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

[Virtual ghost]

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 I am saying that if you want a group to live making distinction between bad and good isn't that hard regardless of culture, while morals are fundamentally just an extension of survival instinct. It is true that you can introduce relativity here as well but once you do that you have nothing. Since you can't be human without a life.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I've never thought that.

 

[Maou]

And I am saying that if you want a group to live making distinction between bad and good isn't that hard regardless of culture, while morals are fundamentally just an extension of survival instinct. It is true that you can introduce relativity here as well but once you do that you have nothing. Since you can't be human without a life.

A lot of "large society" groups are only able to hold morality, due to the threat of authority. So it actually is very difficult to hold onto morality the larger the society gets. That's why cities and such generally have higher crime rates. As well as certain cities being worse than others. Cities that understand this fundamental principle, generally prosper and are a lot safer.

That's a nice theory.

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

Yes, it does. Most people follow rules because its like a mutual agreement. But the moment the authority breaks down, true human nature is revealed. While some have the intellectual integrity to withhold morality, many also lose it (that is why looting happens after disasters). Without the promise of security enforcement, society breaks down.

 

[Merced]

I think it's an edgelord coping mechanism. Y'know, for those "asshole is my personality" losers who think they are gamimg the system by being shitty.

 

[Lark]

A lot of "large society" groups are only able to hold morality, due to the threat of authority. So it actually is very difficult to hold onto morality the larger the society gets. That's why cities and such generally have higher crime rates. As well as certain cities being worse than others. Cities that understand this fundamental principle, generally prosper and are a lot safer.



Yes, it does. Most people follow rules because its like a mutual agreement. But the moment the authority breaks down, true human nature is revealed. While some have the intellectual integrity to withhold morality, many also lose it (that is why looting happens after disasters). Without the promise of security enforcement, society breaks down.

A Hobbesian social contract because otherwise life is nasty, brutish and short. I'm not so sure about that, for one, which is it? Mutual Agreement or authority?

What you are describing as human nature is the exception rather than the rule, under conditions of crisis, which are short lived, time limited and temporary.

Its a politically conservative view that's pretty grim, predates either sociology or psychology and is ahistorical too. For whatever reason its a popular view at the moment though.

I'd say that people who dont have a conscience during a crisis probably are no different to they are at times which are not times of crisis. They're just opportunistic criminals. They're not more in tune with human nature than the next man, in fact, I'd say they are less in tune with it.

 

[Virtual ghost]

A lot of "large society" groups are only able to hold morality, due to the threat of authority. So it actually is very difficult to hold onto morality the larger the society gets. That's why cities and such generally have higher crime rates. As well as certain cities being worse than others. Cities that understand this fundamental principle, generally prosper and are a lot safer.

I really disagree: I, my friends and my mother walk around my city unarmed at night freely even if there is no authority around, jet no one is going after me (and I live in metropolitan area). Which is because we were all raised to be more supportive of each other. You are mistaking your local social dysfunction for genuine human nature, mistake that is very easy to make. In a way what you are saying is self fulfilling prophecy ... but ok.


My point was simple, regardless of the culture most bad things can be pointed out easily. Stealing isn't ok, lying isn't ok in everyday situations (same with violence), fraud isn't ok, blackmail isn't ok, torture isn't ok, ... etc. There is no modern culture that genuinely supports all of this and all of this can only pass as a problem/disease/glitch and therefore I claim that it is possible to set objective standards in morals. Stuff to which everyone sane can agree.

 

[anticlimatic]

The inherit difficulty in 'good' versus the inherit ease of 'evil' is as much a strength as it is a weakness.

Human beings like things that are easy...but they like challenges even more.

 

[StrawberryBoots]

Well, heck, I'm thinking about how "always" is a mighty powerful word. What's not powerful in humans is a malfunctioning or chemically altered higher brain cortex that's unable to reign back primitive, selfish, animalistic impulses from the brain stem and emotional center of the brain, making one ineffective at rational, constructive decision-making. I think people with a fully mature, functioning, unimpaired frontal lobe will find that evil isn't too hard to defeat, diffuse or walk away from.

 

[Maou]

Well, heck, I'm thinking about how "always" is a mighty powerful word. What's not powerful in humans is a malfunctioning or chemically altered higher brain cortex that's unable to reign back primitive, selfish, animalistic impulses from the brain stem and emotional center of the brain, making one ineffective at rational, constructive decision-making. I think people with a fully mature, functioning, unimpaired frontal lobe will find that evil isn't too hard to defeat, diffuse or walk away from.

I think they are referring to the societal aspect. No matter how good some people are, or how many. There is always a bigger group of evil. So perpetually, good will never win...but it also can't be destroyed.

I like the buddhist teachings of balance, and that everyone is both good and evil. And from pure darkness or pure light, it's opposite is born. Impermanence of good or evil dominating life. Nothing lasts forever.

 

[Yuurei]

I think it's an incredibly oversimplified statement.

I think "good" is subjective.

I think that good often wins but that "evil" is much easier to notice in a small scale-which are the only real victories we can hope for.

I think people say this because everyone perceives their side as "good" and it is so much easier to tell yourself it isn't your fault when you lose so instead they make up some imaginary entity like luck to blame instead.

 

[Stanton Moore]

If good didn't predominant over 'evil', civilization would not exist.

 

[Maou]

If good didn't predominant over 'evil', civilization would not exist.

Are you implying evil civilizations could not exist?

 

[StrawberryBoots]

I think they are referring to the societal aspect. No matter how good some people are, or how many. There is always a bigger group of evil. So perpetually, good will never win...but it also can't be destroyed.

I don't understand, are you suggesting that the "but-for" cause is group-think? If so, do these group-thinkers have brains? If so, I'm suggesting that their brains are broken and folks with broken brains are typically the reason for their own demise. In other words, I think they're more of a threat to themselves. I'm not afraid of evil.

 

[Maou]

I don't understand, are you suggesting that the "but-for" cause is group-think? If so, do these group-thinkers have brains? If so, I'm suggesting that their brains are broken and folks with broken brains are typically the reason for their own demise. In other words, I think they're more of a threat to themselves. I'm not afraid of evil.

I was just presenting the OP as how I understood it. Which is how it seems society operates (from their perspective, and they are not alone). Group think is a major factor, in everything. Ever heard of the bystander effect? People are social animals, before they are individuals usually. Meaning even the most independent, socially avoidant person will be affected by peer pressure. (unless of course, they are psychopathic)

I personally don't believe in evil as an actual force, and that everyone has potential "evil" (by definition) in them. It's ridiculous to fear one side, and see it in black and white. It is also bad to demonize the other side. NO ONE thinks they are evil. Everyone thinks they are good. When people learn to accept that, they will realize what being human really is. People need to realize even the worse people, could be them under the right circumstances.

If you try to define "Evil", what do you get? From what I can tell, it is people who act without remorse, generally for their own benefit. But so do good people. They easily condemn, hurt, or kill people they think are "Bad". So the only real defining factor in my eyes, is perspective. I think the worse type of people, are those who commit acts of violence mindlessly. They do not know the weight of their actions, as they cannot cognitively understand them. When one doesn't even understand their own actions, how can they repent?

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I lose all the time and I am not good, so answer me this, riddler.....

 

[Shadow Play]

Every action produces a butterfly effect with both foreseeable and unforeseeable consequences. It's impossible for good to always lose when the outcome is less decisive in the long run.

 

[Tomb1]

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

Triple M (mental masturbation mayhem)

 

[Lark]

Thread's been really interesting, this theme was mentioned in a TV show I was watching.

The other thread about evil containing the seeds of its own destruction was a theme in a TV show too. A different one to the first one.

 

[Ace_]

Good doesn't always lose, neither does evil like in the movies. Most people float between vice and virtue, but virtue pays off. Being trustworthy has its perks.

 

[Lark]

Are you implying evil civilizations could not exist?

I think that's a good point, if it means order, organisation and rule bound then its totally possible that an evil civilisation would exist.

Ghandi when he was asked what he thought of western civilisation said that he thought it would be a good idea.