[hole in the sky]

alright sherdog, prepare to get learned by a white belt!


i'm sure that good came first.

nobody commits an evil act for the sake of 'evil' or pain. everything done in the name of 'evil' has actually been done in the name of good. evil is just a twisted way of achieving it.

for instance;

hitler wanted the jews destroyed (evil) for the benefit of germany. (good)

islamic terrorists destroyed the towers (evil) for the benefit of their religion. (good)

pretty much any genocide you can think of (evil) is done for the advancement of either another race, or economical or political gains (good)

no matter what evil act you can think of, the motive instigating it is always pleasure. (good) *


even if good without evil is nameless and possibly synonomous with 'state of being' it is still quite possible to compare what was s.o.b. then to evil in the present and come to the conclusion it was in fact good.

for example: (again)

imagine a time before evil exists. a mother nurturing her child wouldn't be considered good, just the 'state of being' since there is no evil to compare it to. say this little utopia goes on for many years where people all over do 'normal' things like help others, study hard for their futures, walk grandmothers across streets. etc.

then all of a sudden, a man murders a baby and eveything can be put in perspective of what is good and evil.

isn't it entirely possible to look back before this horrendous murder and see that 'good' did in fact precede evil? it seems like people put too much emphasis on the definitions then the acts themselves.

of course, this brings up another hefty debate of what good and evil actually are, but lets keep it simple here...

in short, i do believe that good and evil are intertwined, but i don't agree that they begin intertwined; i think the contamination of 'evil' comes later, after the initial foundation of 'good'.















*the reason i point out motives/intentions is to make aware of the fact that evil spawns from good, even if the 'good' in question is a simple ideology.

it is of course very difficult to argue 'intentions' and i realize that. (was hitler's mother evil for caring for her child at a young age instead of throwing him in a dumpster? is a certain 16 year old girl living today the greatest hero we've never known for destroying a future genocidal maniac in an abortion clinic?)

going down this pathway of argument, it may be impossible to know what is good or evil in the long run at all. this may be the case. it may also be the case that there is no universal definition of good and evil, and beliefs of each may fluctuate drastically from across the globe. i agree with this.



i don't really think this hurts my argument as much as you might think when you consider that 'good' at its bare fundamentals (or how it applies to people) can be described as pleasure.

the boy plays a good piano; therefore he is pleasurable to listen to.



sally is good at making cheeseburgers; therefore they are pleasurable to eat.



milton enjoys killing people; it gives him pleasure to take lives.



regardless of any action, the root of all of this calamity is what's pleasurable (good) for us, the individual. this makes perfect sense scientifically because we as a species seek pleasure; it's hardwired in our brains to enjoy things that are good for us and to avoid things that are not. it's important to point out that without this innate knowledge of what's good, there would have been little hope for us to survive past the remedial stages of evolution. (why would mankind avoid dangers if there was no incentive to do so?)














also,

don't take the utopia thing too literally, i was using that as a way to illustrate my argument of perspective. my point is, good acts commited before acts of evil could still be considered good once we have evil to compare it to.

[Ian Coe]

An evil act is based on someones interpretation of evil


One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist

Same thing, different perspective

[Toda Hiro-matsu]

WTF. There's no such thing. Our actions are based on millions of years of evolutionary pressure (actually billions). You should look into evolutionary psychology.

[I Shoot Doubles]

The chicken came first, duh.

[Blast D]

What kind of question is that? it doesnt matter at all.

[Blast D]

Originally Posted by Toda Hiro-matsu

WTF. There's no such thing. Our actions are based on millions of years of evolutionary pressure (actually billions). You should look into evolutionary psychology.

my thoughts exactly.

[Jerome_1]

Good came first, because God is the personification of good.

Evil is the absence of good, just as cold is the absence of heat.

[kiridoku]

Originally Posted by Jerome_1

Good came first, because God is the personification of good.

Evil is the absence of good, just as cold is the absence of heat.

I like it, I like it.

[JSN]

Originally Posted by I Shoot Doubles

The chicken came first, duh.

dino's done layeded eggies wellgood before chickens.

[Kosh]

Originally Posted by I Shoot Doubles

The chicken came first, duh.

It's a cicle. Cicles have no beginning nor end...