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

[Greed]

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.

you took my statement too literal. no, it doesn't necessarily have to be fist-fighting we're talking about. just look at politicians and the heads of large companies. of course they cheat to get ahead.

 

[Virtual ghost]

you took my statement too literal. no, it doesn't necessarily have to be fist-fighting we're talking about. just look at politicians and the heads of large companies. of course they cheat to get ahead.

That doesn't change my point. Since that still qualifies as struggle and that is a form of fighting, what implies that this is still more bad than good. (at least in my book)

 

[Greed]

That doesn't change my point. Since that still qualifies as struggle and that is a form of fighting, what implies that this is still more bad than good. (at least in my book)

your point doesn't make any sense.

 

[Virtual ghost]

your point doesn't make any sense.

My point is pretty simple from the start: if there is too much struggle between people/groups it is hard to say this is good. In other words cooperation is good side and therefore fight/struggle is bad. (especially if it persists on the long run)

 

[Agent Washington]

Correlated; the idea that good is "naive" and evil is worldly, and hence a "better"/"smarter" option.

There's more courage and wisdom to be found in good than evil anyday, even if it is a result of a more "naive" standpoint, which isn't necessarily the case all the time.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

If you believe that, you need to work on your independent, critical thinking skills.

 

[Yuurei]

I think it is very myopic. I think that people who such terms as "good" in this context need to learn a greater perspective.

Firstly, we notice and internalize loses more notably than positives. One could see "Good" as simply waking up every morning. In that way, I could say that I have had 13,180 "good" things happen. When we consider scale I would say that over all more "good" than bad tends to happen.

Second, is our perspective. When a job we want goes to someone else, we consider it "Bad." yet someone else considers it "Good". At that point, do we need to consider is the better person? Tally up who has had more "Good" happen in their lives and thus is less deserving?

My cousin was 26 when he died suddenly. He was about to get married and had kid @2 on the way. It was tragic and a loss to many people. In the end it I received his kidney. Was my life worth it? Personally, I don't think so. I have no family depending on me. I do have many friends depending on me, many who say they would not be here if not for me. My cousin was a good guy but his family...let's just say the liklihood his family would have fallen to drugs and jail time was a possibility. Hell, not long after he died some Russian gang members came looking her him ( due to his relation with an ex friend) had they found him alive maybe the entire family would have been in trouble? So, did his early death end up a greater good?

I can't say. No one can. The world only on casualty, not on a 1-1 ratio of good v bad. So, I think it's an absurd concept.

I will say however, that it is much EASIER for 'Evil" to win due to it's very nature; it does not follow rules or morals.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I think it is very myopic. I think that people who such terms as "good" in this context need to learn a greater perspective.

Firstly, we notice and internalize loses more notably than positives. One could see "Good" as simply waking up every morning. In that way, I could say that I have had 13,180 "good" things happen. When we consider scale I would say that over all more "good" than bad tends to happen.

Second, is our perspective. When a job we want goes to someone else, we consider it "Bad." yet someone else considers it "Good". At that point, do we need to consider is the better person? Tally up who has had more "Good" happen in their lives and thus is less deserving?

My cousin was 26 when he died suddenly. He was about to get married and had kid @2 on the way. It was tragic and a loss to many people. In the end it I received his kidney. Was my life worth it? Personally, I don't think so. I have no family depending on me. I do have many friends depending on me, many who say they would not be here if not for me. My cousin was a good guy but his family...let's just say the liklihood his family would have fallen to drugs and jail time was a possibility. Hell, not long after he died some Russian gang members came looking her him ( due to his relation with an ex friend) had they found him alive maybe the entire family would have been in trouble? So, did his early death end up a greater good?

I can't say. No one can. The world only on casualty, not on a 1-1 ratio of good v bad. So, I think it's an absurd concept.

I will say however, that it is much EASIER for 'Evil" to win due to it's very nature; it does not follow rules or morals.

I can agree with this whole post but the conclusion just does sit right with me. The idea that evil can't follow rules is absurd, every dictatorship that ever existed was quite rule based. Just in my part of the world we killed millions of innocent people legally by law and constitution. However stuff like that doesn't make it easy to win on the long run at all since this triggers mass rebellions and counter-forces that will eventually blow up the system out of pure self preservation. What is basically inversion of your claims since in such example the good is the one that is legally rogue improviser.



I am sorry but one such conflict defined my childhood and eventually the whole life, so it is "impossible" for me not to notice this. In other words the ability to notice that current rules aren't good or even moral is very important one in my book, since morals and rules are two completely different things. Neither is evil coming down purely to gangs and street crime, since chaotic evil and lawful evil are also two separate things (but skipping that is a flaw in thread design). In the case you didn't say rules I wouldn't say anything.



Just saying since this is a philosophy/morals thread.

 

[Yuurei]

I can agree with this whole post but the conclusion just does sit right with me. The idea that evil can't follow rules is absurd, every dictatorship that ever existed was quite rule based. Just in my part of the world we killed millions of innocent people legally by law and constitution. However stuff like that doesn't make it easy to win on the long run at all since this triggers mass rebellions and counter-forces that will eventually blow up the system out of pure self preservation. What is basically inversion of your claims since in such example the good is the one that is legally rogue improviser.



I am sorry but one such conflict defined my childhood and eventually the whole life, so it is "impossible" for me not to notice this. In other words the ability to notice that current rules aren't good or even moral is very important one in my book, since morals and rules are two completely different things. Neither is evil coming down purely to gangs and street crime, since chaotic evil and lawful evil are also two separate things (but skipping that is a flaw in thread design). In the case you didn't say rules I wouldn't say anything.



Just saying since this is a philosophy/morals thread.

You’re just nitpicking, and the least relevant point.

If you’d like to debate about evil and rules/morals then you can make a thread about, but it’s not a topic I’m particularly interested in.

 

[tony_goth]

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

The good don't lose permanently. That's one of the only things that prevent me to become evil. I don't want to go to Hell. Period.