Philosophy Now Forum

Is it better to suffer evil (wrong) or to do evil (wrong)?

"Better" on which scale of goodness?
From which perspective?
Insufficient data; unspecified parameters.
Other than that, it's a valid question. So maybe you can re-present it in a concrete example.

Skip wrote:"Better" on which scale of goodness?
From which perspective?
Insufficient data; unspecified parameters.
Other than that, it's a valid question. So maybe you can re-present it in a concrete example.

The question, as stated, has been authoritatively answered from ancient times.

Then why ask it again in modern times?

Neither. It's better to do good.

As it says in Revelation 17:17, "For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled." It is our institutions and false prophets that prevent God's will from reaching our minds.

a good man can be happy on a rack, providing he is very good, and the rack is not so good

tbieter wrote:Is it better to suffer evil (wrong) or to do evil (wrong)?

No brainer. Better to put up with the persecution of evils and be strong than to create more evil in this world.

Arising_uk wrote:Neither. It's better to do good.

I agree. Arising has nailed it.

Of course, I also agree with WanderingLands - IF I had to make such a choice as in the question of the o.p.

Yet "suffer" has two meanings; it could mean endure, or it could mean: needlessly hurting yourself over a perceived grievance when you could be serene instead.

Until we have an ethical world, we are all enduring evil, but not necessarily tolerating it. There are many on the internet, such as Jim Hightower; or the MoveToAmend.org folks; who do not stand by and just tolerate it. They are active. They do something to solve problems !!!
http://www.jimhightower.com/

https://movetoamend.org/

An eye for an eye, makes the world blind!

OK, well predictably the argument is highly answered by most as "suffer evil" and not "do evil" - I might suggest that though given a simple theoretical decision it's easy to say "suffer' and not "do". I think however that a large portion of all our individual actions across society however indicate we largely do the opposite in practice and choose "do evil" rather than to suffer it. To skew it into the way we organize our society, think of this, although many would argue me the point: A capitalist system is one based on competition between it's components and individuals - given that our personal and societal success depends on succeeding at the expense of others....we actually end up in a world where most, removed from the full responsibility of the question do that evil for their perceived survival. Morally it becomes muddied because though we choose ourselves before others - which I feel is evil - but the system both highly encourages our selfish prioritization and value system and provides moral cover, shown in that most would say it is not.

lol bob, I suppose you managed to say the same thing I did in one sentence?

EagerForTruth wrote:lol bob, I suppose you managed to say the same thing I did in one sentence?

"given that our personal and societal success depends on succeeding at the expense of others..."

I hope you're not referring to the above sentence, which is certainly nothing I, Bob the Baptist, would ever suggest.

I was unaware you're a Baptist....but either way in the reference you made you think it's factors beyond people's control that compromise their ability to choose to "suffer evil" as a approach to living?

EagerForTruth wrote:I was unaware you're a Baptist....but either way in the reference you made you think it's factors beyond people's control that compromise their ability to choose to "suffer evil" as a approach to living?

I guess never-forget-a-grudge AMod deleted my post again, but the Baptist reference refers to a paper I wrote, but cannot mention for fear of being deleted again. That paper talks about one's ability being compromised in avoiding evil rather than suffering it.