Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ever heard the rationalisation that says that "it was a necessary evil". my question is this then:is evil necessary for good and on that note are the concept of "good" and "evil" based on view point?
    for example someone of "good" might say that hitter killed millions of people and there for that was bad/evil.
    however someone else might say that Because he did what he did we learned to embrace each either and to understand other cultures point of view. ergo he was a necessary evil.
    thought?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    with light there is always shadow. some people choose to live in the shadow.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    with light there is always shadow. some people choose to live in the shadow.
    TSR won't let me rep but would +1
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Silver_Spider23)
    ever heard the rationalisation that says that "it was a necessary evil". my question is this then:is evil necessary for good and on that note are the concept of "good" and "evil" based on view point?
    for example someone of "good" might say that hitter killed millions of people and there for that was bad/evil.
    however someone else might say that Because he did what he did we learned to embrace each either and to understand other cultures point of view. ergo he was a necessary evil.
    thought?
    the first example is not what you think it is.
    "It was a necessary evil" is a justification to an action, not explaining why evil exists.

    By view point do you mean perspective? I'd say no, the concept of good and evil would not be based on view point as these things are not subjective. the reason one may want to do evil or any action is based on view point however. In which exists an incorrect ideal.

    the concept of "Because he did what he did we learned to embrace each either and to understand other cultures point of view" - this derives from the concept that we can find good in any act of evil or some good can come from such acts. This is not to say that once an evil act is accomplished we will be rewarded for that act by some good coming from it. However, a new situation may exist that could not have existed before - and this new situation may be good.

    For the greatest mind f*** on this concept, I would suggest watching "The Lovely Bones" I say that the way I do because the movie (fictional) screwed with my emotions but it does touch on this concept. Can a good thing exist after a bad thing happens? Also, Mark Walberg is not his normal "strong guy" character which is - wow. (unrelated I guess)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Silver_Spider23)
    ever heard the rationalisation that says that "it was a necessary evil". my question is this then:is evil necessary for good and on that note are the concept of "good" and "evil" based on view point?
    for example someone of "good" might say that hitter killed millions of people and there for that was bad/evil.
    however someone else might say that Because he did what he did we learned to embrace each either and to understand other cultures point of view. ergo he was a necessary evil.
    thought?
    you cannot use evil to do good.
    there is no such thing as a 'necessary' evil.
    evil/good is not really a moral issue, so its not a question of viewpoint.
    Hitler was a evil scum-bag who deserves to rot in hell for eternity for what he did.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Silver_Spider23)
    ever heard the rationalisation that says that "it was a necessary evil". my question is this then:is evil necessary for good and on that note are the concept of "good" and "evil" based on view point?
    for example someone of "good" might say that hitter killed millions of people and there for that was bad/evil.
    however someone else might say that Because he did what he did we learned to embrace each either and to understand other cultures point of view. ergo he was a necessary evil.
    thought?
    lol we must be living in alternate universes, because this has yet to happen in the world I live in.

    There's no such thing as a "necessary good", so stands to reason there's no such thing as a "necessary evil" either.,
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MAINE.)
    lol we must be living in alternate universes, because this has yet to happen in the world I live in.

    There's no such thing as a "necessary good", so stands to reason there's no such thing as a "necessary evil" either.,
    That's a good point haha.

    To kill this thread, rather simply the "necessary" in the idiom "necessary evil" is not saying that that evil had to exist no matter what, just like matter must exist. All it means is that the "evil" act had to exist for a specific "good" outcome to come about.

    That's literally it. Does that justify the evil act? Well that depends entirely on the situation in question. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

    I see no reason to believe though that we could not have a world which lacked evil and possessed good. Nowhere in any conventional definition of good is the presence of evil necessary to maintain the good. That would seem quite a sadistic and backwards good, no?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I am not sure whether or not evil is really necessary - in the general scheme of things or otherwise. However, it is possible that those two (the good and the evil) somehow maintain some sort of a natural balance in the world, a natural order of things .. if you like. I mean it could be a natural way of things for there to be those two opposite "forces" and co-existing with each other so to speak. And could be unnatural if there was just one but not the other. But ...
    What is "good" and what is "evil" anyway ? ..
    I think these are strictly subjective concepts. Or emotional concepts even.
    I think they were probably invented or defined by the human mind or the brain. They were its product.
    And it is possible that the Only place for these two concepts is in the mind, in the thoughts. Maybe not only those of humans, but any possible thinking beings you could imagine. No less .. but not more either. Otherwise ...
    I often thought about this one - suppose there is no human brain in the universe at all (or no brains of the living things or beings or thinking creatures at all), so no consciousness, no thoughts etc.
    Then what is "good" and what is "evil" ? .. And how do they objectively matter in the real material world, in the universe ? What difference do they make ? Or in which sphere of the existence ? How do you then define or detect them, what role do they play ? (I suspect the real objective answer to these questions could actually be "None", "irrelevant", not even "insignificant").
    Am I thinking like a machine? Quite possibly. But maybe that is the key !
    Yes, maybe one could argue that it was the advanced power of the thinking brain or the human mind to define and conceptualize and give "birth" to these two concepts, the "good" and the "evil", to recognize them sort of, to sense them. The thinking mind which more generally gave rise to the concept of "morality" and such. But please do not forget that human beings (and probably any mind) are emotional and probably never 100 % objective. Therefore, an error might be in built in their nature and their perception of reality etc.
    But what do those two concepts - the "good" and the "evil" actually matter ? Outside our conventional values and understanding but on a higher level, in the material world and order of things ? What is their importance ? Apart from a small "theory" or ideas in my first paragraph, I am not sure at all ...
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Evil is necessary to show the normal people that they are stupid
    Spoiler:
    Show
    WE ARE THE INTELLIGENTSIA!
    WE SUPPORT THE ILLUMINATI!
    WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD AND MAKE EVERYONE CLEVER!
    THEN WE TAKE OVER THE UNIVERSE!
    AND CALL IT THE ILLUMIVERSE!
    FOR THAT IS WHAT IT IS!
    YOUR PUNY HUMAN RACE IS DOOMED!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No. Of course not.

    "The light cannot exist without the darkness" is just wrong. Total thermonuclear destruction of Earth. That sounds like darkness to me. And yet we still have light.

    But even if I'm wrong about that, still, evil is not "necessary". It exists no matter what because of the comparison phenomena that prevents perfection, but it is not "necessary".

    So the comparison phenomena is the fact that even if you get rid of all the evil, all the "darkness" in the world, there will still be "evil" because evil is subjective.

    For example, if we somehow got rid of all the dictators, then all of the corrupt politicians, then all of the mean politicians, we would start to see mediocre politicians as the scum of the Earth. Evil is by no means "necessary", but if we want people to be judged fairly by one standard, we need it. Racism was not considered "evil" by most people only 200 years ago.

    So it's good that we are slowly eliminating evil, but by destroying all evil, we will have a crisis of good. People will have to do more good more often than ever before, thus only raising the standards for the next generation. It's a horrible Catch-22: If you do not erase evil, it remains, but if you do, it becomes harder to be good. It's like inflation, only more terrifying.

    No, evil is not necessary, but we're a helluva lot better with it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Silver_Spider23)
    ever heard the rationalisation that says that "it was a necessary evil". my question is this then:is evil necessary for good and on that note are the concept of "good" and "evil" based on view point?
    for example someone of "good" might say that hitter killed millions of people and there for that was bad/evil.
    however someone else might say that Because he did what he did we learned to embrace each either and to understand other cultures point of view. ergo he was a necessary evil.
    thought?
    That presupposes a) that you even believe in goof and evil in the first place; b) and what you define as good as evil.

    Like you could argue Hitler was actually one of the most good people in history, if you define good as acting in a means to increase one's power - and why would you not call this good?...this is something that we all do, and that every living being does.

    As far as social good and evil goes, what's good and evil is just based on what the dominant powers say is good and evil, thus it seems like there's no objective good and evil, so good and evil themselves are meaningless concepts.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Once the human race emerged, evil emerged. Once evil emerged, a desire to fight it emerged and therefore good emerged. So, good emerged only after evil emerged.
    In other words, there is evil - there is good, there is no evil - there is no good.
    What is Christ? He is embodied goodness, designed to destroy evil on the earth. Two thousand years he is present among the people as an idea - is fighting against evil. Two thousand years the name of Christ is used to destroy evil on the earth, but the end of this war is not visible..

    Possible explanation of a Christian priest.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    There was an episode of Star Trek once that I think explored this really well. Captain Kirk gets divided into an evil side and a good side due to a transporter accident. The more time passes, the less able the good Kirk is to command or make hard decisions. He basically becomes so weak and compassionate that he is unable to act as a leader. The evil Kirk, on the other hand, loses all inhibitions and tries to act without regard for the lives of others. He slowly becomes a tyrant with no respect for the rules that alienates his allies and also gets relieved of command.

    The show is called "The Enemy Within". It's worth looking at this while contemplating politics and philosophy, and trying to see how a good idea taken to extremes can become bad, regardless of the intentions behind something.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt1TKghjtOw
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    The presence of evil in the world tricks a lot of people into thinking they need to do evil things to combat it, but it isn't necessary to do so and it's hardly ever productive. There are ways of combating evil that don't do anyone any harm.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Without evil philosophy is complete rubbish, with it it is possible rubbish.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    It is evil is necessary. How would you define good if there is no evil to compare it to? How could you determine the levels of bad, if there is no evil.

    There is not light, without darkness.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Once the human race emerged, evil emerged. Once evil emerged, a desire to fight it emerged and therefore good emerged. So, good emerged only after evil emerged.
    In other words, there is evil - there is good, there is no evil - there is no good.
    What is Christ? He is embodied goodness, designed to destroy evil on the earth. Two thousand years he is present among the people as an idea - is fighting against evil. Two thousand years the name of Christ is used to destroy evil on the earth, but the end of this war is not visible..

    Possible explanation of a Christian priest.
    Can you actually give any evidence for this? It is a massive claim considering we have no idea what constitutes human, it also implies that prehuman animals had no evil/good. This whole post seems to suggest a creationist explanation for life.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trill)
    It is evil is necessary. How would you define good if there is no evil to compare it to? How could you determine the levels of bad, if there is no evil.

    There is not light, without darkness.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What utter rubbish. Have you ever heard of infrared, xrays etc. Your senses are not what determines reality.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trill)
    It is evil is necessary. How would you define good if there is no evil to compare it to? How could you determine the levels of bad, if there is no evil.

    There is not light, without darkness.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Things can be defined against instances of lesser magnitude, just as well as their absence and opposite.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wow that is a dodgy as **** argument about hitler... Philosophical or not...
    And no I don't agree with the sentiment, there are animals that love eachother and live well together who obviously have no idea about the holocaust or hitler.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.