• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

what do you think about the idea that good always loses?

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
what do you think about the idea that good always loses? whether its chaotic, neutral or lawful good, that it will always be defeated by evil because evil does not need to fight fair and can stoop to actions that, even if good could think of them, good could not use them?
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
"Good can't win" is pure BS.

Which is either projected by Evil or people who got lost or they are too intellectually lazy about this topic. It is true that good can lose but that isn't set in stone.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think good runs deeper and is significantly more powerful. I have a lot of metaphysical experiences, and I feel a deep sense of balancing or justice towards which evil and cruelty doesn't stand a chance. Evil has a flailing, temporary aspect because it is so individual and doesn't connect in a meaningful way to anything outside of self. It is isolated and weak. It fights dirty, but in the end, after the control and trickery wears off, it fights completely alone.
 

cacaia

New member
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
275
MBTI Type
NF
Enneagram
954
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Also, perhaps we should define what "good" and "evil" are. They do, believe it or not, mean different things to different folks. By "Evil" I would say , you would mean corrupt, two faced, lying people with selfish intentions. "Good", I guess, would be people who hold their own but also go out of their way to help others and their causes....It is actually very hard to pinpoint "good" and ""evil" for me ;-)
But i feel it is a balance, like Ravenetta has mentioned. Sometimes evil wins, and sometimes good wins. It just depends of different factors.
 

Greed

#1 thot
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
96
well i mean the sentiment makes sense. that if you don't need to fight fair, it's easier. it doesn't mean that good will always lose, but it means it's often harder to win that way.
 

Maou

Mythos
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
6,117
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Good and evil do not exist. Realistically, both sides are just as dirty. One is more idealistic, the other nihilistic.
 

I Tonya

Rythym of the night
Joined
Jun 24, 2018
Messages
567
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
539
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I'd say sounds more realistic tbh.
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
Good and evil do not exist. Realistically, both sides are just as dirty. One is more idealistic, the other nihilistic.

But if it is dirty can this really good ? Or is this evil vs. evil ?


well i mean the sentiment makes sense. that if you don't need to fight fair, it's easier. it doesn't mean that good will always lose, but it means it's often harder to win that way.

Did it ever occurred to you that good isn't fundamentally about fighting ? I mean that there are other way of winning that don't go through fighting.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Good and evil do not exist. Realistically, both sides are just as dirty. One is more idealistic, the other nihilistic.

Good and evil are a true dichotomy. There is not many of those but it is one. Even as you suggest they are both "dirty", which I guess could be a commentary on tactics or methods or application as its not clear, you do recognize that they are different in terms of aims, ie idealistic vs. nihilistic.

Which kind of is like attacking an axiom but concluding finally with a fresh, only slightly different axiom.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
You assume good fights fair?

For the purposes of this discussion, yeah, particularly in terms of lawful good.

Another way of putting that particular point would be to question is a binding law is strength or a weakness in achieving the good?

Does law enable or obstruct good? Especially if it is equated with fighting fair?

Neutral and chaotic will tend to see it as a weakness, I would guess, however, the more lawful the more it will be considered a strength, obviously.
 

The Cat

Just a Cat who hangs out at the Crossroads
Staff member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
23,552
Seems like you've got it all sorted out with all those strictures on it.

I don't buy that good, especially lawful good, is some kind of just super heroic angelic force that always fights fair though. :mellow:
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Seems like you've got it all sorted out with all those strictures on it.

I don't buy that good, especially lawful good, is some kind of just super heroic angelic force that always fights fair though. :mellow:

I have my own views, which are what seems obvious to me from some of the first principles, but I'm interested in others views too.

Lawful Good I think can care a little more about the lawful than the good or believe that the law and the good are synonymous, which isnt always the case, hence court room disputes and discussions about the different between the spirit and the letter of the law or good law versus poorly framed law. So I definitely think that I could see lawful good acting in a manner which does not amount to fighting fair.

I'm not sure that angelic forces are good, they are powerful, most of the time in the old testament angels wind up fighting with humankind, sometimes literally wrestling human champions.

Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaimen tackles the idea of angelic and satanic forces having more in common, at least tactically or in their attitude towards humankind, as they have dividing them. A rogue angel and devil decide to work together to obstruct the hawks in each camp in that story. Old Harry's Game by Andy Hamilton, a radio comedy in the UK, is another very good idea along the same lines, although it portrays heaven as more of a broken bureaucracy than deliberately malevolent. Preacher and Spawn do interesting things along those lines too.
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
To be honest I don't really buy this "good fights like ..." debates. Because as soon as you place fighting as important factor in the mix it becomes very questionable if this is really the good we are talking about here.
 

Maou

Mythos
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
6,117
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Good and evil are a true dichotomy. There is not many of those but it is one. Even as you suggest they are both "dirty", which I guess could be a commentary on tactics or methods or application as its not clear, you do recognize that they are different in terms of aims, ie idealistic vs. nihilistic.

Which kind of is like attacking an axiom but concluding finally with a fresh, only slightly different axiom.

I am saying everyone is human, and their methods are different. "Dirty" implies morality, which is a construct. Moral action in one culture, is evil in another. Therefor good and evil do not exist, because everyone can be good and evil depending on context. A lot of people who claim to be good, are generally idealistic in nature. While those who are commonly considered bad, are often nihilistic or disenfranchised with society and go by their own rules.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I am saying everyone is human, and their methods are different. "Dirty" implies morality, which is a construct. Moral action in one culture, is evil in another. Therefor good and evil do not exist, because everyone can be good and evil depending on context. A lot of people who claim to be good, are generally idealistic in nature. While those who are commonly considered bad, are often nihilistic or disenfranchised with society and go by their own rules.

And what if its not?

There can be powerful cultural influencers or determinants but natural law theory would suggest there remains a universal, innate, moral code, similar to the existence of universal innate syntax.

You are right about one thing, moral relativism and constructivism are products of nihilism. While the idea of "going by your own rules" or "making things up as you go" generally appeals to a lot of people who dont like to accept authorities, traditions or wisdom beyond, besides or transcendent of their self. It is as absurd an idea as an entirely private language invented by and exclusive to an individual, where is the utility in that? What is the use of that?

I dont see anything idealistic about recognizing conventional morality or ethics. Its pragmatic and a matter of practical reason most of the time. Even most of the people who declare themselves to be moral relativists (or that morality is just a "fable agreed upon") generally still conform to lawful conduct and refrain from deviance. Consequentialism and the harm principle, which are the basis of much of convertional morality just make universal sense, accord with empathy etc.
 

Maou

Mythos
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
6,117
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
And what if its not?

There can be powerful cultural influencers or determinants but natural law theory would suggest there remains a universal, innate, moral code, similar to the existence of universal innate syntax.

You are right about one thing, moral relativism and constructivism are products of nihilism. While the idea of "going by your own rules" or "making things up as you go" generally appeals to a lot of people who dont like to accept authorities, traditions or wisdom beyond, besides or transcendent of their self. It is as absurd an idea as an entirely private language invented by and exclusive to an individual, where is the utility in that? What is the use of that?

I dont see anything idealistic about recognizing conventional morality or ethics. Its pragmatic and a matter of practical reason most of the time. Even most of the people who declare themselves to be moral relativists (or that morality is just a "fable agreed upon") generally still conform to lawful conduct and refrain from deviance. Consequentialism and the harm principle, which are the basis of much of convertional morality just make universal sense, accord with empathy etc.

The only reason the concept of good exists, is due to us being social animals by nature. We are instinctually driven to find community and preserve it (people who share our same values). But once the community breaks down, morality goes along with it and we fracture off into separate smaller groups. That is literally it, there is nothing more. The rest is just philosophical fluff to somehow reason its way out of that simplicity, or make sense of why bad things happen. Occam's razor.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
The only reason the concept of good exists, is due to us being social animals by nature. We are instinctually driven to find community and preserve it (people who share our same values). But once the community breaks down, morality goes along with it and we fracture off into separate smaller groups. That is literally it, there is nothing more. The rest is just philosophical fluff to somehow reason its way out of that simplicity, or make sense of why bad things happen. Occam's razor.

That's a nice theory.

Does it hold in your community, neighbourhood, workplace or family? If not why not?
 
Top