I don't believe in good and evil, only actions and consequences. However, I picked evil for a long list of philosophical reasons.
Mainly is that people choose to pick a dichotomy between the good and evil; i.e. God and the Devil, saints and sinners, etc. Many will only accept evil that is within their own personal view as existing and ignore the rest. The same is true with good. All of these groups conflict on an individual basis. The world is filled with imaginary villains and heroes.
As far as the standard of good comes into play, it is shown as being boring and unattainable. Evil is fun and often pointless and dangerous, but easily attainable.
Regardless of this, few people come to regard themselves as evil regardless how far they go down that path whether defined culturally, internationally, or personally. People also tend to not view people they don't know as not being good, neutral at best. However, the often do what they consider is evil and justify it later. They rarely can rationalize the actions that they themselves consider evil. Some of the few people widely considered purely evil would be Hitler and his comrades. They were horrible people by most peoples standards (and I think they should be considered horrible people), but they have become today's mythic devil that nothing can compare with to the point where there is multiple logically fallacies concerning the use of Hitler in argumentation. He is therefore probably the best standard for this discussion because he is concrete, well known, and popularly considered pure evil. Finding such a standard for good would actually be more difficult.
The majority of people who would have met him prior to his start in politics would probably view him as being rather normal. Plenty of people viewed him as good. It wasn't until his later actions that he would become considered evil for invading countries and later the holocaust when it was finally revealed to the masses.
But prior to the actions and discovery of his actions, he would be considered good by many. In fact, he shared the same positions as many people throughout the world from eugenics to the unfair economic oppression of the Treaty of Versailles. Most states in America's had Eugenics programs, so did many other nations. Sterilization of the poor, disabled, and minorities was common. Many organizations such as Planned Parenthood started out with the goal of eugenics. Some people, like Hans Asperger spoke out against popular opinion on the subject.
The second world war had already been predicted decades before he gained power (by John Maynard Keynes, who became a famous economist for his prediction that was published in a popular book.) All that was required was an actor to rally the German people. What I mean by "actor" is that if Hitler didn't rise to power, someone else would and that they would likely have similar pursuits in mind because many of his policies were popular.
While other countries slowly and methodically aimed towards eradicating "inferior peoples," Germany took it to a new level and followed the ideology to the extreme. The shock and horror caused by that managed to shake most people out of their belief in Eugenics and thus they abandoned their previously held beliefs and called evil the one who took it as far as it could go. They had seen their insanity and repented...
The evil was only in the action, and the people fearing that the evil was in the intention shifted the evil to the person. It logically follows that an evil person commits evil.
This was nothing more than action and consequence. Something is evil when the consequence can't be stomached. The ability to stomach things is probably partially innate through genes and partially through nurturing. As such, evil exists mainly in hindsight. I think only a minority can predict when evil is coming and only through a lack of ignorance.
Therefore, it would seem that lack of ignorance can help predict(and prevent evil/action that produces a consequence that will be viewed negatively...) then the willfully remaining ignorant in itself should be qualified as evil.
As Socrates said, "Knowledge is virtue, but ignorance produces evil" or something similar.
I would therefore claim that most people would remain ignorant, because knowledge would create that stomachy feeling that becomes associated with what is called evil. This is action and consequence.
Additionally, the fact that the dichotomy of good and evil is a false dichotomy (unless a deity exists or some other external source exists that would act as a true standard, however, no one would know what this mythological true dichotomy is without a special revelation... and without that special revelation being given to everyone, it would be meaningless anyways. Also, the presence of a deity wouldn't necessitate a dichotomy at all. So, we are left with either an unknown dichotomy or a false dichotomy, logic dictates that the false dichotomy is more preferable.)
Therefore there is a spectrum of moral states ranging between good and evil that is infinitely vast... or there is only action and consequence.
I attempt to justify saying people tend towards evil, because if more people attempted to break out of the bliss of ignorance, then the world would vastly improve.
In Game Theory, I would describe "evil" as the Nash Equilibrium. The state of "good" is not the Nash Equilibrium, however, it has the highest profit/benefits rate. All systems head towards the Nash Equilibrium, all other states are unstable, therefore the most efficient and beneficial states won't be achieved in this system. If "good" were the Nash Equilibrium, then we'd basically have recurring episodes of world peace with prosperity all around. I therefore conclude mathematically that people are evil by their own definition. I make this claim based on observation of history. This is where the evidence points. Good is something we strive for, not what we are.
The bliss of ignorance is one of the benefits in the Nash Equilibrium and while it harms the world as a whole it is a benefit to the individual. People don't like not feeling happy, knowledge often brings sorrow. Therefore most individual parties make the rational decision that leads to they're own personal happiness at the expense of others and thus harms others. The others have a lower total benefit than those in the "evil zone" and the "good zone" is impossible to get into without the others, for they will negatively affect your life. It is therefore more beneficial to yourself to be in the evil zone with everyone else rather than being an outlier which will have the most negative affect on yourself than any other zone.
Tomorrow, I might post historical examples of historical Nash Equilibriums causing greater harm to all parties involved... or not. It depends on my mood.
Also, maybe I should bring charts or else what I am writing might not make sense to someone who hasn't studied the subject.
_________________
Now take a trip with me but don't be surprised when things aren't what they seem. I've known it from the start all these good ideas will tear your brain apart. Scared, but you can follow me. I'm too weird to live but much too rare to die. - a7x
07 Jan 2015, 7:04 am
