Character Theory 'Good' characters, 'Evil' characters: what do labels mean to you?

[Communist]

Communist
@thoughtless

Weirdly enough, those points seem pretty linked (aside from the whole inspiration thing, of course). It's true. You can't tell the difference between good and evil unless you've got some godly omniscient perspective.

Picture that classroom scenario where the professor holds up a black book in front of the class and says 'this book is red'. The class argues, because everything they see points to that statement being wrong. But if you would get up and look at the book from the prof's perspective, they would see that the back cover is red.

(Thanks to the internet for that analogy.)

Things appear different when you look through a new pair of eyes. Maybe as we are, we're unfit to label 'good' and 'evil' actions.

But what happens when we do know everything?

For example, let's make up a scenario. Before you stand two people: a young boy and his mother, both starving. You can choose to feed one but not the other.

Which one do you feed? Which is the 'right' choice? In theory you could be lawful and split the morsel between them. They would eat in equal amounts but both of them would still die. Hmm. Good or evil? Hard to say. Or you could feed the child and leave him motherless; another cruel fate, but potentially for the greater good. It's the same vice versa.

Now imagine that you had enough food to save both of them. You could give both portions to one person to rid them of their famine forever, and leave the other to die. At the moment, starving one of them seems evil, right? But what if the mother is abusive? You are condemning the child to a painful, hungry life with that person by saving the both of them. What would you call that? Is that right? Would it make a character virtuous to sacrifice someone's happiness for the sake of equality?

I'd give food to the child since he could continue his family's lineage if he lived on. Just pointing that out from a logical and not morally correct view.

Anyways, what you said is correct. Things seem different to certain people. Everyone has another way of thinking, we're not clones or robots. But one thing is for sure, all of us have one point in common.

If we see someone doing something morally incorrect then, in the eyes of a 'sane' person who has no knowledge of the villain's backstory, then we consider them evil.

If we see someone do something "heroic", then, in our eyes, they're an hero.

 

[Windsock]

I'd eat all the food, in that scenario.

 

[Noon]

Alright, I know this goes against everything we've said in the discussion but Windsock ... You're the true evil. And also a terrible influence, because now that you've put that idea in my mind, I'd likely do the same.

Communist - ooh, you know what? This has given me another idea. What if someone was truly omniscient? They knew all of the secrets, every point from every possible perspective. That person could choose to do or not do the most logical thing in that situation. Does logic equal good? And are they chaotic and/or evil for going against it?

 

[Windsock]

I am his most evilness, yes.

 

[Noon]

[High-pitched screeching]

 

[Communist]

Alright, I know this goes against everything we've said in the discussion but Windsock ... You're the true evil. And also a terrible influence, because now that you've put that idea in my mind, I'd likely do the same.

Communist - ooh, you know what? This has given me another idea. What if someone was truly omniscient? They knew all of the secrets, every point from every possible perspective. That person could choose to do or not do the most logical thing in that situation. Does logic equal good? And are they chaotic and/or evil for going against it?

I believe that following one's logic means that you believe yourself to be good. So, if that said person does everything in a logical way then he considers himself to be "good" even though in the eyes of other people he would probably be called Satan's reincarnation.

 

[Noon]

Damn it, we've reached a stalemate again!

Fair enough. Good point. But I guess this means I've got to rectify my own scenario.

Instead of just 'logical', I change this to mean 'promoting the least suffering and sacrifice out of all available solutions'. Does that work better?

 

[Communist]

Damn it, we've reached a stalemate again!

Fair enough. Good point. But I guess this means I've got to rectify my own scenario.

Instead of just 'logical', I change this to mean 'promoting the least suffering and sacrifice out of all available solutions'. Does that work better?

In that case, I believe they would be neutral then. Walking on a balance between "good" and "evil".

 

[Noon]

In that case, I believe they would be neutral then. Walking on a balance between "good" and "evil".

Ah... Yeah, of course. Without balance, relative ideas are nothing. Pursuing logic without good or bad intention is meaningless.

Damn...

You know, I never expected the discussion to get this deep when I posted the thread. This is like shower thoughts. Or 2am thoughts. Or thoughts you have when you take a 2am shower.

 

[Communist]

Ah... Yeah, of course. Without balance, relative ideas are nothing. Pursuing logic without good or bad intention is meaningless.

Damn...

You know, I never expected the discussion to get this deep when I posted the thread. This is like shower thoughts. Or 2am thoughts. Or thoughts you have when you take a 2am shower.

Or thoughts that pop-up into your head when you're bored.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Communist
@thoughtless

Weirdly enough, those points seem pretty linked (aside from the whole inspiration thing, of course). It's true. You can't tell the difference between good and evil unless you've got some godly omniscient perspective.

Picture that classroom scenario where the professor holds up a black book in front of the class and says 'this book is red'. The class argues, because everything they see points to that statement being wrong. But if you would get up and look at the book from the prof's perspective, they would see that the back cover is red.

(Thanks to the internet for that analogy.)

Things appear different when you look through a new pair of eyes. Maybe as we are, we're unfit to label 'good' and 'evil' actions.

But what happens when we do know everything?

For example, let's make up a scenario. Before you stand two people: a young boy and his mother, both starving. You can choose to feed one but not the other.

Which one do you feed? Which is the 'right' choice? In theory you could be lawful and split the morsel between them. They would eat in equal amounts but both of them would still die. Hmm. Good or evil? Hard to say. Or you could feed the child and leave him motherless; another cruel fate, but potentially for the greater good. It's the same vice versa.

Now imagine that you had enough food to save both of them. You could give both portions to one person to rid them of their famine forever, and leave the other to die. At the moment, starving one of them seems evil, right? But what if the mother is abusive? You are condemning the child to a painful, hungry life with that person by saving the both of them. What would you call that? Is that right? Would it make a character virtuous to sacrifice someone's happiness for the sake of equality?

If this is a scenario in which they have no food, and there is no food in the world but that morsel of food, and you split it between the son and the mother, knowing full well it would cause them both to perish anyways, then that wouldn't be good. You haven't actually helped them in any way. If this is real life, and you already have the ability to give some food, and you don't go the extra mile and give them enough food, then that's edging onto evil.
If you only give one enough food not to starve, then even though you have saved one, you've condemned the other. And even if you save the son, if you don't provide a way to consistently give him food, then he'll starve either way in the end.
Every action has a tinge of bad in it. It doesn't matter how good the action is, usually, it just means the tinge of bad is either smaller or less noticeable. If it's a terrible one, then the tinge is large enough to overwhelm the good.

 

[Noon]

If this is a scenario in which they have no food, and there is no food in the world but that morsel of food, and you split it between the son and the mother, knowing full well it would cause them both to perish anyways, then that wouldn't be good. You haven't actually helped them in any way. If this is real life, and you already have the ability to give some food, and you don't go the extra mile and give them enough food, then that's edging onto evil.
If you only give one enough food not to starve, then even though you have saved one, you've condemned the other. And even if you save the son, if you don't provide a way to consistently give him food, then he'll starve either way in the end.
Every action has a tinge of bad in it. It doesn't matter how good the action is, usually, it just means the tinge of bad is either smaller or less noticeable. If it's a terrible one, then the tinge is large enough to overwhelm the good.

This. This is what I mean and it's exactly the answer I was looking for. Sometimes, there isn't a right choice. You can do what you want in that situation - refuse to favour one life over another and let them die, save one, keep the food to yourself for fear of involvement... Every option is logically equal, but no matter what you do there will be conflict. People will have different views. Some will tell you to 'save the children' whereas others will want to keep a mature, functional adult alive. Some people think it's cruel to make a choice. You'll always get argued at.

 

[Tedronai]

I think we can agree good and evil are largely meaningless, usually only making sense in comparison to the other.

To make a sweeping statement I think generally we define good as that which aligns with our own preferences and opinions,and bad as that which opposes those ideals.

We then identify others as good or bad depending on how closely they confirm to our own beliefs. If enough people believe something good (or bad), in that society it becomes the norm.

However views change with time and information. When enough people change their views the whole dynamic changes. This has been evidenced through history in the form of overthrowing of once popular leaderships, changing laws, even in the form of current political correctness. Just watch a TV show from the 70s; there are so many comments/jokes that would never make it to air these days.

Therefore good characters are those we strongly relate to, and bad those who have beliefs opposite to our own. Here's the rub though, by the same logic these 'villains' likely see themselves in the role of the hero and their counter parts as the villains.

If attitudes change with time, all that the villain has to do is win. Once enough time has passed and those who oppose their ideals have been dealt with, then all that remains are those who believed the one time villain to be good.

 

[Communist]

If this is a scenario in which they have no food, and there is no food in the world but that morsel of food, and you split it between the son and the mother, knowing full well it would cause them both to perish anyways, then that wouldn't be good. You haven't actually helped them in any way. If this is real life, and you already have the ability to give some food, and you don't go the extra mile and give them enough food, then that's edging onto evil.
If you only give one enough food not to starve, then even though you have saved one, you've condemned the other. And even if you save the son, if you don't provide a way to consistently give him food, then he'll starve either way in the end.
Every action has a tinge of bad in it. It doesn't matter how good the action is, usually, it just means the tinge of bad is either smaller or less noticeable. If it's a terrible one, then the tinge is large enough to overwhelm the good.

That's one hell of a confusing scenario.

 

[The One Called X]

I... kinda feel like everyone's overcomplicating this a bit? I mean, yes, there are always shades of gray. Sometimes situations force you to make hard decisions. But some actions are just unjustifiable. If you cause suffering because you enjoy it, or because it's the easiest way for you to get something you want, or willingly sacrifice others' basic wellbeing for your own comfort and pleasure... that's just evil. There's no way to justify that. It's just objectively bad and wrong. The person doing it will insist otherwise, but they often have a very skewed worldview. True evil is just cruelty for cruelty's sake.

 

[Hall Kervean]

I... kinda feel like everyone's overcomplicating this a bit? I mean, yes, there are always shades of gray. Sometimes situations force you to make hard decisions. But some actions are just unjustifiable. If you cause suffering because you enjoy it, or because it's the easiest way for you to get something you want, or willingly sacrifice others' basic wellbeing for your own comfort and pleasure... that's just evil. There's no way to justify that. It's just objectively bad and wrong. The person doing it will insist otherwise, but they often have a very skewed worldview. True evil is just cruelty for cruelty's sake.

If one causes suffering because they enjoy it, it could be justified in the fact that it may be the only thing keeping them sane. If it weren't for that, they could well snap and do even worse things. Sure, it's bad, but that would justify it a little.
If it's because it's the easiest way to get what they want, it could be because what they want is what everyone wants. If they're causing suffering on a mass murderer that's part of a whole group of mass murderers because they need to know where the others are, that would be the quickest way and possibly save the most lives.
The last is true. Sacrificing others' basic wellbeing for nothing but temporary personal gain is wrong and unjustifiable. But for the most part, there are circumstances even the worst act is justifiable.

 

[Communist]

If one causes suffering because they enjoy it, it could be justified in the fact that it may be the only thing keeping them sane. If it weren't for that, they could well snap and do even worse things. Sure, it's bad, but that would justify it a little.
If it's because it's the easiest way to get what they want, it could be because what they want is what everyone wants. If they're causing suffering on a mass murderer that's part of a whole group of mass murderers because they need to know where the others are, that would be the quickest way and possibly save the most lives.
The last is true. Sacrificing others' basic wellbeing for nothing but temporary personal gain is wrong and unjustifiable. But for the most part, there are circumstances even the worst act is justifiable.

Pretty sure that someone who tortures others out of boredom isn't even sane in the first place.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Pretty sure that someone who tortures others out of boredom isn't even sane in the first place.

Alright, someone already insane from going more insane and murdering a lot more. That's like the question "If the train can't stop and there are two tracks, which one do you send it on; the one with five people or the one with only one?"

 

[Communist]

Alright, someone already insane from going more insane and murdering a lot more. That's like the question "If the train can't stop and there are two tracks, which one do you send it on; the one with five people or the one with only one?"

Depends. Who are those five people? Who's that one person? Is he important to the world and the future?

 

[The One Called X]

If one causes suffering because they enjoy it, it could be justified in the fact that it may be the only thing keeping them sane. If it weren't for that, they could well snap and do even worse things. Sure, it's bad, but that would justify it a little.

When would that ever happen, though? And in that case, the moral choice would be to take steps to ensure that one causes the least amount of harm possible- e.g., electing for imprisonment or... y'know... actual treatment that doesn't involve torture. Choosing to remain free *and* not attempting to change yourself so that you're safe for society is a fundamentally selfish and immoral choice.

If they're causing suffering on a mass murderer that's part of a whole group of mass murderers because they need to know where the others are, that would be the quickest way and possibly save the most lives.

That is a good point. Torture for the greater good, so to speak, is a fairly complicated issue. On the one hand it could be an expedited way to get information that could save lives, but on the other hand torture is not always effective and people often lie to get the torture to stop. It could be a pretty big problem if there's no way to confirm the information.

Some actions are just evil. Arguing otherwise is pretty pointless, imho, because any situation where it's "justified" would a) be extremely convoluted and unlikely to actually occur in real life and b) most likely just shift the evil intent to someone other than the direct perpetrator. i.e., if someone pulls out a gun and tells you to beat up a three-year-old or else they'll kill both you and the kid. The direct act of you beating up the three-year-old may be justified, but the responsibility and moral wrongness just transfers to the person who forced you to do it.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Depends. Who are those five people? Who's that one person? Is he important to the world and the future?

Nobodies. They have equal standing. But it shouldn't matter; five>one, right? But if the five aren't anyone important and the one person is, then the line blurs. Do you kill five people to save one, or kill one important person to save five?

When would that ever happen, though? And in that case, the moral choice would be to take steps to ensure that one causes the least amount of harm possible- e.g., electing for imprisonment or... y'know... actual treatment that doesn't involve torture. Choosing to remain free *and* not attempting to change yourself so that you're safe for society is a fundamentally selfish and immoral choice.

These are all hypothetical and theoretical. And I'm saying if they were already loose. If they had someone captured and you knew they were suffering, but them suffering was the only thing keeping the hypothetical insane Joker from snapping completely and trying to kill everyone, then what would be the right choice? Especially if you knew they had the means to actually do that, even if you arrived at the scene.

That is a good point. Torture for the greater good, so to speak, is a fairly complicated issue. On the one hand it could be an expedited way to get information that could save lives, but on the other hand torture is not always effective and people often lie to get the torture to stop. It could be a pretty big problem if there's no way to confirm the information.

Some actions are just evil. Arguing otherwise is pretty pointless, imho, because any situation where it's "justified" would a) be extremely convoluted and unlikely to actually occur in real life and b) most likely just shift the evil intent to someone other than the direct perpetrator. i.e., if someone pulls out a gun and tells you to beat up a three-year-old or else they'll kill both you and the kid. The direct act of you beating up the three-year-old may be justified, but the responsibility and moral wrongness just transfers to the person who forced you to do it.

With regard to a), we're debating that, if a scenario were to happen, what action would be morally correct?
With regard to b), that's where the word "evil" needs to be defined. If someone believes an action to be correct, and another believes it to be evil, then there's no evil intent. The person doing the action intends good, but in the eyes of others, it's evil.
With regard to the example, it depends on the intent. Since your intent was to save both your life and that of the three year old, there was no evil intent. But what if there was no evil intent there? What if the child is infected with a disease, and by killing it, the disease would stop from spreading. And by beating it up, you will weaken its body and make it succumb to the disease, thereby killing it and stopping it from spreading. If you had refused to do so early on because you couldn't stand the thought of hurting a three year old, and so the gun was pulled to force you to prevent the spread of a disease that could consequently kill thousands, there would be no evil intent.

 

[Communist]

Nobodies. They have equal standing. But it shouldn't matter; five>one, right? But if the five aren't anyone important and the one person is, then the line blurs. Do you kill five people to save one, or kill one important person to save five?

I'd save the important person if he was gonna change the world, not simply because she was a celebrity.

 

[The One Called X]

If someone believes an action to be correct, and another believes it to be evil, then there's no evil intent. The person doing the action intends good, but in the eyes of others, it's evil.

Relative perception has no impact on objective reality. Someone might convince themselves that their cruelty is justified, but that doesn't make their actions any less wrong. Sociopaths and narcissists see others as less than them, and therefore they think it's okay to hurt and use others for their own pleasure or gain. Since a narcissist thinks they're the most important person in the world, they think that their wants take precedence over other people's needs, and so in their worldview abuse and neglect are perfectly justifiable; and in fact anyone who believes that their needs take precedence over the narcissist's wants is in fact morally wrong. That is their genuine belief- but it doesn't change the fact that their actions are objectively wrong, unacceptable, and morally reprehensible. If you're aware of the impact of your actions, you're responsible for them, even if you don't care or think it was okay.

But what if there was no evil intent there? What if the child is infected with a disease, and by killing it, the disease would stop from spreading. And by beating it up, you will weaken its body and make it succumb to the disease, thereby killing it and stopping it from spreading. If you had refused to do so early on because you couldn't stand the thought of hurting a three year old, and so the gun was pulled to force you to prevent the spread of a disease that could consequently kill thousands, there would be no evil intent.

...or you could just put the kid in quarantine as you research a cure like a normal fucking person. This would also have the added benefit of ensuring that, if a cure is not found and the kid dies anyway, a) they were as comfortable as possible and b) there's a way to dispose of the corpse that prevents the spread of disease, because communicable pathogens don't magically evaporate upon death. If, for whatever reason, that isn't an option and you HAVE to kill the kid, you take the non-sadistic-sociopath route and shoot them in the head with the gun to minimize their suffering instead of condemning them to a slow, painful death.

These are all hypothetical and theoretical. And I'm saying if they were already loose. If they had someone captured and you knew they were suffering, but them suffering was the only thing keeping the hypothetical insane Joker from snapping completely and trying to kill everyone, then what would be the right choice? Especially if you knew they had the means to actually do that, even if you arrived at the scene.

...then you attempt to save the person they captured. You're weighing the certain suffering of one person against the potential suffering of others, who you can take steps to protect and keep out of harm's way. It's a no-brainer. And besides- that isn't how those kinds of things work. People who are criminally sadistic escalate, rather than plateauing. They are most likely to get bored with torturing one person (or accidentally kill them in the course of escalation) and then snap and try to kill everyone anyway. Letting them know that they can get away with it will just make everything worse, because they'll cease to limit themselves for fear of consequences.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Communist That's where some people would say that's evil, since you let five people die just to save one person. Every life is equally important.
Others would say you made the right choice. One person who could change the world is worth the deaths of five people.

 

[Hall Kervean]

The One Called X
Relative perception has no impact on objective reality.
But other than God, there is no objective reality by which to set standards of good and evil.

Someone might convince themselves that their cruelty is justified, but that doesn't make their actions any less wrong.
Depends if the majority believe it was justified.
"If Kira is caught, he is a murderer. If Kira wins, then he is justice." As Light Yagami said in Death Note.

Sociopaths and narcissists see others as less than them, and therefore they think it's okay to hurt and use others for their own pleasure or gain.
I agreed with this one, remember lel. Anything that violates base human rights for nothing other than personal pleasure or gain is unjustifiable.

Since a narcissist thinks they're the most important person in the world, they think that their wants take precedence over other people's needs, and so in their worldview abuse and neglect are perfectly justifiable; and in fact anyone who believes that their needs take precedence over the narcissist's wants is in fact morally wrong.
You just kind of accidentally said both points are right. But again; narcissistic self-pleasing wants don't come before the greater good, whatever that may entail.

That is their genuine belief- but it doesn't change the fact that their actions are objectively wrong, unacceptable, and morally reprehensible.
Indeed. And sometimes they're right, but sometimes they're wrong.
It goes back to the scenario I asked The Unknown. If someone you thought to be important was on one track and five people who were unimportant to you were on another, and the train is coming and can't stop, which line would you put the train on?

If you're aware of the impact of your actions, you're responsible for them, even if you don't care or think it was okay.
That's true. But again, what classifies good or evil?


...or you could just put the kid in quarantine as you research a cure like a normal fucking person.
Just trying to come up with a scenario where it would be reasonable. If he was the sole cause of something that could be devastating and preventing it would entail killing a three year old, would ye?

This would also have the added benefit of ensuring that, if a cure is not found and the kid dies anyway, a) they were as comfortable as possible and b) there's a way to dispose of the corpse that prevents the spread of disease, because communicable pathogens don't magically evaporate upon death.
These are scenarios that test morality, not logic. Point seen all the same though.

If, for whatever reason, that isn't an option and you HAVE to kill the kid, you take the non-sadistic-sociopath route and shoot them in the head with the gun to minimize their suffering instead of condemning them to a slow, painful death.
Indeed. But if we're pulling logic, why would someone ask you to beat up a three year old for no reason, or they'd commit murder?

...then you attempt to save the person they captured.
...Condemning dozens of others to death.

You're weighing the certain suffering of one person against the potentialsuffering of others, who you can take steps to protect and keep out of harm's way.
This is presuming a time of weeks, and that he'll be logical about his actions.
Not that as soon as you took the suffering person away, the insane person would take an LMG and gun down everyone standing outside.
Are you willing to risk the very likely deaths of dozens, but save the one person suffering?
While it is not certain it would happen, if it is not beyond the realm of possibility, you have to calculate for it. Is one>possibly dozens, or one<possibly dozens

And besides- that isn't how those kinds of things work.
That may well be true. But in the theoretical, with the information provided, there is the possibility of one person suffering weighed against the possibility of dozens of deaths. That is the situation that is presented. The option of killing the person does not exist, either.
So which would you choose? The one, or the possibly many?


Back to what is the line between good and evil, not the logic which my mind possesses which, according to my signature, is minimal at best.
I say that good and evil is in the eye of the beholder, since outside of God there is no objective stance to take.