will grow increasingly sensitive to even minor obstructions or criticism. So in the end the evil person will be just as upset (or even more so) than the common man by the realization that in the grand scheme of things he still amounts to (almost) nothing.

 

The logical choice of Lao tzu and those following his way is to find contentment in the simple things that are easy to get. But to achieve that one has to conquer ones childish wish of always wanting to have it ones own way.

Edited July 28, 2018 by wandelaar

[Lost in Translation]

8 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

The downside of such power is that it will never be enough, and we will grow increasingly sensitive to even minor obstructions or criticism.

 

Excellent point. I do see that as being a "negative" aspect of being evil. 

[CityHermit!]

38 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

Just in case anyone is confused let me state clearly that I am not advocating evil, far from it actually. What I am stating in my often roundabout way is that one cannot be good unless one is also at least capable of being evil. Let's take a reference that everyone can relate to, Star Wars. In Star Wars the Jedi completely eschewed the Dark Side. They wouldn't even look at it since they knew the temptation it represented. Instead they clung to the Light Side. That was all fine and dandy until the Sith showed up. When that happened they were caught completely off guard. Why, you might ask? Well, the Sith were open to the Dark Side. They understood it and did not fear it. As such they were able to master its power, at least momentarily (40+ years in the case of Darth Sidious). The Jedi thought they were good because they clung to the Light Side, when in reality they were neutered because they had no direct experience of evil. Yeah. I went there...

 

Hmm, it does say this

 

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap02