NationStates Jolt Archive

just what it sounds like:

with all the threads about morality and evil, i thought perhaps a new twist would be fun. what is your favorite example of a necessary evil?

hate

quite frankly put, there are poeple who aren't worth the love of the many.

hate

quite frankly put, there are poeple who aren't worth the love of the many.

an excellent point. i always thought the doctrine of "loving one's neighbor" was utterly ridiculous, since there are a great many people who don't deserve to be loved...i don't see anything admirable in refusing to hate when it is thoroughly deserved :).

Technology.

Those technocrats are advertising Lacus Clyne but we're going to end up with the Matrix.

It's a defence mechanism. If we weren't skeptical/hateful towards the unknown (be it person or thing) we would be setting ourselves up to be brought down by too much trust.

an excellent point. i always thought the doctrine of "loving one's neighbor" was utterly ridiculous, since there are a great many people who don't deserve to be loved...i don't see anything admirable in refusing to hate when it is thoroughly deserved :).

Yeah, but hate what and who gets to make that call? And what does it actually accomplish? It seems incredibly aggressive and over-the-top for a simple defence mechanism.

just what it sounds like:

with all the threads about morality and evil, i thought perhaps a new twist would be fun. what is your favorite example of a necessary evil?My favourite necessary evil... I honestly can't think of this. If I like it, I surely don't regard it as evil do I?


Maybe lust.

Yeah, but hate what and who gets to make that call? And what does it actually accomplish? It seems incredibly aggressive and over-the-top for a simple defence mechanism.

I'm speaking more from a psychological sence, not a socio-political sence. A state should never take on an ideal of hate, or else you get Hitler.

Basically, I'm presuming that hate/fear/ect stem from the same primal instinct of distrust of the unknown. It makes sence that this is instinctual, as those animals that were not afraid of the unknown would have probably been killed by a preadator or natural thing. Like reverse selective evolution.

In society I'm thinking that individuals need this instinct to defend them from not only eachother, but government, or anything else that may confront us.

If we take for granted that each person is worthy of our love, we will be too trusting of those that wish to harm and oppress us.

Smokes and late night snacks...

I'm speaking more from a psychological sence, not a socio-political sence. A state should never take on an ideal of hate, or else you get Hitler.

Basically, I'm presuming that hate/fear/ect stem from the same primal instinct of distrust of the unknown. It makes sence that this is instinctual, as those animals that were not afraid of the unknown would have probably been killed by a preadator or natural thing. Like reverse selective evolution.

In society I'm thinking that individuals need this instinct to defend them from not only eachother, but government, or anything else that may confront us.

If we take for granted that each person is worthy of our love, we will be too trusting of those that wish to harm and oppress us.

I see what you're saying and you make an interesting point. I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion, though, although that may just be semantics.

Nothing is necessarily evil.

Sex!


Just kidding!

government. Yeah its a necessary evil and its my favorite I suppose in the sense its the one I think of first. Reminds of a few qoutes to.

with all the threads about morality and evil, i thought perhaps a new twist would be fun. what is your favorite example of a necessary evil?
the fact that you think there is such thing...*just walks away*

Psssh....SEX!

According to some people, it is evil...to me? Kinky

A necessary... religious fanatics, otherwise, I'd have nothing to whine about and hate!

Liberals and anti-Americans, to show you how great Conservatism and being an American is.

Favorite necessary evil? Shouldn't it really be least hated necessary evil? I don't have a favorite, but the least distasteful to me is locking up criminals, the whole prison and jail thing.

**oh, favorite example of a necessary evil. have to get back to you on that one.***

money is considered an evil but because of the desires and selfishness of people it is necessary.

The barbarians who ruined Roma.

The barbarians who ruined Roma.Japanese tourists?

Bacteria.

Women: They are quite necessary and profoundly evil. ( sometimes in a good way )

Women: They are quite necessary and profoundly evil. ( sometimes in a good way )

You don't know the half of it, babycakes. http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/contrib/ruinkai/FIREdevil.gif

My favourite necessary evil is lawyers. Most of them shit me to tears, even though I'm one myself. :mad:

Japanese tourists?

Anglo-Saxons heh

~My~ favourite necessary evil is torture...
*weg and muffled screams heard from somewhere behind the wall*

The barbarians who ruined Roma.
The Christians?

the fact that you think there is such thing...*just walks away*


This person must be against ALL war, the death penalty, taxes, government, laws, sounds like an anarchist to me :eek:

The Bush Doctrine.

Nation States.

Since when is NS an Evil... much less a necessary one?

Since when is NS an Evil... much less a necessary one?

Just wait till the day you wanna quit NS. That's the day you'll find the answers to those two questions.

This person must be against ALL war, the death penalty, taxes, government, laws, sounds like an anarchist to me :eek:

War isn't always evil, taxes aren't evil unless they're excessive, the gov't is in place to protect me, laws are in place to protect me, and I'm definitely concervative.

War isn't always evil, taxes aren't evil unless they're excessive, the gov't is in place to protect me, laws are in place to protect me, and I'm definitely concervative.
Funny I consider war to always be evil, any form of theft including taxes to be evi, . goverment's duty to protect me AND OTHERS FROM ME although that's far from what it does, laws to be arbitrary and capricous for the most part, and I'm definetely consevative.

So war is not always evil? I don't know about that, could you justify it? I accept that war may be less evil than the alternatives, but not evil? How can using force to impose your will on others not be evil?

Wars are bad, but not necessarily evil in nature. A war may be good in its cause. But a war is always bad, and it leads to a lot of evil.

It's a lot like lawyers. Lawyers are in general and by itself not evil in nature. But many lawyers do evil, and probably are evil.

The press on the other hand, the press is pure evil. But still unfortunately necessary. So I'd go with the press.

I think what the original post means is...what is your favourite evil that people justify....for example, my favourite is blowing up abortion clinics...."Killing all those people is a necessary evil because it save so many unborn live". Yeah, whatever you freaks.

Just wait till the day you wanna quit NS. That's the day you'll find the answers to those two questions.
You mean that is possible?

You mean that is possible?

Nope, hence the old saying "Only death can set you free from NS."

Wars are bad, but not necessarily evil in nature. A war may be good in its cause. But a war is always bad, and it leads to a lot of evil.
Sounds like a misapplication of using the ends to justify the means. Allow me to change the word "war" and insert "torture" for a nice looksee.
Torture is bad, but not necessarily evil in nature. Torture may be good in its cause. But torture is always bad, and it leads to a lot of evil.So for instance if I torture someone because I believe they can tell me how to cure cancer, then it is not evil. It is bad, but the cause is good, so it is not evil.

Nah, using good ends to justify an evil act does not change the evil nature of the act itself, all it means is that evil is being used for ultimately good means. This, come to think of it, is pretty much what is ment by "necessary evil".

My favorite necessary evil would be the Deep Space Nine episode.

Should I decide to "quit" NS, I wont have any problems doing so.

I have "quit" other, FAR more addictive sites than this, and I did it rather easily. Therefore I dont see how NS is evil, much less a necessary one.

The Christians?

That too. It ruined the the whole nation as a whole, not even talking about the empire aspects. It's the sugar in the gas tank. Number 1 was the barbarian anglo-saxons. You can see them today north of roma, in a city like milan.

Bosso is right! We should split Italia north of Roma. Napoleon was born on italian soil, but that soil was sold to the dirty french. Their language insults my ancestry latin!

That too. It ruined the the whole nation as a whole, not even talking about the empire aspects. It's the sugar in the gas tank. Number 1 was the barbarian anglo-saxons. You can see them today north of roma, in a city like milan.

Bosso is right! We should split Italia north of Roma. Napoleon was born on italian soil, but that soil was sold to the dirty french. Their language insults my ancestry latin!
You an American? Just wondering...
Cuz if you are, yeah, Christians really wrecked the place. I mean, those pilgrims and their wanting religious freedom was just so horrible! I mean, look what it did for America!
If you're not American, ignore what I just said.

Funny I consider war to always be evil, any form of theft including taxes to be evi, . goverment's duty to protect me AND OTHERS FROM ME although that's far from what it does, laws to be arbitrary and capricous for the most part, and I'm definetely consevative.

So war is not always evil? I don't know about that, could you justify it? I accept that war may be less evil than the alternatives, but not evil? How can using force to impose your will on others not be evil?

Well, let's see...there was the Revolutionary War, which created the first working democracy since ancient Greece. The Civil War which ended slavery in America. WWII, which stopped a madman from ruling the Earth and destroying an entire race.
Would you say those are evil?

Like the one guy said, they're not good, but they're certainly not evil.

Well, let's see...there was the Revolutionary War, which created the first working democracy since ancient Greece. The Civil War which ended slavery in America. WWII, which stopped a madman from ruling the Earth and destroying an entire race.
Would you say those are evil?

Like the one guy said, they're not good, but they're certainly not evil.

False. The Great Romans conquered greece. I wonder how that "democracy" did so well afterall.

Cell phones, reality TV, and the internet

Well, let's see...there was the Revolutionary War, which created the first working democracy since ancient Greece. The Civil War which ended slavery in America. WWII, which stopped a madman from ruling the Earth and destroying an entire race.
Would you say those are evil?

Like the one guy said, they're not good, but they're certainly not evil.
What you are saying is that the measure of evil has nothing to do with the act, only the results.

So what happens if we measure evil by the nature of the results instead of the nature of the acts? We can now divide acts into evil acts, those which have evil results and not-evil acts, those which have not-evil results.

But now that we have this division we must define a "necessary evil". So what acts with evil results do are necessary? None.

So you believe that there is no such thing as a necessary evil, that's a valid argument. But what are you doing posting on a thread about your favorite necessary evil if you don't believe in necessary evils? And why didn't you make it clear from the begining that you don't believe in necessary evils?

Stem cell research and NASA. The research is for a good cause, but with hard sacrifice (little maybe-humans). NASA does good for our country, but discourages private venture into space, which must change.

What you are saying is that the measure of evil has nothing to do with the act, only the results.

So what happens if we measure evil by the nature of the results instead of the nature of the acts? We can now divide acts into evil acts, those which have evil results and not-evil acts, those which have not-evil results.

But now that we have this division we must define a "necessary evil". So what acts with evil results do are necessary? None.

So you believe that there is no such thing as a necessary evil, that's a valid argument. But what are you doing posting on a thread about your favorite necessary evil if you don't believe in necessary evils? And why didn't you make it clear from the begining that you don't believe in necessary evils?
I did. Read my first post on the thread.
And no, you cannot define an action by its end results. Correction, there are a precious few things that you can, war being one of them. But, how can a war be evil if it's a war to stop evil and spread good? Or how is war evil if HE attacked ME. That's self defense.

Again, war is not good. But, it's not evil.

Money :D

My favorite necessary evil?

Easy ... playing NationStates.

Oh ... and gallons upon gallons of Irish Whiskey.


:D

I did. Read my first post on the thread.
And no, you cannot define an action by its end results. Correction, there are a precious few things that you can, war being one of them. But, how can a war be evil if it's a war to stop evil and spread good? Or how is war evil if HE attacked ME. That's self defense.

Again, war is not good. But, it's not evil.I took the emphasis on your first post to be the same as mine, an objection to the favorite part.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but instead of judging an action's evilness by the "results", you are instead judging an action's evilness by the "intent" of the actor. For an example, slicing open someone's belly with the intent of terminating their life so you could steal their money and rape thier son would be evil while slicing open someone's belly with the intent of removing the malignant tumour in thier intenstines so that their life would not terminate would not be evil. It is a slightly different argument, intent instead of results, in this argument there are no evil actions, only evil actors.

To extend this we could create a category of "presumtively evil actions", actions for which the intent is so overwhelmingly likely to be evil that it's not worthwhile to consider the special cases where the intent is not evil. That's because, well let's face it, most of the times when someone's belly is sliced open the actor's intent can only be considered evil.