Why hasn't evil prevailed?

[dimreepr]

The good in humans seems so much weaker and less able to influence than the bad or corrupt; power and money is so seductive that it seems an unstoppable force.  

So why, when that power is at its apex, does good prevail? 

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The good in humans seems...

Not to me it doesn't.

For exactly the reasons you have put forward.

[Phi for All]

Evil in our modern life (maybe always) is more of an insidious force; it builds slowly until Good realizes how overbalanced things have become. Whenever Evil strikes in large, broad way, Good rises up immediately (sort of) to defend (WWII is an example). Good isn't very good with the slow stain of creeping Evil we mostly see. Everyday evils are like having to clean off spray paint that taggers have left on your house. They always seem to have more paint than you have time or energy.

And when Evil is really evil, it can pretend to be Good, and wreak evil in the name of Good. I think that's the hardest thing for Good to prevail against.

[Sensei]

Good and evil are often relative.. But you don't look at this, the right way..

Somebody eats great meal, and prays "thanks God for this delicious meal", but somebody else had to DIE.. to become your delicious food..

whether they were animals or plants.. somebody had to die..

It's old-school human way to partitioning to "us" and "they". Whoever "they" are.

You split living organisms to "humans" and "animals".. "plants" are used nearly like "items"..

Similar separation is done by nationalists, racists, nazis, etc. they first make border line "we", and "they" (whoever "they" are).. Jews, gays, lesbians, black, gypsy, etc. etc. and they are put in "sub-human" group..

so for them (e.g. nazis) it was easier to kill sub-human, as they didn't treat them, as normal human..

 

Now imagine, spaceship lands with aliens, somebody who is interpreting "don't kill" as "don't kill human" literally, will have no problem killing "alien"..

From his/her perspective they are not humans, so can be e.g. treated as animals, or plants, or bugs, or whatever..

 

ps. Problem with killing and eating animals and plants will solve by itself, just because of overpopulation, and inability to produce enough food natural ways..

So "orthodox vegan" / "orthodox vegetarian" is simply wasting his/her time (not to mention issues with health), instead of learning how to create GMO organisms, which will produce appropriate organic molecules which could be used instead.

 

Edited January 12, 2018 by Sensei

[Bender]

"Evil" is a self-eliminating evolutionary feat for social organisms.

Doubly so for evil acts against in-group individuals. The in-group category seems to be growing. Possibly because people live closer together, possibly because tribes who prefer peace with other tribes are more successful on the long run.

Evil individuals can only thrive if they are a minority.  If the evil group becomes too large, the group dies out.

[John Cuthber]

On 1/12/2018 at 10:14 PM, Sensei said:

somebody had to die..

It may be a linguistic thing, but there's a difference between somebody and something.

[Sensei]

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It may be a linguistic thing, but there's a difference between somebody and something.

For me living organism, animal or plant, is not a thing..

 

[John Cuthber]

Redefining words isn't generally helpful.

[Sensei]

Don't tell me you're calling your beloved dog/cat per "it".. I am always using "he"/"she" according to sex of animal.

Two days ago, dog jumped on me, and kissed me, and I said to owner "she is so sweet", not "it is so sweet"..

[Moontanman]

38 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Don't tell me you're calling your beloved dog/cat per "it".. I am always using "he"/"she" according to sex of animal.

Two days ago, dog jumped on me, and kissed me, and I said to owner "she is so sweet", not "it is so sweet"..

If I don't know the sex of the animal I will usually cat it an "it" I get quite attached to my fish and generally the gender is irrelevant so it is the preferred pronoun unless I am talking to another breeder and the sex matters in the conversation. My oldest son had a female dog he called fred, and everyone else pretty much assumed the dog was male. The dog never cared and it seemed to be less than important. I call my dog weird names a person would punch me out if I called them one of the names but my dogs don't care as long as the tone of voice is right. Shithead loves me anyway.. .

[Bender]

28 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Don't tell me you're calling your beloved dog/cat per "it".. I am always using "he"/"she" according to sex of animal.

Two days ago, dog jumped on me, and kissed me, and I said to owner "she is so sweet", not "it is so sweet"..

What do I call the carrot I ate today? Do you tell your children eat the carrot on their plate because "she" tasts great?

What do you call with animals of which the sex can only be determined with surgery or a DNA test?

(In Dutch calling something "he" or "she" depends on the gender of the word, not the animal, so the argument doesn't really apply. Some animals, such as a horse, pig, sheep or kitten are "it" because the word is genderless.)

 

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, Bender said:

"Evil" is a self-eliminating evolutionary feat for social organisms.

Doubly so for evil acts against in-group individuals. The in-group category seems to be growing. Possibly because people live closer together, possibly because tribes who prefer peace with other tribes are more successful on the long run.

Evil individuals can only thrive if they are a minority.  If the evil group becomes too large, the group dies out.

 Yeah, what he said... 

[Ten oz]

On 1/12/2018 at 11:54 AM, dimreepr said:

The good in humans seems so much weaker and less able to influence than the bad or corrupt; power and money is so seductive that it seems an unstoppable force.  

So why, when that power is at its apex, does good prevail? 

If you are defining evil as greed than I'd say it has won. Money and power is nearly as consolidated in the hands of the few as it could be. over 3 billion people around the world live on less than 2 euros a day. There are over 45 million people living in slavery today, 170 million child ages 5-14 work in labor, 800 million people do not have access, and on and on and on. There are enough resources in the world and knowledge in human societies that no one should have to die of starvation yet millions do. Every bad thing I can list has a practical solution which is ignore in favor of keeping the wealthy wealthy. 

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, Ten oz said:

If you are defining evil as greed than I'd say it has won. 

 

At what point does self-preservation become greed? 

17 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Money and power is nearly as consolidated in the hands of the few as it could be. over 3 billion people around the world live on less than 2 euros a day. There are over 45 million people living in slavery today, 170 million child ages 5-14 work in labor, 800 million people do not have access, and on and on and on. There are enough resources in the world and knowledge in human societies that no one should have to die of starvation yet millions do. Every bad thing I can list has a practical solution which is ignore in favor of keeping the wealthy wealthy. 

What did the few win? And for how long? 

The numbers suggest the balance will change.

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

At what point does self-preservation become greed? 

When one has enough but continues anyway.

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What did the few win? And for how long? 

A very long time ago. Bibical times. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

When one has enough but continues anyway.

Enough what? 

I have a very good friend that grew up in (as did I) the sort of poverty that meant there's never enough to eat or heat. Is he wrong to want to ensure he and his family have enough of both when he stops working?

[Ten oz]

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Enough what? 

I have a very good friend that grew up in (as did I) the sort of poverty that meant there's never enough to eat or heat. Is he wrong to want to ensure he and his family have enough of both when he stops working?

There is a big difference between setting money aside to pay for your kids to go to college or retiring at a young age and owning a garage full of exotic cars you use to show off with. Enough would be the point where oneself and their family is comfortable. That doesn't require Billions of dollars. Doesn't require gold plated toilets, private jets, and trophy hunting animals in Africa. 

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

There is a big difference between setting money aside to pay for your kids to go to college or retiring at a young age and owning a garage full of exotic cars you use to show off with. Enough would be the point where oneself and their family is comfortable. That doesn't require Billions of dollars. Doesn't require gold plated toilets, private jets, and trophy hunting animals in Africa. 

It's really not that big of a difference, it all depends on one's definition of comfort.

Quote

The Duke of Devonshire had two pastry cooks. During WWII, he was asked if one could be spared to serve in the war, to which he replied, "Oh damn it, can't a man have a biscuit?!" Correction: It was actually Lord Chandos, not the Duke of Devonshire who made the remark.

https://www.comedy.co.uk/tv/qi/episodes/2/7/

[Ten oz]

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's really not that big of a difference, it all depends on one's definition of comfort.

Society defines things too. I was under the impression the OP was referencing society at large and not ones individually relative perspective. 

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Society defines things too. I was under the impression the OP was referencing society at large and not ones individually relative perspective. 

I'm pretty sure the OP was intended to explore the reasons why the imbalance of power and privilege is always corrected...

[Ten oz]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm pretty sure the OP was intended to explore the reasons why the imbalance of power and privilege is always corrected...

Do you have examples of those corrections?

 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Do you have examples of those corrections?

 

History... How far do you want to go back?

[Moontanman]

Wouldn't evil really be defined by the people in charge? Don't the winners define who who the bad guys were in the past? Define evil in a way that doesn't include your personal preferences or is objective instead of subjective...   

[Ten oz]

On 6/25/2018 at 11:13 AM, dimreepr said:

History... How far do you want to go back?

Any examples will do. I can not think of any so whatever you got would be good.