Good and Evil

[henry quirk]

It might help if we think of pleasure and pain as examples of good and evil. There is a spectrum that starts from extreme pleasure, less pleasure, ..., to neutral and then little pain, more pain, ... extreme pain.

I don't think that spectrum works either. In my 57 years I've never had a neutral physical moment. I feel good or I feel bad.

In the same way: my motives and intent are good or bad, the actions that follow are good or bad.

I can't see the gray.

So you have never felt meh?

I strive for meh, but meh is not quite the same as neutral, as I reckon it.

Neutral is gray, meh is more disinterested black or white. Neutral is a tree, meh is me notin' the tree and not givin' a damn that it's bein' defaced by hoodlums. Meh is a banal good or a banal evil.

[Immanuel Can]

It's Newspeak.

Well, right.

Newspeak is good called evil, and evil called good.

But the attitude is actually really old, like "Fair is foul, and foul is fair." (The witches, in Macbeth).

"Wokedness" is that.

[henry quirk]

It's Newspeak.

Well, right.

Newspeak is good called evil, and evil called good.

But the attitude is actually really old, like "Fair is foul, and foul is fair." (The witches, in Macbeth).

"Wokedness" is that.

yep

[bahman]

I don't think that spectrum works either. In my 57 years I've never had a neutral physical moment. I feel good or I feel bad.

In the same way: my motives and intent are good or bad, the actions that follow are good or bad.

I can't see the gray.

So you have never felt meh?

I strive for meh, but meh is not quite the same as neutral, as I reckon it.

Neutral is gray, meh is more disinterested black or white. Neutral is a tree, meh is me notin' the tree and not givin' a damn that it's bein' defaced by hoodlums. Meh is a banal good or a banal evil.

Ok, so that is what you mean with meh. It is strange to me though that you cannot feel neutral because most of the time I feel neutral, no pleasure or pain.

[henry quirk]

So you have never felt meh?

I strive for meh, but meh is not quite the same as neutral, as I reckon it.

Neutral is gray, meh is more disinterested black or white. Neutral is a tree, meh is me notin' the tree and not givin' a damn that it's bein' defaced by hoodlums. Meh is a banal good or a banal evil.

Ok, so that is what you mean with meh. It is strange to me though that you cannot feel neutral because most of the time I feel neutral, no pleasure or pain.

mebbe you're anhedonic

[Eodnhoj7]

All being is good, evil is a lesser grade of good as a deficiency of good.

Discuss.

Evil is the opposite of good and not the deficiency of good. Why? Because there is a neutral value that resides between good and evil.

The neutral value between good and evil is a mix of good and evil, where certain facets of being are acting according to the highest good and other facets are not acting in such a manner.

[Immanuel Can]

The neutral value between good and evil is a mix of good and evil, where certain facets of being are acting according to the highest good and other facets are not acting in such a manner.

That's like saying, "The neutral point between safe beverages and poisoned beverages is when only half the beverage is poisoned."

[bahman]

All being is good, evil is a lesser grade of good as a deficiency of good.

Discuss.

Evil is the opposite of good and not the deficiency of good. Why? Because there is a neutral value that resides between good and evil.

The neutral value between good and evil is a mix of good and evil, where certain facets of being are acting according to the highest good and other facets are not acting in such a manner.

There is no value as mix of good and evil.

[Eodnhoj7]

The neutral value between good and evil is a mix of good and evil, where certain facets of being are acting according to the highest good and other facets are not acting in such a manner.

That's like saying, "The neutral point between safe beverages and poisoned beverages is when only half the beverage is poisoned."

The neutral point is not-not poisoned. The drink would have enough poison within it that the poison is not effective.

[Eodnhoj7]

Evil is the opposite of good and not the deficiency of good. Why? Because there is a neutral value that resides between good and evil.

The neutral value between good and evil is a mix of good and evil, where certain facets of being are acting according to the highest good and other facets are not acting in such a manner.

There is no value as mix of good and evil.

Neutral is both good and evil, like grey is black and white.

[Immanuel Can]

The neutral point is not-not poisoned. The drink would have enough poison within it that the poison is not effective.

Well, that's your assumption. But there are plenty of instances in which the introduction of one flaw destroys the value of the whole.

Think of your car windshield. A small stone chip destroys not only the visual clarity of the windshield, but also compromises its integrity in an accident, causing unnecessary injury. That's why windshields are only any good if they are not "eviled" by a stone.

Or again, it will do no good if you're in court for murder to plead that on many other occasions you could have murdered someone but did not. That one murder is enough to give you a record and put you in jail. It's not a 50-50 deal.

Evil ruins things...often completely...like poison ruins a beverage.

[Eodnhoj7]

The neutral point is not-not poisoned. The drink would have enough poison within it that the poison is not effective.

Well, that's your assumption. But there are plenty of instances in which the introduction of one flaw destroys the value of the whole.

Think of your car windshield. A small stone chip destroys not only the visual clarity of the windshield, but also compromises its integrity in an accident, causing unnecessary injury. That's why windshields are only any good if they are not "eviled" by a stone.

But there is still visual clarity, a windshield with a chip in it can still be used regardless of its deficiency. The windshield is lacking in integrity but portions of it are still clear.

Or again, it will do no good if you're in court for murder to plead that on many other occasions you could have murdered someone but did not. That one murder is enough to give you a record and put you in jail. It's not a 50-50 deal.

Evil ruins things...often completely...like poison ruins a beverage.

Evil does ruin everything, yet that does not negate the potential for good action.

[Immanuel Can]

But there is still visual clarity, a windshield with a chip in it can still be used regardless of its deficiency. The windshield is lacking in integrity but portions of it are still clear.

IIIII'm gonna say you're mistaking an analogy for the reality itself.

Can't help you there.

[bahman]

The neutral value between good and evil is a mix of good and evil, where certain facets of being are acting according to the highest good and other facets are not acting in such a manner.

There is no value as mix of good and evil.

Neutral is both good and evil, like grey is black and white.

Nah, neutral is a value between good and evil. Colors are not good or evil.

[Eodnhoj7]

But there is still visual clarity, a windshield with a chip in it can still be used regardless of its deficiency. The windshield is lacking in integrity but portions of it are still clear.

IIIII'm gonna say you're mistaking an analogy for the reality itself.

Can't help you there.

But a windshield can be damaged and still useful.