Why is ambition depicted as evil while courage is portrayed as good? [Archive]

Dervag

2009-03-22, 09:44 PM

I think the answer to the title question is more or less the one others have already come up with: being courageous doesn't require you to hurt anybody. Being ambitious often does.

I disagree. A lazy person can make an excellent villain if they're smart enough, strong enough, well armed enough, or surrounded by enough henchmen to still give the hero(es) a challenge.But in that case, the villain's situation begs the question:

"How did this lazy villain become so strong and remain so strong if they lack ambition?"

The question can sometimes be answered (the villain is a hereditary monarch). But more often as not, people who lack the drive to exert themselves and strengthen their own position either never become strong or lose the strength they have. In real life, almost all powerful people are ambitious, or are figureheads for people who are.

If your lazy villain has ambitious people around him, then it's more likely that the ambitious underlings are the true villains, because they're the ones who will be pushing the pace of events.

Llama231

2009-03-22, 09:53 PM

Smart people are evil, dumb people are good.

Onmi

2009-03-22, 09:54 PM

Smart people are evil, dumb people are good.

Hey thats similar to what I was told in Paladin School

Good Rules, Evil Drools.

WitchSlayer

2009-03-22, 09:56 PM

Smart people are evil, dumb people are good.

Which is why evil always loses, right?

Agrippa

2009-03-22, 10:02 PM

Oh, psh, as if anyone in Slytherin house ever showed a spark of ambition.

That's why I said supposed "house of ambition". If Tom Riddle (Voldemort) and Horace Slughorn are your most ambitious members, you're not really all that ambitious. Hell, Jayne Cobb and Sam Vimes are ambitious than the rest of Slytherin House put together! The vast majority of them are simpering toadies and gleeful underlings. If you want ambitious people in Slytherin throw in a few Shonen heroes, like Ichigo and his nakama, Ed and Al and Simon the Digger.

Shadowbane

2009-03-22, 10:11 PM

We're coached to believe that humility is good. Plus, for some reason, most heroes just don't seem to have that much ambition. (Excepting manga protagonists. They're almost all determinators.)

I also think it's easier to write humble heroes and ambitious antagonists. It's sometimes hard to get along with a hero who is so obsessed about becoming a CEO he does some seriously nasty stuff, right? Usually, the ambition portrayed by the Big Bad is bad ambition.

Agrippa

2009-03-22, 10:19 PM

That's why I said that ambition isn't a vice if you have the proper perspective. Blind ambition is bad, enlightened and reasonable ambition is good. And humility is not the opposite of either pride or ambition. It's the opposite of arrogance and self-righteousness. It's realizing that you are fallible and can make mistakes.

Tengu_temp

2009-03-22, 10:31 PM

BRC

2009-03-22, 10:34 PM

Tengu_temp

2009-03-22, 10:37 PM

Damn, again. I can't help but think I have a minor curse that forces me to say (and write) "irony" instead of "sarcasm". Hmm, seeing that I got a small headache while writing this post, that might indeed be the case...

LurkerInPlayground

2009-03-22, 10:53 PM

Which is why evil always loses, right?
The point of the fable is that merely being moral is enough to see you through life and is a higher concern than talent.

At worst, intellect can be the source of jealousy.

Agrippa

2009-03-22, 11:33 PM

There's a lot of good and ambitious characters out there - it's just that they are rarely called ambitious, and words as "determined", "visionary" or "I have a dream" are used instead. As mentioned before, years of culture that promoted humility gave the word "ambition" a negative connotation.

I agree with every thing you said except for one statement about humility. While most people think that humility means subordinating you own talent, ambition and feelings of self worth, I don't call that humility. I call that being a doormat. To me, humility is the understanding that you are capable of mistakes and errors and that those mistakes and errors are your responsibility. It also means that you view no one as your inferior, only as an equal. That's it.

"The humbleness of a warrior is not the humbleness of the beggar. The warrior lowers his head to no one, but at the same time, he doesn’t permit anyone to lower his head to him. The beggar, on the other hand, falls to his knees at the drop of a hat and scrapes the floor to anyone he deems to be higher; but at the same time, he demands that someone lower than him scrape the floor for him." Carlos Castaneda

sun_tzu

2009-03-23, 01:15 AM

kamikasei

2009-03-23, 02:01 AM

The cynical answer that came to me just reading the title: ambition makes you a threat to the people above you in the hierarchy. Courage makes you useful to them. It's about accepting your place within the system.

Tensu

2009-03-23, 02:07 AM

But in that case, the villain's situation begs the question:

"How did this lazy villain become so strong and remain so strong if they lack ambition?"

The question can sometimes be answered (the villain is a hereditary monarch). But more often as not, people who lack the drive to exert themselves and strengthen their own position either never become strong or lose the strength they have. In real life, almost all powerful people are ambitious, or are figureheads for people who are.

If your lazy villain has ambitious people around him, then it's more likely that the ambitious underlings are the true villains, because they're the ones who will be pushing the pace of events.

Not if said henchmen are just as lazy.

I've come up with a villain who is pretty much just a lazy bum. He and his people are both physically and magically gifted, but slow-witted and slothful. Thay steal resources and technology from other civilizations because it's easier for them. Basically they take short-cuts at the expense of all other forms of life around them. So they're less evil and lazy and more evil because they're lazy. Sloth is on the list for a reason.

Agrippa

2009-03-23, 02:43 AM

kamikasei

2009-03-23, 03:55 AM

Sounds less like Good vs. Evil and more like Law vs. Chaos to me.

You seem to be sliding into a different question. You asked why they were depicted as vices or virtues. My answer is that it partly derives from the values society has wanted to instil in its youth (or the powerful in those below them), which will of course tend to be Lawful values.

I'm not saying it's the whole thing, but I do think at least part of it derives from this angle: what art sent a message that those in power wanted to back?

RandomFellow

2009-03-23, 03:59 AM

...

RandomFellow: While I agree with you to some extant, like automatically granting mercy to your enemies is a bad idea. That said, from I've heard "A Song of Ice and Fire" goes way too far in the opposite direction for my tastes.

Quite possible.

But if you want something that isn't portraying things that way...it is the first example that comes to mind!

FatR

2009-03-23, 08:57 AM

For instance, compare to, say Japanese media, like say, Shounen manga, where ambition isn't evil at all, and can in fact be the primary characteristic of all the protagonists. Courage is more neutral there, too. The differance in culture yields a differance in virtue.
Not really. At least in 50% of Shonen series ambition is a negative trait, sometimes explicitly so, such as in Dragonball Z, where obsession with being the number one is always, always unhealthy. For other examples of exceedingly humble shonen heroes see TTGL, Bleach (really, Ichigo is a perfect example of unambitious hero, who only ever seeks to become more powerful to protect people dear to him; more generally, all people in Bleach who actively strive to rise above their current position in life are villains), Black Cat, Rurouni Kenshin, Trigun, Kekkaishi, and too many others to name them all.

Dervag

2009-03-23, 09:33 AM

"The humbleness of a warrior is not the humbleness of the beggar. The warrior lowers his head to no one, but at the same time, he doesn’t permit anyone to lower his head to him. The beggar, on the other hand, falls to his knees at the drop of a hat and scrapes the floor to anyone he deems to be higher; but at the same time, he demands that someone lower than him scrape the floor for him." Carlos CastanedaThat depends heavily on the warrior and the beggar, but I take your meaning. Or his, rather. Or both.

Not if said henchmen are just as lazy.

I've come up with a villain who is pretty much just a lazy bum. He and his people are both physically and magically gifted, but slow-witted and slothful. Thay steal resources and technology from other civilizations because it's easier for them. Basically they take short-cuts at the expense of all other forms of life around them. So they're less evil and lazy and more evil because they're lazy. Sloth is on the list for a reason.It's not impossible, but the set of all viable lazy villains is a lot smaller than the set of all viable villains. Many villainous archetypes (anyone out to conquer anything, anyone who poses a creditable threat to an equally powerful enemy) just do not work well with someone who has no ambition.

"Villainous" and "slothful" are not mutually exclusive. If I said they were, I shouldn't have. But they don't fit together very gracefully. It's sort of like trying to combine "heroic" and "spiteful."

In a world where there exist people who have ambition and a desire to gain or control power, people who are unambitious will be the main targets of people who are ambitious. And any kind of power that can be stolen from them will be stolen eventually.

Tengu_temp

2009-03-23, 10:05 AM

Not really. At least in 50% of Shonen series ambition is a negative trait, sometimes explicitly so, such as in Dragonball Z, where obsession with being the number one is always, always unhealthy. For other examples of exceedingly humble shonen heroes see TTGL, Bleach (really, Ichigo is a perfect example of unambitious hero, who only ever seeks to become more powerful to protect people dear to him; more generally, all people in Bleach who actively strive to rise above their current position in life are villains), Black Cat, Rurouni Kenshin, Trigun, Kekkaishi, and too many others to name them all.

One word - Naruto. Ambition is everything that drives him, and a lot of the cast as well.

Egiam

2009-03-23, 10:13 AM

Overly ambitious = going beyond your limits = Bad = Palin
Courage = good = taking on the world and keeping a cool head in danger = Obama

Tengu_temp

2009-03-23, 10:17 AM

going beyond your limits = Bad

I don't see the connection.

kamikasei

2009-03-23, 10:26 AM

Egiam, you might want to trim both those lines down by one word post haste.

In general, I think the basic problem is that ambition too often is thought of as ascending within a hierarchy or organization - it's an achievement relative to other people. Thus, it lends itself to fulfilment not just by bettering yourself but by sabotaging competitors. Then, there's the angle that having ambition as a primary trait tends towards obsession, a preoccupation with perception and external validation rather than actual worth, etc. I would say something like "audacity" is a better word for heroes with grand ambitions for what they want to accomplish. The guy who wants to save the world, but doesn't care about being "the guy who saves the world", is ambitious, but has no personal ambition.

(Naruto is actually a good example of positive ambition. To start with his ambition is childish and shallow - he wants to be the head honcho so that people can't ignore him. But over time, because of the nature of his ambition, it becomes a real virtue - he doesn't just want to be the most powerful, he wants to be the best, the one who has the strength to protect his people. The nature of his target demands that he change and grow to be worthy of it. It helps that it's not something you can claim, only something you can be declared - "you are Bene Gesserit only by the assent of your sisters", etc.)

Courage, on the other hand, is clearly a virtue, though merely having it does not make you virtuous. It's a legitimate complaint that characters may be portrayed as good people because they're courageous, and villains caricatured to be unrealistically uniformly craven - but it's fair to say that courage by itself is a virtue, because it stands in opposition to fearfulness, to not having the strength of will to do what it's right for you to do. Of course, people can mistake other things for courage and thus do the wrong thing in an attempt to prove their virtue - recklessness, bull-headedness, unwarranted aggressiveness, etc.

I don't see the connection.

Charitably it's "if you are too ambitious, you will bite off more than you can chew, setting things in motion which you can't stop and then finding that you're the weak link in the chain and ending up doing more damage than if you hadn't acted". It's a matter of responsibility: not taking on something you can't see through.

Uncharitably, and more plausibly, it's a "don't have ambitions above your station" thing. (The concept of "station" is one of the things that makes me grind my teeth more than almost anything else.)

Kcalehc

2009-03-23, 12:51 PM

Overly ambitious = going beyond your limits = Bad = Palin
Courage = good = taking on the world and keeping a cool head in danger = Obama

Aaargh, politics! my eyes! it burns!

Seriously though, ambition is often depicted as negative when it goes beyond a normal drive and becomes unhealthy. Vey few villians are merely ambitions, they are unhealthily so - so much that is takes a toll on their rationality and judgement as well as anyone they may care about (including, often, themselves). They are often motivated too, and very much so usually.

Regular ambition, in real life, is however not so. I am ambitious, I want to succeed (in my, admittedly, limited definition of success), to be otherwise sems a little stupid; do people actually want to be failures? But I'm not about to drive for my sucess to the detriment of those around me. I'm motivated to do so for my own reasons.

Courage I feel is neither good nor evil; and can often be stupid too. Ok so you stand up to the armed robber and now you're dead. Great, very courageous - but you're dead - not smart. Sure everyone will say how courageous you were at your funeral, but you're still dead...

I think, and this is purely my opinion, that these traits are represented in this way in movies, because people want to believe that they are courageous, and therefore good, and that the people with power are ambitious and therefore bad. People tend to see things that agree with their personal beliefs in a more positive light.

Tensu

2009-03-23, 01:26 PM

That depends heavily on the warrior and the beggar, but I take your meaning. Or his, rather. Or both.

It's not impossible, but the set of all viable lazy villains is a lot smaller than the set of all viable villains. Many villainous archetypes (anyone out to conquer anything, anyone who poses a creditable threat to an equally powerful enemy) just do not work well with someone who has no ambition.

"Villainous" and "slothful" are not mutually exclusive. If I said they were, I shouldn't have. But they don't fit together very gracefully. It's sort of like trying to combine "heroic" and "spiteful."

In a world where there exist people who have ambition and a desire to gain or control power, people who are unambitious will be the main targets of people who are ambitious. And any kind of power that can be stolen from them will be stolen eventually.

You asked how an unabitious character could be a valid villain with the threat of getting cut down by a more ambitious character, and I gave an example. I never accused you of saying anything you didn't say.

I however, never said that lazy villains are anything you seem to think I'm saying they are. All I'm saying is they're possible and interesting.

FatR

2009-03-23, 01:54 PM

One word - Naruto. Ambition is everything that drives him, and a lot of the cast as well.
I'm aware of that, and half the crew from One Piece are equally good examples. That's why I said "50%".

Egiam

2009-03-23, 04:21 PM

Ok, now time for more detail.

Ambition in moderation is not bad at all. It gets things done. It's when a person is attempting something blindly, unrealistically, or both that it is unhealthy. The greeks had a term, hubris, meaning over-ambition. It was considered a sin.

Courage is required to carry out these ambitions in adversity. When blind, or badly aimed, it can be dangerous to those around the person. This courage could be used to destroy the good things in the world. It takes guts to fire a ballistic missile. It takes more to not fire one.

When someone has too much, it often turns into stupidity.

-Miko Miyazaki from OOTS had a large amount of courage, but she was blind and badly disoriented. This resulted in the death of Lord Shojo.

-Hitler had plenty of ambition, but it was horrifically badly aimed. He was blind.

-Martin Luther King Jr. had a wonderful balance of ambition and the courage to carry his ambitions out.

hamishspence

2009-03-23, 05:15 PM

Archpaladin Zousha

2009-03-23, 05:26 PM

Person takes a nap after a long, hard day's work - because is slothful and deserves a rest after all the hard work he's done?

Tengu_temp

2009-03-23, 06:09 PM

I'm aware of that, and half the crew from One Piece are equally good examples. That's why I said "50%".

Indeed. I just wanted to give an example on the contrary.

Aaargh, politics! my eyes! it burns!

Wow, talk about overreaction to something that's pretty much banned only on this forum and which nobody raises an eyebrow about anywhere else. Yeah, political discussion isn't allowed here, it doesn't mean it's suddenly the root of all evil.

Sloth is a bit trickier.

A moderate amount of sloth means you do everything in the most efficient, least effort-requiring way possible - in a way, we wouldn't have progress without lazy people who decided that the way things are being done is too much hassle and looked for ways of achieving the same results with less work.

Xuincherguixe

2009-03-23, 07:25 PM

I would think it's pretty obvious. But, I suspect it's not so much a question as a complaint. Ambitious villains are a stereotype.

That being said, something about the courageous hero overcoming the ambitious villain resonates.

Of course, most supposedly courageous heroes aren't courageous, they ARE stupid. Fear is required for their to be courage. It's about doing something in spite of one's fear. Seems a lot of writers don't understand that.

But it is entirely reasonable for a protagonist to have a desire to do something. Cowardly heroes tend not to work so well, but perhaps are more relateable, being more human. Though, cowards tend not to drive events forward. Which is generally required for a protagonist.

KnightDisciple

2009-03-23, 07:58 PM

Nearly every "reprehensible motivation" a la "The Seven Deadly Sins" can be good in moderation.

Person does well and achieves a lot- because he wants to be proud of himself.

Person is a romantic and affectionate partner- because he is lustful, though to a healthy level.

Person is courageous and determined in war, or police- because he is wrathful at the crimes of the enemy/criminals.

Person starts poor works hard, becomes rich, because he is envious of the rich.

Person works hard, because he is gluttonous and loves to spend his hard earnings on delicious food (and exercises so food doesn't make him grow fat)

Sloth is a bit trickier.

But does that make the motivation good? Or simply the results less bad?

Let me give it alternate ideas:

Person does well and achieves a lot - because they want to fully utilize their talents and abilities.
Person is a romantic and affectionate partner - because they want to express their deep and abiding love for their partner.
Person is courageous and determined in war, or police - because they believe in justice and the protection of those who cannot protect themselves.
Person starts poor works hard, becomes rich - to provide for their family, exercise their gifts/abilities to the fullest, and to acquire the resources to then do more good in the world through charities etc.
Person works hard to earn enough food so that they and their family never go hungry, and can choose what they like, not just what they can afford.
Person takes nap because they don't have the energy they used to, and they want to do something later with their friends and/or family.

:smallwink:

Dervag

2009-03-23, 08:24 PM

You asked how an unabitious character could be a valid villain with the threat of getting cut down by a more ambitious character, and I gave an example. I never accused you of saying anything you didn't say.

I however, never said that lazy villains are anything you seem to think I'm saying they are. All I'm saying is they're possible and interesting.All right, all right, don't go all bristly on me!

What I'm trying to get at is that a lazy villain always invites this question of how they hold onto power. For that matter, so does a lazy hero or a lazy "NPC". In real life, powerful people are nearly always ambitious people, and this is not a coincidence.

That doesn't mean the question "how do they hold onto power" is unanswerable, but having to answer it narrows down your dramatic options. Sloth makes for a dramatically effective vice in supporting cast members, but in primary antagonists it tends to get in the way of the story.
_____

Ok, now time for more detail.

Ambition in moderation is not bad at all. It gets things done. It's when a person is attempting something blindly, unrealistically, or both that it is unhealthy. The greeks had a term, hubris, meaning over-ambition. It was considered a sin.Well... um...

I agree with the basics of everything except the way the Greeks defined hubris. My understanding was that hubris referred not so much to overambition as to unbecoming acts. An act of hubris involved aggression that humiliated its target, but in the process shamed the person committing the act by revealing them to be an unjust or vicious person.

For instance, after Achilles killed Hector in the Iliad, he was so angry at Hector that he tied Hector's body to the back of his chariot, dragged him around the city three times, then went back to his camp. And he refused to allow Hector to be given funeral rites afterwards.

In Greek eyes, that was humiliating for Hector and his family. But it also reflected very badly on Achilles. Achilles was so full of rage that he was letting that rage override his duty to follow the code of an honorable warrior. And that was an act of hubris- it humiliated the victim, but also shamed the person committing it.

But Achilles wasn't showing anything we would call ambition. He certainly wasn't pretending to be a god or anything. He was just being an obnoxious bastard.

Of course, some acts the Greeks considered hubris would qualify as excessive ambition today- like claiming to be a god. In this case, the act was aggressive towards gods and men alike, and it shamed the person making it by showing that they were impious (and crazy with power). But not all forms of hubris involved ambition- the ancient Greeks even called what we would call assault and battery to be a form of hubris.

Emperor Tippy

2009-03-23, 09:56 PM

Because of how they effect those in power and society.

Ambition is depicted as a negative quality because an ambitious person is a threat to the people in power. You don't rise to a position of power and maintain that power without being ambitious, it just doesn't happen. So if you can convince most of the population that ambition is bad than you have just eliminated most of your competition.

It's the same reason that power is depicted as a negative.

Courage is depicted as good because it helps those in power control those not in power. You say that it takes courage to do something and more people try to do it (It takes courage to try the AP test, it takes courage to start your own business, it takes courage to risk your life for your country, etc.).

It's the same reason that certain things are depicted as moral while others are seen as immoral.

Most every perception of good and evil, right and wrong is derived from what maintains order and what creates chaos.

Rutskarn

2009-03-23, 10:08 PM

I'm not sure if this has been said before, but dammit, I've got a bee in my lovely floral bonnet that needs to be put down post haste.

The reason--by which I mean one reason--is that fiction feeds blindly off each other.

Almost all of our storytelling is derivative crap that wouldn't know an original thought or message if it pranced by stark naked and greased up with napalm. It's lazy hack work that plays to save characterizations, judgments, and moralizations that might have as little to do with the writer's actual opinions as they have with reality. Audiences expect something, and the writers deliver, because they feel like it's there job to give audiences what's safe and familiar.

The revolution is good. The empire is bad.

The man in this situation is bad. The woman, in this same situation, is not. Vice versa.

Anyone who lived in this place in this time period was automatically a terrible person.

Ambition is evil. Courage is awesome. Good is almost never the former, evil almost never the latter.

As a writer, this is the kind of pent-up outraged bile I try to purge in my writing. I have to always be careful that I'm not sabotaging my own work in the process. (http://www.chocolatehammer.org/?p=473)

Crap, this post wasn't a zany-yet-drily-sarcastic romp at ALL. I think I'm slipping.

kpenguin

2009-03-23, 10:18 PM

Crap, this post wasn't a zany-yet-drily-sarcastic romp at ALL. I think I'm slipping.

No, but its a blatant attempt to advertise your blog. You're not slipping at all.

JaxGaret

2009-03-23, 10:18 PM

Because of how they effect those in power and society.

Ambition is depicted as a negative quality because an ambitious person is a threat to the people in power. You don't rise to a position of power and maintain that power without being ambitious, it just doesn't happen. So if you can convince most of the population that ambition is bad than you have just eliminated most of your competition.

It's the same reason that power is depicted as a negative.

Courage is depicted as good because it helps those in power control those not in power. You say that it takes courage to do something and more people try to do it (It takes courage to try the AP test, it takes courage to start your own business, it takes courage to risk your life for your country, etc.).

I was going to post almost exactly the same thing, except more succinctly and snarkily. Your method was good, though.

It's the same reason that certain things are depicted as moral while others are seen as immoral.

Most every perception of good and evil, right and wrong is derived from what maintains order and what creates chaos.

This is part of the reason why many people equate Law with Good and Chaos with Evil. It's been taught to them that that's the way of things.

Rutskarn

2009-03-23, 10:22 PM

No, but its a blatant attempt to advertise your blog. You're not slipping at all.

It didn't start out that way. Actually, maybe that's worse, by some standards.

Anyway, if you call this self-promotion, wait 'till you see the advertising blitz once Vatsy and Bruno goes live.

(And by that, I mean the grass-roots TV tropes effort I have planned, not a forum spammage. Because that would be wrong.)

Tengu_temp

2009-03-23, 10:59 PM

Most every perception of good and evil, right and wrong is derived from what maintains order and what creates chaos.

If that was true, then most people would sympathize with the Sheriff instead of Robin Hood.

Agrippa

2009-03-23, 11:15 PM

If that was true, then most people would sympathize with the Sheriff instead of Robin Hood.

He said most not all.

FatR

2009-03-24, 03:19 AM

As about the main question, ambition is seen as evil mainly because it is inherently competitive trait and, therefore, necessitates trampling others. Ambition to be the number one in something cannot exist if there is no people to be beaten and relegated to positions of number two and below. Note, that authors of series where main characters are defined by their ambitions, tend to dodge the issue by making the competitors evil, or, in cases when a direct challenge is inappropriate, incompetent (so that a hero obviously suits his desired position better).

Courage, on the other hand, is seen as an admirable trait, because, well, it is and books/films/whatever aren't generally made for those few people who can argue otherwise because they like to deconstruct things. Even in case of villains courage is what separates badasses whom audience might like from dirty cowards whom practically everyone despises. As about heroes, courage is necessary to demonstrate whatever other virtues they have in the face of adversity and danger, so it is only natural that it is mandatory for a hero (particularly in action-heavy genres, that present danger and adversity in spades).

Kcalehc

2009-03-24, 07:36 AM

Wow, talk about overreaction to something that's pretty much banned only on this forum and which nobody raises an eyebrow about anywhere else. Yeah, political discussion isn't allowed here, it doesn't mean it's suddenly the root of all evil.

Wow, talk about overreaction to something that's pretty much a toungue in cheek comment. Yeah, political discussion isn't allowed here, it doesn't mean I can't make a joke about someone else's comments about it.

Seriously though,

I.e. the first part was not serious.

Tengu_temp

2009-03-24, 10:15 AM

Wow, talk about overreaction to something that's pretty much a toungue in cheek comment. Yeah, political discussion isn't allowed here, it doesn't mean I can't make a joke about someone else's comments about it.

I.e. the first part was not serious.

Ah, okay. Sorry, that thing is just a pet peeve of mine.

He said most not all.

Well, I'd say that stories about valorous rebels vs evil authority are way more common than the other way around. Also, just like you need courage to do many things that bring order, you also need courage to do many things that bring chaos.

Tensu

2009-03-24, 10:25 AM

All right, all right, don't go all bristly on me!

What I'm trying to get at is that a lazy villain always invites this question of how they hold onto power. For that matter, so does a lazy hero or a lazy "NPC". In real life, powerful people are nearly always ambitious people, and this is not a coincidence.

That doesn't mean the question "how do they hold onto power" is unanswerable, but having to answer it narrows down your dramatic options. Sloth makes for a dramatically effective vice in supporting cast members, but in primary antagonists it tends to get in the way of the story.

And I don't think that's true. Slothful villain won't make a lot of the mistakes ambitious villain will.

1. He won't panic. Panic is a waste of time and energy, and often requires flailing of the arms.

2. He won't appear in person. Too much work.

3. He won't kill his best men for failing him once. Good help is too hard to find.

4. He won't act rashly. He's got plenty of time to think.

5. He won't spread his forces thin. Marching takes effort.

6. He won't bite off more than he can chew. He's content with absolute power. the jump to god-like always ends badly.

7. He'll know when to quit. Running takes less effort than fighting.

8. He won't antagonize his allies or neutral parties (aka the Hitler error). Why create more work for himself?

ambition is usually what ultimately brings the villain down both in fiction and real life. (Hitler, Napolean, Saddam, most roman emperors, anyone who was ever assassinated ever, etc. RL examples abound.) The Villain that lacks that lack many of the conventional weaknesses.

Green Bean

2009-03-24, 11:07 AM

Personally, I think it comes down to the roles that protagonists/antagonists usually play.

Ambition is proactive, like many antagonists.

Bravery is reactive, like many protagonists.

Xondoure

2009-03-24, 11:31 AM

Oh, psh, as if anyone in Slytherin house ever showed a spark of ambition.

Voldemort sacrificed his soul in the pursuit of power. Horace Slughorn is always manipulating his students for his maximum benefit. Others in Slytherin are usually obsessed with power which is why they gravitate towards people stronger than themselves. while I agree that the way ambition is portrayed is unfairly evil, it can't be said the slytherins have no ambition.

Xondoure

2009-03-24, 11:41 AM

It is difficult (not impossible, but difficult) to be both ambitious and humble. And humility is a positive trait - pride can easily twist one's thinking in rather ugly ways. Hence why ambition gets a bad rep.
As for courage...well, courageous characters are easier to respect. A "hero" who wasn't brave just wouldn't be taken seriously by the audience.

Sometimes the best heroes start as cowards (Arthur Dent, and Bilbo for example) who get forced into situations they never imagined. Courage must be taught to them.

Xondoure

2009-03-24, 11:44 AM

That depends heavily on the warrior and the beggar, but I take your meaning. Or his, rather. Or both.

It's not impossible, but the set of all viable lazy villains is a lot smaller than the set of all viable villains. Many villainous archetypes (anyone out to conquer anything, anyone who poses a creditable threat to an equally powerful enemy) just do not work well with someone who has no ambition.

"Villainous" and "slothful" are not mutually exclusive. If I said they were, I shouldn't have. But they don't fit together very gracefully. It's sort of like trying to combine "heroic" and "spiteful."

In a world where there exist people who have ambition and a desire to gain or control power, people who are unambitious will be the main targets of people who are ambitious. And any kind of power that can be stolen from them will be stolen eventually.

this is because ambition gives people power. a slothful villain just has to be omnipotent to begin with.

13_CBS

2009-03-24, 11:48 AM

And I don't think that's true. Slothful villain won't make a lot of the mistakes ambitious villain will.

Of course, he creates some interesting NEW mistakes for himself:

1. He won't panic. Panic is a waste of time and energy, and often requires flailing of the arms.

However, he won't focus or be sufficiently worried or afraid when the time comes.

2. He won't appear in person. Too much work.

However, by not appearing in person he may distance himself from things he can't afford to be distant to.

3. He won't kill his best men for failing him once. Good help is too hard to find.

However, he may not punish his men enough for mistakes, thus making discipline and order lax.

4. He won't act rashly. He's got plenty of time to think.

However, he may never act at all, because he thinks he has time.

5. He won't spread his forces thin. Marching takes effort.

However, he may concentrate his forces too much when spreading out is required.

6. He won't bite off more than he can chew. He's content with absolute power. the jump to god-like always ends badly.

However, his lack of motivation may frustrate his underlings. This, combined with the lack of discipline, may be his downfall.

7. He'll know when to quit. Running takes less effort than fighting.

However, he may lose hope and quit too early.

8. He won't antagonize his allies or neutral parties (aka the Hitler error). Why create more work for himself?

However, he may frustrate them by not doing things he's supposed to do, which may antagonize them.

Tensu

2009-03-24, 02:05 PM

I never said the lazy villain was better off, I said he won't make the usual mistakes. and while most of those are valid, some of those I think are clutching at straws.

The lazy villain doesn't need to start off all powerful. He could just be an opportunist, starting off doing what he can in the easiest way he can for no reason other than to stay alive and comfortable, but ultimately set events in motion that will give him great power.

Revlid

2009-03-24, 03:10 PM

Tyrant

2009-03-24, 05:56 PM

"That's the problem with heroes, really. Their only purpose in life is to thwart others. They make no plans, develop no strategies. They react instead of act. Without villains, heroes would stagnate. Without heroes, villains would be running the world. Heroes have morals. Villains have work ethic."
- Baron Zemo
This is essentially the villains core argument in the DC series Justice. Luthor and Co. begin having dreams of the world absolutely devastated in a nuclear war and the heroes being unable to stop it. So, they begin banding together to improve the world. Eventually they address the world and state their case. Their case is basically this: The heroes with all their power and technology aren't trying to change the world or make it better. They are fighting to maintain the status quo. The villains, even though their goals are obviously selfish (which they openly admit), are at least trying to use their powers and technology to change things. They go about actually helping people. Poison Ivy causes crops to grow in Africa. Captain Cold creates glaciers (and therefore water) in the Middle East in exchange for them ceasing their support of terrorism. They start curing diseases and creating artifical limbs for people. Unfortunately it ended up that Brainiac was controlling every one of them but Luthor. So, in the total cop out ending, the heroes basically got to tell the villains they were stupid for being controlled by Brainiac and never really had to address their very valid point. Luthor wanted to get rid of Superman and Brainiac (and all the lazy bottom feeders as well due to the nature of the plan) so that humanity (likely lead by him) could control it's own destiny again.

I brought this up in the Superman: Hero or Villain (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100107)thread and there was some debate on it there.

Tensu

2009-03-24, 08:57 PM

...They make no plans, develop no strategies...

Batman called. He sounded PO'd.

Tengu_temp

2009-03-24, 09:43 PM

Tensu

2009-03-24, 09:51 PM

There is nothing intrinsically cooler, smarter, stronger or more interesting about evil.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Dervag

2009-03-24, 10:36 PM

this is because ambition gives people power. a slothful villain just has to be omnipotent to begin with.Right. And it's hard to write an omnipotent villain convincingly, because you'd expect them to be able to swat their enemies like flies as soon as the enemy comes to their attention.

Also, even if you have infinite power, if you are lazy other people are liable to try and steal the power from you. Or to manipulate you into using your power for their own ends... in which case they, not you, are the real villains of the story.
______

And I don't think that's true. Slothful villain won't make a lot of the mistakes ambitious villain will.

1. He won't panic. Panic is a waste of time and energy, and often requires flailing of the arms.
2. He won't appear in person. Too much work.
3. He won't kill his best men for failing him once. Good help is too hard to find.
4. He won't act rashly. He's got plenty of time to think.
5. He won't spread his forces thin. Marching takes effort.
6. He won't bite off more than he can chew. He's content with absolute power. the jump to god-like always ends badly.
7. He'll know when to quit. Running takes less effort than fighting.
8. He won't antagonize his allies or neutral parties (aka the Hitler error). Why create more work for himself?A lot of this just isn't necessarily true. It might be, or it might not be, depending on circumstances.

First of all, not only lazy people avoid things that are too hard, or that are stupid. Killing your best men for failure isn't something that villains do because they are energetic; it is something they do if and only if they are foolish. The same goes for antagonizing your allies. The perkiest villain alive is still quite likely to understand the importance of keeping friends loyal to them.

"Lazy" is not a synonym for "intelligent enough to do a rational cost/benefit analysis." Indeed, a lazy person is one who does not do a rational cost/benefit analysis, and inflates the "cost" of having to get off their rear and do something. That's a big handicap for people who have to work in order to get results.

Also, as 13_CBS points out, many of the mistakes you list get replaced by new ones that a person who is lazy is much more likely to make. For example, a lazy person may have plenty of time to think, but they're likely to waste time doing irrelevant things (like posting on the Internet instead of doing paperwork). And they're quite likely to be "intellectually lazy"- prone to accept the first solution that comes along without bothering to check it. That works against you when your enemies are trying to trick you, because you're a lot more likely to get trapped by simple misdirection if you didn't bother to spend much time thinking about the enemy's plans.

So the lazy villain will end up making a lot of the same mistakes for different reasons.
_______

The lazy villain doesn't need to start off all powerful. He could just be an opportunist, starting off doing what he can in the easiest way he can for no reason other than to stay alive and comfortable, but ultimately set events in motion that will give him great power.Yes, but that requires great luck. Most people who are trying only to stay alive and comfortable find a niche for themselves and stay in it for decades. It is very rare for someone to be showered with power and riches for doing the easy, convenient things.

So it's harder to write a plausible villain who has obtained power and wealth by taking the easy way out. It is possible, especially if the villain inherited their power. But it is difficult, and it limits plot options because it makes the villain less likely to behave proactively.

13_CBS

2009-03-24, 11:19 PM

For example, a lazy person may have plenty of time to think, but they're likely to waste time doing irrelevant things (like posting on the Internet instead of doing paperwork).

I'll never be an effective villain. :smallfrown:

"Sir! Agent Heroic has infiltrated the base!"

"B-but, someone's wrong on the internet..."

Yes, but that requires great luck. Most people who are trying only to stay alive and comfortable find a niche for themselves and stay in it for decades. It is very rare for someone to be showered with power and riches for doing the easy, convenient things.

Actually, I'd be quite interested in reading a good story about a very lazy villain who pretty much stumbles across his power, like a super-lucky hero who fumbles all the Big Bad's plans...but is a villain instead.

It won't be very probable, but if the writer thinks it through and makes it interesting...hmm...

Agrippa

2009-03-24, 11:54 PM

If you ask me, evil loves to show off how it's better - and it always fails. There is nothing intrinsically cooler, smarter, stronger or more interesting about evil.

Exactly. To me villains (especially the likes of Sephiroth and Bangladesh DuPree) will never be even remotely as cool as my favorite heroes. They are, Sam Vimes, Granny Weatherwax, Death (Reaper Man on up), Agatha Heterodyne, Klaus and Gilgamesh Wulfenbach (even though DuPree works for Klaus), Batman, Doctors Strange and Orpheus, the Doctor, Iroh and Hellboy. I'd include a few characters from the Lord of the Rings if I could've finished the first damn book. I didn't even get past the first six chapters before I decided it was far too tedious for me to stomach.

Mikeavelli

2009-03-25, 12:49 AM

Tensu

2009-03-25, 02:23 AM

I wasn't implying he wouldn't make those mistakes because he was smarter, I was saying he wouldn't make them because he didn't want to expend the effort to do so.

and I never said it wouldn't take a little luck.

Yulian

2009-03-25, 02:47 AM

Because the "values" in fiction tend to be terribly misguided, by and large.

Technology is bad, order is slavery, making a decision based on logic makes you a cold-hearted machine, money is bad, poor people should never get or try to get money, educated people never know as much as "good, old, common-sense regular Joe" types, if someone you want doesn't notice you then you need to change yourself, determination is all you need to succeed, as opposed to good planning, blah, blah, blah.

We all know TvTropes is rife with examples.

I mean, American culture like to pretend it doesn't admire ambition, but the culture loves people who win at all costs, we're just hypocrites about saying it. A-Rod can do all the steroids he wants so long as he keeps winning, but we can't say that that's what helps him win. We just don't talk about it or make mumbled recriminations at best, with no consequences to the "cheaters" because they are also "winners". Then we go back to watching American Gladiators and wrestling, and people who are obviously juicing but we won't talk about it because they're famous and make lots of money, at least in part, because of it.

Michael Phelps can win 8 gold medals and apparently the pot doesn't do him any harm, but we can't say that.

I guess the answer is, "Because we're dirty hypocrites who can't admit that our culture has some very ugly values." :)

- Yulian

Revlid

2009-03-25, 02:51 AM

If anyone else follows the Bleach Manga; they'll note the existence of Stark and Kyoraku, two of the most powerful characters in the series, and the most incredibly lazy ones.

They're currently matched up in a fight, Stark goes so far as to suggest they "just pretend to fight until this is all over" - because he just doesn't care. Kyoraku nearly agrees.

The impression given is that, since he's already about as powerful and prestigious as is possible for him to be, he just sorta've stopped caring about ambition, posturing, and doing much of anything at all.

True. In fact, Stark was who I was thinking about about haflway through this thread.

However:
* Neither is the protagonist or antagonist - can you honestly see Stark as the Big Bad of the series if Aizen wasn't around?
* Both have other characters to get them moving - Nanao/Ukitake and Lilinette.
* It's been implied for both that this is something of a front to get people to stop bothering them.
* Kyouraku is essentially one of the most powerful background characters. Stark isn't even a Dragon - he's part of a (more powerful than usual) extended Quirky Miniboss Squad.

Tensu

2009-03-25, 09:13 AM

I mean, American culture like to pretend it doesn't admire ambition, but the culture loves people who win at all costs, we're just hypocrites about saying it. A-Rod can do all the steroids he wants so long as he keeps winning, but we can't say that that's what helps him win. We just don't talk about it or make mumbled recriminations at best, with no consequences to the "cheaters" because they are also "winners". Then we go back to watching American Gladiators and wrestling, and people who are obviously juicing but we won't talk about it because they're famous and make lots of money, at least in part, because of it.

Michael Phelps can win 8 gold medals and apparently the pot doesn't do him any harm, but we can't say that.

I guess the answer is, "Because we're dirty hypocrites who can't admit that our culture has some very ugly values." :)

- Yulian

I'm gonna have to stop you right there. That's a sweeping generalization that as far as I can tell has no basis in fact. Not to say I don't admire ambition, but I don't condone cheating and neither do most Americans. If we admired cheating there'd be a lot of people on wall street who wouldn't be neck deep in death threats. You can't say we admire cheating when people are threatening murder on those who cheat. We strip athletes of medals when we find them cheating.

Krytha

2009-03-25, 09:28 AM

Someone has to be the bad guy...

Hectonkhyres

2009-03-25, 10:24 AM

For other examples of exceedingly humble shonen heroes see TTGL
Yeah. Kamina would never perform an act of wanton self aggrandizement.
So very humble, that man. And so modestly dressed.

warty goblin

2009-03-25, 03:31 PM

Because it's really easy to tell stories this way, and for the most part it makes people feel good when reading/watching/hearing/whatevering the story as well.

Courage is, most often in my experience, coded as 'standing up for what's right*' but what is right is usually pretty much the status quo- because the status quo is accepted, carte blanche, as being what's right. Most of the time, the villian upsets the general order of society, and the heroes return things to the way they used to be. For a really feel good story they do this using methods entirely allowed by the society (eg. sue the bad guys, win in court), for a bit of subversion they might use the occasional action coded as bad, but justified by a lack of innocent victims (stealing from the rich, or non-lethal violence). About as dodgy as one could get is the anti-hero, who uses methods the status quo terms Very Bad to uphold it, but fundamentally they are all doing the same thing. Namely having the courage to stand up for what's right.

*As in every movie trailer ever "...And the courage to stand up for what's right...".

Since 'what's right' is pretty much coded as the status quo, this makes the author's job much easier, since for a villian all they need to do is to pick somebody doing something society codes as bad. All the hero has to do is to react to the villian and restore the old order. All the villian has to do is to think of something that profits them and damages the current social order- that's ambition in most stories.

For some fun one can subvert this. Here's my version of a super hero.

Dr. Ivan Badass was a genius alien from the mysterious planet Zigglemirk, which was blown up in an interstellar war. Fleeing the ruins of his home (bringing only the preserved remains of his wife and child, his Ph.D. in Badassery, and about 400,000 metric tons of Vanished Alien Technology), Badass's ship is damaged after an encounter with an asteroid. Using his Badass piloting skilz, Badass crash lands in someplace like Iowa.

Despite being alien Ivan looks exactly like an attractive, clean cut white guy in his late twenties or early thirties, and so is immediately able to get a job at a coffee shop. One of the advantages of having a Ph.D. in Badassery is that you can get pretty much any entry level job in the universe without actual identification. One night walking home from work, he sees a man try to steal fellow barrista Nancy Newsworthy's purse. Using his badass knowlege of human psychology, the good Doctor realizes that if Nancy recognized him while he was saving her, she would fall hopelessly in love with him. He is still mourning his family, and would be unable to return said love. This would of course cause Nancy to throw herself off a bridge in dispair while listening to A Fire Inside on her iPod.

Unable to even concieve of such a horrid fate, let alone anybody actually buying an AFI CD, Badass improvises a diguise out of a soup can and a spandex leotard that happens to be sticking out of a nearby dumpster. He then uses his badass skilz to kick some ass, and saves Nancy.

That night, Badass discovers his true calling in life- saving people from bad emo mall music. Also, fighting crime. So for the next few months the streets of Clichepolis are home to Ivan's crime fighting alter ego- the Badass Proctologist (kicking ass in a medically approved way!) Using various bits of Vanished Alien Technology, Badass builds himself a powerful suit of armor that looks surprisingly like a woman's bathing suite, a fact about which nobody ever comments. Incorporated into this suit are powerful speakers used to only play badass music whenever he is fighting bad guys.

Using his badass statistical knowledge however, Ivan soon notices that most of the criminals he's bringing down are poor, under educated, and suffering from the cancellation of after school programs, so Ivan decides to attack the source of the problem. After burning down Hot Topic stores across the country does nothing to alleviate the symptoms however, he decides to run for public office.

As the new mayor of Clichepolis, Ivan embarks on an ambitious reign of public works and policy. Besides his controversial move to make owning "a Nightmare before Christmas" collectables a jailable offense, he uses his badass zoning skilz to buy up the blocks and blocks of the decrepit factories he used to fight crime in. He then levels these, and builds affordable housing, hospitals and other services. Crime is now fought by the Police, not by extra terrestial cross dressers, and the prison's new rehabilitation policies prove effective at turning all but the most hardened criminals into productive members of society. He funds all of this by donating his alien tech to the city, and then auctioning it off.

Xondoure

2009-03-25, 05:15 PM

Of course, he creates some interesting NEW mistakes for himself:

However, he won't focus or be sufficiently worried or afraid when the time comes.

However, by not appearing in person he may distance himself from things he can't afford to be distant to.

However, he may not punish his men enough for mistakes, thus making discipline and order lax.

However, he may never act at all, because he thinks he has time.

However, he may concentrate his forces too much when spreading out is required.

However, his lack of motivation may frustrate his underlings. This, combined with the lack of discipline, may be his downfall.

However, he may lose hope and quit too early.

However, he may frustrate them by not doing things he's supposed to do, which may antagonize them.

While I may disagree on the ideas behind some of these faults. I do agree that every personality can be exploited for weaknesses.

Yulian

2009-03-25, 10:07 PM

I'm gonna have to stop you right there. That's a sweeping generalization that as far as I can tell has no basis in fact. Not to say I don't admire ambition, but I don't condone cheating and neither do most Americans. If we admired cheating there'd be a lot of people on wall street who wouldn't be neck deep in death threats. You can't say we admire cheating when people are threatening murder on those who cheat. We strip athletes of medals when we find them cheating.

Do we? Oh Americans absolutely condone it in many circumstances.

The only reason AIG execs are getting deaths threats now is because they're tagging big bonuses during a rather nasty recession. They were pulling down that much for years beforehand and no one said boo. But when it's bailout money, suddenly the taxpayers feel invested in it all of a sudden.

I stand by it. Americans love these people so long as there is plausible deniability, then they act like judgemental when it's clear someone has gotten "officially" caught, even if it was obvious beforehand.

You should watch the movie Bigger, Stronger, Faster*. It makes the point a great deal better than I can about how Americans tend to be very inconsistent about cheaters.

- Yulian

Tensu

2009-03-28, 01:49 AM

Nobody complained beforehand because nobody Knew beforehand.

Dervag

2009-03-28, 03:56 AM

Do we? Oh Americans absolutely condone it in many circumstances.

The only reason AIG execs are getting deaths threats now is because they're tagging big bonuses during a rather nasty recession. They were pulling down that much for years beforehand and no one said boo. But when it's bailout money, suddenly the taxpayers feel invested in it all of a sudden.

I stand by it. Americans love these people so long as there is plausible deniability, then they act like judgemental when it's clear someone has gotten "officially" caught, even if it was obvious beforehand.

You should watch the movie Bigger, Stronger, Faster*. It makes the point a great deal better than I can about how Americans tend to be very inconsistent about cheaters.

- YulianHowever, the statement "Americans love people who win even when they cheat," as a generalization, is objectively incorrect. Consider the fate of someone who was known to cheat at cards in the Wild West.

Some Americans admire success, as do people in every country- you'd be hard pressed to find a country that despises success and instead admires failure.

Some Americans, when they see a successful person, are so struck by the aura of success that they ignore evidence of wrongdoing. Again, Americans are not the only people who do this; look at all the people who are loyal to brutal dictators in various countries.

When you tell them that the person they thought was great has done something that is simply wrong, they're quite likely not to believe you. Who wants to believe that Fearless Leader is a bloody-handed tyrant, or that Great Athlete of the Month shoots up 5000 cc of steroids every week? People like to have heroes. Americans are not the only people who like to have heroes.

This is not some unique American evil we're talking about here. By implying that it is, you insult many people who happen to be Americans, and you weaken the true form of your own argument.

GoC

2009-03-28, 01:16 PM

Yulian: Anyone who says "Americans are such-and-such." needs to have their head examined. It's a country of over 300 million and has a huge number of immigrants in parts of it.
If you'd said something like "Stereotypical americans are such-and-such." or "Redneck Texans are such-and-such." it would be possible to take such statements seriously.

I know quite a few people who are avid US-bashers but at least they don't generalize so much.

hanzo66

2009-03-28, 03:22 PM

To me, the case of the Slytherin House (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlytherinHouse) is something that varies. There's the Ambition for Good Purpose and Ambition for Bad Purpose. The desire to improve oneself is not evil in itself, but it really depends on the Why.

Good Ambition: "I Fight For My Friends! My Strength Will Allow Me to Protect Them Further!"

Bad Ambition: "Nree Hee Hee! POWAHHH!!! ULTIMATE POWAHHH!"

It all depends on what you're driving for: Helping others by making yourself stronger or self-benefit Just 'Cuz.

Anime Example: Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann
Spiral Nemesis is pretty much just the Spiral Beings' uncontrolled ambition, which the Anti-Spiral tries to curb by imposing limits on other races.

Good: Simon accepts that too much Ambition is bad, and accepts his part is over to let the races flourish naturally.

Bad: Simon ends up challenging the entire universe and leads humanity to becoming The Imperium ("All the lights in the heavens are our enemies").

Another Example: Naruto

Good: Naruto, who initially wishes to become Hokage so that he is acknowledged. As character Development kicks in, it becomes more a desire to protect his "Precious People" and whatnot. As he progresses, the civilians go from "You Monster!" to "Hey, it's Naruto! We love that guy!"

Bad: Sasuke, whose ambition for strength to avenge his family leads him to abandon friendship and follow Orochimaru. This leads to a lot of other things which ultimately puts him from Antihero to Villain.

I'm probably somewhat inaccurate with certain things, so I apologize if there's anything wrong with what I said...

GoC

2009-03-28, 03:35 PM

So having ambition for your own benefit is wrong?:smallconfused:
I disagree pretty strongly there.

Oslecamo

2009-03-28, 03:51 PM

So having ambition for your own benefit is wrong?:smallconfused:
I disagree pretty strongly there.

Everybody dies sooner or later. Also humans live in society.

So puting yourself above all others results in a waste of resources for our species as a whole. You will die one day, and then all the resources you've poured in yourself will have been wasted.

People don't really remember the guy who spent most of their lifes changing himself. People remember the guy who spent most of their lifes changing the world around them. For good and for worst.

Tensu

2009-03-28, 04:13 PM

Everybody dies sooner or later. Also humans live in society.

So puting yourself above all others results in a waste of resources for our species as a whole. You will die one day, and then all the resources you've poured in yourself will have been wasted.

People don't really remember the guy who spent most of their lifes changing himself. People remember the guy who spent most of their lifes changing the world around them. For good and for worst.

But that's saying good and evil are based on how society interprets it, which is all kinds of incorrect.

There is nothing evil about wanting to better yourself. There's not even anything wrong with seeking power solely for power's sake. Evil is only done when you inhibit the God-given rights of other living things in your pursuit of whatever.

hanzo66

2009-03-28, 04:47 PM

I guess the right term is that Ambition for Self-Benefit is at the least a Gray trait.

Aotrs Commander

2009-04-01, 09:13 AM

The reason--by which I mean one reason--is that fiction feeds blindly off each other.

I have to argee with you on that point. Overly-recycled cliches are the bane of my existance (in and out of fiction).

Because the "values" in fiction tend to be terribly misguided, by and large.

Technology is bad, order is slavery, making a decision based on logic makes you a cold-hearted machine, money is bad, poor people should never get or try to get money, educated people never know as much as "good, old, common-sense regular Joe" types, if someone you want doesn't notice you then you need to change yourself, determination is all you need to succeed, as opposed to good planning, blah, blah, blah.

Oh my yes. Those are some of my 'favourites'. I have to go stab things in the skull every time I see those nowadays. (And fight the urge to find the writers and repeatedly kill them by hammerign the skulls into walls shouting "learn to be creative!" before spirit-binding them into their corpses and forcing them write properly.) But that often seems like a lot of effort, considering how many people I'd have to do that to...

If you ask me, evil loves to show off how it's better - and it always fails. There is nothing intrinsically cooler, smarter, stronger or more interesting about evil.

On behalf of my fellow evil-doers everywhere, I feel I must say HEY!

Just because your stupid human societies never show us winning doesn't mean we don't! As often as not, thank you! And Evil is too cooler and smarter and more Awesome and way more interesting than namby-pamby, goody-two-shoes non-evil!

In all my years, I've never been so insulted!

...

Actually, no wait, tell a lie, there was that time a guy told me vampires were better than we Liches. Come to think of it, in that light, your entirely unjustified insult to Evil suddenly seems less grevious. So I'll forgo hunting you down and nailing your soul's intestines to a tree this once.

Also 'cos I'm lazy.

Speaking of lazy, here's a lazy villain for you: Evil Shikamaru Nara (I see it now, coming from a mirror universe of something, complete with a traditional Evil Beard.) Yeah, that'd totally work.

hanzo66

2009-04-01, 12:31 PM

Tensu

2009-04-01, 01:44 PM

I've always thought that while Good earns it's cred by triumph.

Evil earns it's cred by Stayin' Alive and sticking around like that one little stain that will hopefully drive the Misophobe to suicide. It doesn't need constant victory to win, all it needs is to exist. No matter how much The Messiah does to save the world, there will always be the nihilistic slimeball Complete Monster somewhere around the corner who only needs to stick around. Hopefully their own little efforts will muck up The Messiah's efforts and lead to an entertaining show as they crash and burn.

At least, that's how I've seen it...

Something like that, only I would give evil near that much credit. It's only a matter of time before some soap or solvent is discovered that can remove the stain, and sooner or later our final Triumph will come.

Evil may have a good run, but it's own nature makes it incapable of ever winning.

Tyrant

2009-04-04, 11:21 PM

But that's saying good and evil are based on how society interprets it, which is all kinds of incorrect.
Good and evil are entirely based on interpretation. They are subjective terms. It is not like the number 2. No matter what language or culture that is translated into, the idea it means there are 2 of something remains. It's objective. Good and evil are entirely in the eye of the beholder.

Everybody dies sooner or later. Also humans live in society.

So puting yourself above all others results in a waste of resources for our species as a whole. You will die one day, and then all the resources you've poured in yourself will have been wasted.

People don't really remember the guy who spent most of their lifes changing himself. People remember the guy who spent most of their lifes changing the world around them. For good and for worst.
People who spend their lives putting themselves above others (and actually doing it) typically do change the world around them in one way or another. Rising above the masses isn't a one man job and typically takes time. Conquerors come to mind. Who is better remembered, the people who conquered, pillaged, and rampaged or the men who bettered their societies peacefully?

Something like that, only I would give evil near that much credit. It's only a matter of time before some soap or solvent is discovered that can remove the stain, and sooner or later our final Triumph will come.

Evil may have a good run, but it's own nature makes it incapable of ever winning.
There will be no final triumph over evil so long as there are people. Anyone is capable of evil, given the proper circumstances or reasons. It's a part of human nature. Everyone feels negative feelings and impulses and the world isn't fair (and never will be). Coupled with the fact that people are more than willing to kill each other to get what they want, and it's easy to see that evil will always exist.

As for evil never winning, I would never make that claim. Evil wins in fiction and reality. Nothing in evil's nature makes victory impossible. Improbable in some situations I would agree with, but not impossible.

Unless you are talking about some ultimate victory. In that case, evil can still win. I would actually say evil has a better chance of actually achieving true, ever lasting victory. Evil's ultimate victory could be quite final. Good will never achieve ultimate victory because there will always be people who believe they are above other people and they are willing to do whatever it takes to get what they want. Ever lasting peace through some means other than force or coersion is a total pipe dream.

Agrippa

2009-04-05, 01:05 AM

A few responses I'd like to make. One, to me evil in general is anything but cool. It's brutish, thuggish, often times self-righteous and self-pitying and utterly repulsive. I wouldn't like a villain because he or she is evil but in spite of it. My sympathy and respect for a villain is inversely proportional to their level of evil.

To me an understandable motive alone doesn't make some one an anti-villain or even begin to excuse their behavior. For me to sympathize with a villain that villain needs standards against needless and or extreme cruelty and a willingness and desire to be reasonable and show mercy. Also, for really evil villains, the prettier they are the more I hate them. I'm looking at you Sephiboy. Don't make me sic the Doctor, Hellboy and Baron Wulfenbach on your worthless hide.

Two I don't get why evil is seen as all that seductive or sexy? Doesn't seduction require some amount of empathy, unless I'm mistaken? The ability to understand how someone else thinks and feels. And shouldn't good sex require mutual pleasure and concern for your partner? If you think about it doesn't the forces of good pretty much corner the market in those aspects. So by that logic, wouldn't the good guys (and girls) be better a seduction than the bad guys/girls? Give me one good reason why I'm mistaken, not some religious, societal or pop culture reason. A real one.

Three, evil is not smarter than good, only more ruthless and much less scrupulous.

Tensu

2009-04-05, 02:41 PM

Good and evil are entirely based on interpretation. They are subjective terms. It is not like the number 2. No matter what language or culture that is translated into, the idea it means there are 2 of something remains. It's objective. Good and evil are entirely in the eye of the beholder.

that's what you think. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled and all.

There will be no final triumph over evil so long as there are people. Anyone is capable of evil, given the proper circumstances or reasons. It's a part of human nature. Everyone feels negative feelings and impulses and the world isn't fair (and never will be). Coupled with the fact that people are more than willing to kill each other to get what they want, and it's easy to see that evil will always exist.

As for evil never winning, I would never make that claim. Evil wins in fiction and reality. Nothing in evil's nature makes victory impossible. Improbable in some situations I would agree with, but not impossible.

Unless you are talking about some ultimate victory. In that case, evil can still win. I would actually say evil has a better chance of actually achieving true, ever lasting victory. Evil's ultimate victory could be quite final. Good will never achieve ultimate victory because there will always be people who believe they are above other people and they are willing to do whatever it takes to get what they want. Ever lasting peace through some means other than force or coersion is a total pipe dream.

Evil can never achive final victory because of it's very nature. Pretty much the only people who like evil are overly angsty teenagers, and not even all overly angsty teenagers like evil. It will be "everybody against villain", because the villain can't trust his own men, because if his men are evil, there's going to be at least one plotting against him at any given time. If they are good, eventually they will realize villain is evil.

Evil's power is based on deception, and eventually all truths come to light. when that happens all other things that evil is based on will fade. Greed becomes charity, Lust becomes self-control, hate and paranoia become compassion and understanding, because the truth is no sane, competent person wants to be evil, and most insane and incompetent people don't want to be evil. Evil is a mistake, be it made through ignorance or a lack of self-control, it is by it's very nature foolish, impotent, and above all temporary.

Archpaladin Zousha

2009-04-05, 02:53 PM

Tensu

2009-04-05, 03:58 PM

What about villains who make a big deal of how EVIL they are?

Guybrush Threepwood: "You're about as threatening as a doorstop."

Murray, the skull: "Is it a very EEEVIL looking doorstop?"

There are villains in media who do something solely because it's the EVIL thing to do.

this demonstrates great ignorance. They are evil because for some reason, be it dementia, foolishness, or blinding emotion, they fail to make the evil=bad connection, or realize that any evil act they make will ultimately come back and harm them.

or, if you want to take it beyond typical mortal mentality, in the case demons that it doesn't occur to them that they can be anything but evil, or because evil is a part of their very being and they are afraid of what would happen if they changed sides.

Strip off enough layers from any villain and you'll find either a whiney emo kid, an ungrateful or Nihlistic psychopath, or a misguided fool.

LurkerInPlayground

2009-04-05, 04:02 PM

that's what you think. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled and all.

Evil can never achive final victory because of it's very nature. Pretty much the only people who like evil are overly angsty teenagers, and not even all overly angsty teenagers like evil. It will be "everybody against villain", because the villain can't trust his own men, because if his men are evil, there's going to be at least one plotting against him at any given time. If they are good, eventually they will realize villain is evil.

Evil's power is based on deception, and eventually all truths come to light. when that happens all other things that evil is based on will fade. Greed becomes charity, Lust becomes self-control, hate and paranoia become compassion and understanding, because the truth is no sane, competent person wants to be evil, and most insane and incompetent people don't want to be evil. Evil is a mistake, be it made through ignorance or a lack of self-control, it is by it's very nature foolish, impotent, and above all temporary.
Hence we are posed with the problem of evil.

If evil always fails eventually and good always triumphs then why does evil persist?

Maybe you're just talking about the trope, but saying that evil is merely a temporary state away from good and that good is a temporary state away from evil pretty much makes it indistinguishable from either "triumphing."

The fact of the matter is that the dualistic good vs. evil struggle in high fantasy is trumped-up to look cool in fantasy.

IRL, not all truly awful men indulge in every vice or "sin" that you've listed. And not all of them are merely emo or lashing out. There is such a thing as a cynical profiteer who doesn't have any overwhelming sense of lust, hatred or paranoia.

Evil is simply a label we append to objects or actions or consequences and nothing more. It's isn't a monolithic cosmic force seeking the destruction of man.

While such a stark struggle between Good and Evil makes for great high fantasy and great religion, it isn't terribly practical as a worldview.

Tensu

2009-04-05, 04:11 PM

Hence we are posed with the problem of evil.

If evil always fails eventually and good always triumphs then why does evil persist?

Maybe you're just talking about the trope, but saying that evil is merely a temporary state away from good and that good is a temporary state away from evil pretty much makes it indistinguishable from either "triumphing."

individual sources of evil tend to die out. The ones that aren't forgotten tend to live on only as examples of what not to do. Sources of good are remembered and their ideas adhered to.

that said, You're probably looking for a slow, gradual slide where one side steadily gains ground. But I'm not saying any such slide exists in any noticable way, at least not at this time. We seem to take as many steps backward as we do forward. But it's worth noting that most of the big moral problems where ones that weren't largely dealt with in the past. Ones that we've already struggled with are fading into obscurity.

LurkerInPlayground

2009-04-05, 04:18 PM

individual sources of evil tend to die out. The ones that aren't forgotten tend to live on only as examples of what not to do. Sources of good are remembered and their ideas adhered to.

that said, You're probably looking for a slow, gradual slide where one side steadily gains ground. But I'm not saying any such slide exists in any noticable way, at least not at this time. We seem to take as many steps backward as we do forward. But it's worth noting that most of the big moral problems where ones that weren't largely dealt with in the past. Ones that we've already struggled with are fading into obscurity.
Then you're stuck in a bit of a contradiction, I think.

If good is "triumphing" it's only because mankind has defined what he doesn't like and eliminated them. The view of cosmic Good and Evil locked in eternal struggle, while romantic, doesn't really apply here. We have gotten good at mitigating the consequences of certain human motivations, but we have never eliminated them.

Which, by the way, is nonsensical because you have yet to detail what "evil" means. As long as mankind has the capacity to dream, desire name and make stories, there will always be evil.

Tomorrow, we could have a nuclear war and all that progress would vanish nearly overnight. That "good" is mostly a product of knowledge, wealth and resources.

And to be perfectly honest, some nations have regressed in this respect. Nations or peoples who used to have these things have been reduced back to Bronze Age barbarism where there used to be a thriving center of learning and culture.

Tensu

2009-04-05, 04:49 PM

LurkerInPlayground

2009-04-05, 05:40 PM

I said that triumph will come eventually because evil's nature means it can't win. again, you're looking for a clear definitive slide in favor of one side and such a slide does not exist at this time. There are still a few holdouts of forms of evil we thought we had done away with and such. But it's still a hopeless battle for evil, even if evil manages to put up a fight.
I said that I don't see why you maintain such a meaningless distinction if you acknowledge all the points I make. I could just as easily say that Good will never triumph because of its nature.

It's so horribly vague and ill-defined a statement that it borders on being meaningless. It's a pathetic myth that cheaters never prosper. Many, in fact, do so.

Nor do people indulge in all the "sins" you list. You could have a man who is merely greedy; without being bigoted, without being wrath-driven, without lust, without paranoia, without violent character and a cheery life-affirming disposition; who does incredible harm.

He could be a shameless and unethical profiteer, never breaking the word of the law and prospering at the expense of others. He may spend his entire life being caught or suffering any consquences.

And this man would nominally be evil.

You have shameless racists who spend their entire lives spreading their ignorance, legislating their beliefs onto others and teaching their children to be the same. This racist never becomes a felon, never raises a hand against another person but is still incredibly harmful. He gives money to causes that are harmful and only votes ignorantly on issues that appeal to his narrow idiosyncratic worldview. His mere existence spreads misinformation and discord and may even incite others to more violent action by his tacit approval.

These people don't necessarily fail in life. And they will continue to draw strength to themselves as long as there is a society of other people who think that they ought to be rewarded for sharing those same beliefs, until as such time as an external force censures or eliminates them.

Slavery existed and still exists precisely because cheaters do prosper. There are enormous economic and private benefits to owning slaves. Because, surprise, what we think ought to be done isn't always the same as what is most profitable.

I think that you must have a very odd and narrow definition of "winning."

Don Julio Anejo

2009-04-05, 06:24 PM

Tensu, to add to what LurkerITP has said, consider this hypothetical situation.

An evil, ambitious overlord wants to take over the world because he's well... evil and ambitious. And has the means to do so.

Well, he goes out, conquers, pillages and slaughters his enemies and dies happy at a ripe old age of 73 or something, while having sex with his newest teenage wife. Can't say good triumphed... he had a rich and fulfilling life, he established an empire that would last for a few hundred years and he died peacefully. Chances are, knowing his personality, it's an evil and totalitarian empire. It will be ruled by one of his sons (probably the one who killed off all the other ones).

And you know what... it's going to last for a while. But the thing is... people born after a few generations won't consider it evil or totalitarian anymore. Their morality will change according to what's instilled in them and more likely than not many will be proud to live in a powerful empire and consider themselves civilized. And the big, bad conqueror will be idolized for establishing it.

When the empire finally collapses, it won't be because good eventually triumphed. It's because of another evil, ruthless, overly ambitious ruler with a large army. Revolutions almost never work - you can count the ones that were successful in bringing down the government on the fingers of one hand. Even independence wars are only successful after decades, if not centuries, of guerilla warfare.

And if you think some conquerors or liberators weren't evil, ask yourself this - what did conquered people think about them? History is written by the winners after all..

LurkerInPlayground

2009-04-05, 06:37 PM

Actually, a more fitting example is that a Feudal lord harshly and ruthlessly establishes his empire with all appropriate crushing of his enemies and is accompanied by the appropriate wailing of the womenfolk. His life is difficult but rewarding, but at least there is a reward. Maybe he commits a genocide or two, down to wiping out an entire tribe and spitting pregnant women through the bellies, just to be sure.

He establishes a new gentry, essentially a legitimized mafioso. This lifestyle becomes the status quo. Maybe his inheritor merely the idiot prince that ruins the empire to the suffering of all involved. Maybe the Prince becomes an "Enlightened Despot," but is a despot nonetheless.

The enlightened despot has little call for going out doing the whole conquering, raping and pillaging thing -- what with stability having become commonplace. The empire is settled and now mostly the little administrative tasks remain. Although occassionally somebody has got to be persecuted or eliminated for the empire to prosper. And of course, the serfs and/or slaves have a hard time of it either way.

Now there's mostly these little pissy territorial wars to worry about. As well as smiting insolent upstarts and rivals. Nationalism doesn't yet exist. You get drafted to a cause because the noblemen tells you that you have to be there on the front line. If you're lucky, you get paid or rewarded for your trouble. The health policy sucks though -- it typically involves getting gangrene limbs sawed off and maybe some lying around in a hospital cot.

Tensu

2009-04-05, 06:50 PM

Don Julio Anejo: look back at history. There have been hundreds of evil overlords bent on world domination. None of them achieved it. Most died horribly trying.

Lurkerintheplayground: You're looking at the individual and not the overall battle. that will give you skewed results. You're also mistaking confusing and happiness. The two are very different things. Some criminals go to the grave without being punished in any way we can see from time to time, but most of the most wicked fall, and as for those who "got away", who's to say the beating of the heart beneath the floorboards didn't drive them mad? Who's to say that just because we never saw the punishment the punishment was not there? after all, if the crime slipped past us, perhaps their punishment too was unseen. This may seem like clutching at straws, and on it's own, it would be, but I remind you that the baddest of the bad tend to get their just deserts.

individual villains aside, this is more about the overlying war between good and evil, and evil's nature, which I defined very clearly to you, makes it incapable of holding any permanent power. Thus it can never win.

Tyrant

2009-04-05, 08:02 PM

that's what you think. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled and all.
This implies I give any validity to the concept of the devil. I have no desire to pass the buck to some myth. We are responsible for the wrong doing in this world, not some external force.

My point about evil isn't to say it doesn't exist. People are capable of evil. There are a handful of things I label as evil (such as communism), but I also acknowledge that what I call evil isn't universally considered evil. There is no universal understanding on good and evil so acting like there is is pointless and makes people sound somewhat immature (thinking the world is black and white when it is really varying shades of gray).

Evil can never achive final victory because of it's very nature. Pretty much the only people who like evil are overly angsty teenagers, and not even all overly angsty teenagers like evil. It will be "everybody against villain", because the villain can't trust his own men, because if his men are evil, there's going to be at least one plotting against him at any given time. If they are good, eventually they will realize villain is evil.
And yet in history we find men who are evil who have loyal followers. This doesn't compute with your view. Just because the head is evil doesn't mean everything beneath it is as well.

Also, good will never truly win either. As I already said, the emotions and thoughts that lead one down the path to evil are a basic part of humanity and will never disappear so long as people exist. Also, good can quite easily be blinded by it's own greatness and slip right into evil.

Evil's power is based on deception, and eventually all truths come to light.
Not all evil is based on deception. That implies everyone is quite easily deceived (or that evil really can be good at what it does, which doesn't square with your view at all) or more likely that most people believe what they want to believe which is itself somewhat evil. Sometimes the truth brought to light at the right moment can do far more to advance the goals of evil than years of deception.

when that happens all other things that evil is based on will fade.
I'm guessing you don't follow current events. At all. People lie all the time. They deceive people all the time. By next week it's all forgotten and we are right on to a new round of lies and faux rage that we were lied to. Exposing lies isn't the silver bullet you make it out to be.

Greed becomes charity, Lust becomes self-control, hate and paranoia become compassion and understanding, because the truth is no sane, competent person wants to be evil, and most insane and incompetent people don't want to be evil.
Want to be evil? Probably not. Become evil to achieve their goals and being capable of rationalising it to the point of never losing sleep over it? Happens all the time. Governments do evil things to achieve a greater good all the time. So do regular people. The path to evil isn't a single step and it tends to get easier and easier. To give you a fictional example, look at Jack Bauer. The man has broken innumerable laws and tortured and/or killed countless people, but he has done it for the greater good. He is deemed a necessary evil. Good can't be maintained with positive thinking and rainbows.

Evil is a mistake, be it made through ignorance or a lack of self-control, it is by it's very nature foolish, impotent, and above all temporary.
Nothing lasts forever. Everything is temporary.

As I said, I consider communism evil because it is an ideology of mediocrity. It's a sad truth of the world (real or fictional) that people aren't equal. Don't get me wrong, equality (under the law for instance) is a fine goal but some people will always be smarter, faster, stronger, or better looking (or whatever). Communism reigned for a reasonably long stretch in the USSR. It still reigns in China in theory. For now, most of the world seems to agree with my view. In 1000 years, who knows? That's my point. Good and evil will continue to shift with our experience and understanding. They have no concrete meanings.

As for your comments about warlords and their success rate, some succeeded in creating vast empires. Empires aren't built on happyness. They are built on conquest and war. And they tend to last a while. Their impact is felt for centuries or millenia after their fall. Who is more widely known? Alexander the Great or the man who invented the microchip? Both changed the world, but one did so through violence and death while the other did so with no fight whatsoever. We remember people who conquered and rampaged across the world for far longer than we remember those who changed the world peacefully.

GoC

2009-04-05, 08:43 PM

Evil can never achive final victory because of it's very nature. Pretty much the only people who like evil are overly angsty teenagers, and not even all overly angsty teenagers like evil. It will be "everybody against villain", because the villain can't trust his own men, because if his men are evil, there's going to be at least one plotting against him at any given time. If they are good, eventually they will realize villain is evil.

Evil's power is based on deception, and eventually all truths come to light. when that happens all other things that evil is based on will fade. Greed becomes charity, Lust becomes self-control, hate and paranoia become compassion and understanding, because the truth is no sane, competent person wants to be evil, and most insane and incompetent people don't want to be evil. Evil is a mistake, be it made through ignorance or a lack of self-control, it is by it's very nature foolish, impotent, and above all temporary.

You cannot generalize evil. Evil is a wide range of characteristics that you can have to different degrees.

Your concept of evil is extremely childish... Are you playing devil's advocate or something?

Tensu

2009-04-05, 08:59 PM

You cannot generalize evil. Evil is a wide range of characteristics that you can have to different degrees.

Your concept of evil is extremely childish... Are you playing devil's advocate or something?

Is it? My concept of evil is better thought out than you might think.

I'm not generalizing evil at all: merely noting consistences within all examples of evil. The main consistency is some form of ignorance. I can't think of single example of evil where ignorance is not a factor.

Tyrant

2009-04-05, 09:06 PM

Tensu

2009-04-05, 09:14 PM

Where is the ignorance in greed? What about people who do evil things to other people knowing full well what the outcome will be? People can do evil things knowing that what they are doing is evil. Sometimes hurting the other person really is the point and they know exactly what they are doing. That's not ignorance.

greed shows all kinds of ignorance: ignorance of how economies work, ignorance of who you're hurting, ignorance of the ultimate uselessness of material wealth, etc. etc.

people who do bad things to other people knowing the outcome still show ignorance: namely, ignorance to the fact that evil is bad, and other forms, depending on action and perceived outcome. And I doubt anyone knows every result of any action they take, and that goes at least triple for an evil act.

Tyrant

2009-04-05, 09:37 PM

greed shows all kinds of ignorance: ignorance of how economies work, ignorance of who you're hurting, ignorance of the ultimate uselessness of material wealth, etc. etc.
Ultimate uselessness of material wealth? Who are you trying to kid? Money is what moves this world. Without it you have nothing (and have a pretty good chance of dying in some unpleasant manner like an infection or some parasite or from starvation). Ignorance of how economies work? I'm not seeing it. People with money get what they want is an accepted fact in most economies that I know of. Greedy people seem to have an excellent grasp of how economies work because they tend to some how amass a lot of money. As for who they are hurting, not caring isn't ignorance.

people who do bad things to other people knowing the outcome still show ignorance: namely, ignorance to the fact that evil is bad, and other forms, depending on action and perceived outcome. And I doubt anyone knows every result of any action they take, and that goes at least triple for an evil act.
So those who do good are also ignorant because they are ignorant of the outcome? Saving that kid who one day becomes Stalin?

Your problem is that you are stuck on the assumption that it is a universal truth that evil is bad in the same way that 2 means the same thing no matter how you use it. 2 will always be twice as many as 1 and half as many as 4 no matter what language or culture it is applied to. Evil (and good) doesn't work that way.

And you still fail to take into account people who don't care. Not caring isn't the same as ignorance. Ignorance is not knowing 2+2=4. Ignorance is not being apathetic or sociopathic. I don't believe your view is as thought out as you think it is which isn't suprising given how absolute you think it is and how quick you are to broadly label all evil acts a result of ignorance.

Edit to add:Ignorance is taking actions without even considering the outcome. Setting out to intentionally commit an evil act with knowledge of the intended outcome (and the other probable outcomes) isn't ignorant. I am baffled how you can saying knowing what you are doing is an act of ignorance.

Don Julio Anejo

2009-04-05, 11:50 PM

Don Julio Anejo: look back at history. There have been hundreds of evil overlords bent on world domination. None of them achieved it. Most died horribly trying.

Oh? I was under the impression quite a few of them established long-standing empires...

Narmer, Sargon of Akkad, Assurbanipal, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander, Qin Shi-Huang-Di, Attila, Seleukos I Nicator... These are just the few from a limited time frame from a limited area of the world (barring emperor Qin) who immediately jump out at you. Narmer's Egypt lasted 3,000 years before being ultimately conquered by the Romans...

And the only ones who actually set out to do something that can be considered good were Alexander (who wanted to take out the Persian threat to Greece) and Qin (who wanted to end the infighting and unify China). You can see how they ended up.

True, some violently died in battle.. can't say they were THAT unhappy about it, after all, they died a warrior's death. Others were assassinated (Julius Caesar). But dying in battle was a risk they knew they were taking - after all, no one really forces you to be in the front lines. And assassination... People who are inconvenient to other people with the means and resolve to do so are the ones who get assassinated, not people who are inherently evil.

greed shows all kinds of ignorance: ignorance of how economies work, ignorance of who you're hurting, ignorance of the ultimate uselessness of material wealth, etc. etc.
Let's see... To be greedy (and not just a pennypincher) you have to have a pretty good understanding of how economies work. You also, you know, can just NOT CARE about who you're hurting. I'm pretty sure corporate execs don't really give a crap about 10c/hour sweatshop workers, even though they know full well of who they're hurting.

And material wealth is not exactly useless. In fact it's quite useful. Even if you don't do anything with it, just having it gives you quite a bit of status, which is something you personally may not care about (which I don't believe, you probably use something else as a measure of status, be it marks people get in school, how much they help out in the community or how many friends they have) but a lot (if not most) people do.

Outside of being a status symbol, money has one other main use - it gives you the ability to do stuff you normally wouldn't be able to. Could be power (goes hand in hand with ambition), could be a way to achieve your goals (again with ambition) or could simply be a way to give you stuff you want. I don't NEED a $30M penthouse suite with 4 meter high ceilings, an outside swimming pool on the roof and ultra-modern designer furniture but I sure as hell want it. Not because it would impress other people, but because, you know, I wouldn't mind living in it.

Or, if you look at it from a biological perspective... Material wealth is the single most important thing you can accumulate. Simply because it gives your offspring a very, very big competitive advantage. You can, quite simply, have more kids, support them better and allow THEM to have more kids and support them better. Aka inclusive fitness. It's very much hardwired into our brains and everything we see as a sign of status is something that positively affects our ability to pass on genes.

For example... a guy who's a stud and a playboy is seen as successful - he's doing pretty well when it comes to passing on his genes. A woman who's married to a rich and successful guy is also seen as quite successful, compared to one married to a trailer park dude, or worse, has questionable moral character - in the last case because she wouldn't have a man to "provide" for her at all if she does have a child.

A guy who is absolutely great at repelling women (especially if he does so consciously and intentionally) will never be seen as successful or of high status. The only time it may not be true if he's a member of a religious group that puts celibacy above all else, in which case he's playing on the insecurities of people trying to suppress their natural instincts.

This, by the way, brings us to another topic. One way to look at it is that overly ambitious conquering types are simply taking their strife for inclusive fitness too far. Because one thing they could be trying to accomplish (although probably not consciously) is taking control of an entire country (if not group of countries) to provide resources for a single person (or family or clan). A noble goal if you look at it - they're just doing stuff for their family. It's the means that are a problem.

Xuincherguixe

2009-04-06, 06:58 AM

Ouch. Just read this last page. Also getting a bit too close to discussing religion here...

See, the thing is not only am I not convinced that evil exists, I kind of lean towards it not being possible for it to exist. But to get into it, then we would REALLY have to start getting into religion, and I might offend some people.

But yeah, I don't believe in evil. I believe in actions and consequences. People are greedy because we have evolved that way (or designed if you put much stock into that). Those who take have more, and are thus more desired. And so they have offspring with a tendency to be greedy. There are those who are violent. We learn to either fear and obey them, or commit violence ourselves against them.

What we call evil doesn't happen in a vacuum. It exists because it works so well. Sure, every so often a greedy corporate type gets fired. But what about all the others who are doing so well? And frankly, none of us are innocent. The developing world continues to suffer, and to a large extent it's the fault of the first world. We benefit from all this wealth at their expense. And the waste we commit is sickening.

Some would consider that evil. But I don't see any figures twirling their mustaches as they place Africa on the railroad tracks. And sure, there's people out their laughing at how we take from them. But what about each of us, as we continue to participate in the capitalist system? I can't scream about how we're all sinners and that we should pray for forgiveness for being caught up in something so much larger than ourselves.

I would say, that evil is not some arbitrary wicked force responsible for all the evils in the universe, that wishes to see us all suffer. What we call evil is a simplification of unbalance. Some have more, and some of have less. Those who desire something are more likely to acquire it, and those who do not are looked at with scorn. This unbalance exists because it has benefited some, who have power and control.

And if things keep going like this... there could be world wide rioting. And sure, it might have been caused by a few greedy people who brought suffering and unbalance to others... but you know that rioting is going to do the same thing. And that's going bring consequences too. Like continued mayhem.

That's why we can't rely too much on concepts like good and evil. It's a narrow point of view that obscures the worlds actual problems. Many of which do not have nice solutions. If they did, don't you think we'd live in a better one?

Tensu

2009-04-06, 10:10 AM

Ouch. Just read this last page. Also getting a bit too close to discussing religion here...

I noticed... And I probably can't go any further without getting into it. this, plus that fact that tyrant admitted he thinks evil is "cool", means I'm just going to have to walk away.

LurkerInPlayground

2009-04-06, 12:37 PM

I noticed... And I probably can't go any further without getting into it. this, plus that fact that tyrant admitted he thinks evil is "cool", means I'm just going to have to walk away.
That would be a pity. Since although I do disagree with Tyrant's explanation for the "necessity evil" as being clumsy and over-generalized.

I should mention that you can't implore me to care about the "bigger battle" when not a post before, you acknowledge that this progress probably isn't as solid and long-lasting as that. Your model doesn't work. Maintaining the metaphor is useless, since it was a bad metaphor to begin with.

There is no bigger battle. That's the point. This isn't Lord of the Rings. There is no cosmic conspiracy to bring about the downfall of mankind. It's the stuff of mythology to romanticize and personify the struggle of Good and Evil. And while it makes for a captivating story, it's hardly applicable as a concept.

I do believe evil exists, but not quite in the same sense as you bandy about. Evil is a label we assign to motivations, actions, consequences and character. Nothing more and nothing less. Sometimes we have a shared cultural perception of what evil is and as often as not, we have disagreements. None of the things that we find undesirable are all on the same team and out to extinguish us.

The simple and complex nature of reality is this:
The greediest man can still be capable of great acts of love. It's not as simple as a greedy man being always stupid, lustful, wrathful, ignorant and malicious. It's easier to judge the cartoon caricature of a villain than it is to really see people for who they are.

It's wishful thinking to believe that karmic justice will be visited on this man and that his nature will somehow resolve itself.

GoC

2009-04-06, 01:28 PM

I'm very sorry Tensu but...

It's weird... am I the only person having trouble taking Tensu seriously here?:smallconfused:

Tensu

2009-04-06, 08:13 PM

That would be a pity. Since although I do disagree with Tyrant's explanation for the "necessity evil" as being clumsy and over-generalized.

I should mention that you can't implore me to care about the "bigger battle" when not a post before, you acknowledge that this progress probably isn't as solid and long-lasting as that. Your model doesn't work. Maintaining the metaphor is useless, since it was a bad metaphor to begin with.

There is no bigger battle. That's the point. This isn't Lord of the Rings. There is no cosmic conspiracy to bring about the downfall of mankind. It's the stuff of mythology to romanticize and personify the struggle of Good and Evil. And while it makes for a captivating story, it's hardly applicable as a concept.

I do believe evil exists, but not quite in the same sense as you bandy about. Evil is a label we assign to motivations, actions, consequences and character. Nothing more and nothing less. Sometimes we have a shared cultural perception of what evil is and as often as not, we have disagreements. None of the things that we find undesirable are all on the same team and out to extinguish us.

The simple and complex nature of reality is this:
The greediest man can still be capable of great acts of love. It's not as simple as a greedy man being always stupid, lustful, wrathful, ignorant and malicious. It's easier to judge the cartoon caricature of a villain than it is to really see people for who they are.

It's wishful thinking to believe that karmic justice will be visited on this man and that his nature will somehow resolve itself.

And that's a typical secular view of good and evil, the easiest way to argue against it would be to go into religion, and I doubt anyone here wants that.

regardless, there is always one underlying ignorance in any act of evil: the fact that what you're doing is evil. No, nobody "knows full well" that they're doing an evil act, they try to justify it on some level, even if that level is a lack of belief in good and evil or saying "I need no justification".

Don Julio Anejo

2009-04-06, 09:03 PM

And that's a typical secular view of good and evil, the easiest way to argue against it would be to go into religion, and I doubt anyone here wants that.
The difference between secular and religious world views is that with a secular world view, each person thinks and decides for themselves. With a religion, there's something telling you this (often arbitrary) act is evil while this (often arbitrary) act is good. Arbitrary because, although there are some universal evils like murder and rape, the amount of sex you have or who you have it with has absolutely nothing to do with how evil you are (as long as you're not using "evil" means like blackmail to get it but that's a different story).

regardless, there is always one underlying ignorance in any act of evil: the fact that what you're doing is evil. No, nobody "knows full well" that they're doing an evil act, they try to justify it on some level, even if that level is a lack of belief in good and evil or saying "I need no justification".
See, the thing is, those people ORDERING evil to take place (like corporate executives) aren't personally performing evil. They're merely telling other people to do it. They don't see sweatshop workers. They don't see their living conditions. They don't see the real people behind it. All they see are numbers in a spreadsheet. However, they do see the positive effects of what they're doing, like a new Mercedes (maybe positive isn't the right word but I hope everyone gets what I mean).

Which makes it very impersonal. In the words of Stalin, "Death of one person is a tragedy. Death of millions is a statistic." While he wasn't a very good person (an understatement), he did get this one thing right. People can relate with a person and that person's story. People can't relate with numbers on a page or point-form notes in a report listing working conditions.

Therefore, corporate execs just plain don't care. The little people, like factory managers do care, because they see what's going on and it affects them personally. Now these people DO make excuses and justify their actions. And the funny thing, I don't think these people see what they're doing as evil. Heck, their line of reasoning could be that without these factories most people would be out of work and have NOTHING to live on. And you know what? Chances are they're right. Doesn't change that they're exploiting people through what's literally economic slavery ("you can work almost for free or you can not work at all and starve, there's 20 people who want to take your place").

Tyrant

2009-04-06, 09:58 PM

And that's a typical secular view of good and evil, the easiest way to argue against it would be to go into religion, and I doubt anyone here wants that.
This response tells me that your stance isn't as well thought out as you imply. Surely you can relate it to non religious terminology and have it make sense.

regardless, there is always one underlying ignorance in any act of evil: the fact that what you're doing is evil.
I believe this statement has been met with criticism that has basically gone unanswered. Simply repeating won't make it any more true. It is possible, even probable, that people knowingly and willingly commit evil acts with evil intentions and they hope that the worst possible outcome is what comes to pass. Knowingly doing something can't be ignorance in the way you mean it.

No, nobody "knows full well" that they're doing an evil act,
So, if I were to intentionally shoot someone to death with the knowing intent to kill them, I don't know that what I am doing is evil? How is that exactly because I really have to know. If I intentionally steal something (you have to do it intentionally most of the time), I somehow don't know it's evil? I'm just really not following what you are saying at all here.

they try to justify it on some level, even if that level is a lack of belief in good and evil or saying "I need no justification".
Or, as has been said again and again, they simply don't care. I can tell that this idea simply doesn't mesh with your view because you are starting with a conclusion and picking which facts support it while ignoring others. You have to believe evil is ignorance for some reason (I think we know why without having to talk about it) so this view simply can't be challenged and you are unwilling to even consider the facts that contradict it.

Also, where did I say evil was cool?

Edit to add:

I'm very sorry Tensu but...

It's weird... am I the only person having trouble taking Tensu seriously here?:smallconfused:
I believe he is being serious. I have met a number of people who think along these lines and I have seen most of these arguments before.

Xuincherguixe

2009-04-06, 11:48 PM

Evil is cool!

... When we're talking about comic books, and heavy metal kind of evil. But that's not real.

13_CBS

2009-04-06, 11:59 PM

Xuincherguixe

2009-04-07, 12:15 AM

This seems to be why he's saying that he doesn't want to violate the "no religion" rule here. He simply can't tell you precisely why he thinks certain things are good and evil without breaking the forum rules.

Certainly makes it difficult to have a discussion on morality.

Of course, it's also the general idea behind the rule in the first. So people don't end up throwing things at each other and bans get handed out like candy.

Tensu

2009-04-07, 02:03 AM

13_CBS has it pretty much. though I don't believe all forms of good and evil are absolute and there is some room for personal opinion. I'd quote scripture here, but that'd probably be counterproductive.

discussing good and evil on a forum where discussing religion and politics at length is not allowed makes for a tricky balancing act, and the discussion can only go so far before it either comes to a screeching halt or descends into a terrible flame war until the mods come in and much suffering is had by all.

So my philosophy doesn't look complete because I can't post the complete thing.

LurkerInPlayground

2009-04-07, 12:32 PM

Tensu appears to support an absolute morality that labels certain actions, thoughts, etc. as "evil" (and, logically, applies the label of "good" on certain actions, thoughts, etc.). As far as I can tell, it stems from a religious source.

This seems to be why he's saying that he doesn't want to violate the "no religion" rule here. He simply can't tell you precisely why he thinks certain things are good and evil without breaking the forum rules.

Edit: That said, I'm still not 100% sure on what Tensu means by "evil".
As far as I'm concerned, if he has to use religion to make his point, then he has no point at all. Religion exists in the secular world. As long as it makes claims about the secular world or prescribes action by a secular society, it has to play ball. Appeals to the supernatural are meaningless to the people who don't accept your theology or holy scripture.

The term "absolute morality" is pretty much a buzz phrase anyway. I get very suspicious of arguments or statements that often include this phrase, in much the same fashion when I hear "free will." The way it's used serves to degrade our language, rather than communicate anything coherent.

"You don't believe in an absolute morality!"
What does that even mean? It's absolute gibberish. It's as nonsensical as pink purple unicorns swim in the moon.

Tensu

2009-04-07, 01:52 PM

First off, I find it strange you're talking to not me about this while I'm "standing right here".

Secondly, It's not that I need to bring up religion to make a point at all. If you'd have been paying attention, you'd know this. It's that religion makes the point I'm making much more clear and much more absolute. People where bringing up inclairities and trying to find exceptions, which, if I choose my words perfectly, I could clear up. But Religion would answer all questions instantly, rather than trying to define religious ideals in a secular perspective without offending anyone or letting anyone realize I'm discussing religion.

Third, that's not the only problem I have. Tyrant thinks evil is cool for some reason. I could explain why this is a problem, but most wordings I can think of atm would seem insulting or make me look judgmental.

hamishspence

2009-04-07, 02:00 PM

Tyrant

2009-04-07, 03:06 PM

Secondly, It's not that I need to bring up religion to make a point at all. If you'd have been paying attention, you'd know this. It's that religion makes the point I'm making much more clear and much more absolute. People where bringing up inclairities and trying to find exceptions, which, if I choose my words perfectly, I could clear up. But Religion would answer all questions instantly, rather than trying to define religious ideals in a secular perspective without offending anyone or letting anyone realize I'm discussing religion.
I believe his point is that if your argument hinges on "(insert deity or abstract concept of choice) says it's wrong" then it won't hold up to scrutiny (said nonhuman force isn't likely to show up to clarify) so it's not a great argument. You also run into the already mentioned problem that people who don't share in that system don't believe in what you are labeling absolute truths. Your argument appears to hinge on these as you don't go into in any depth yet you say you could. You should at least try.

Third, that's not the only problem I have. Tyrant thinks evil is cool for some reason. I could explain why this is a problem, but most wordings I can think of atm would seem insulting or make me look judgmental.
I'll ask again where I said that. Supposing for a moment that I did actually think that, how is that a problem for you? Saying terms like good and evil are mostly meaningless isn't the same as finding evil cool. I find some evil characters cool, but it has a lot more to do with their character attributes or what they accomplish than the fact they are evil. It is a staple of fiction at the moment that heroes just aren't written that well a lot of the time so the writers make the villains better characters by comparison. That doesn't cover all fiction, but a lot of it falls into that. The compromise a lot of writers seem to settle on is the antihero which can work sometimes.

Tensu

2009-04-07, 04:35 PM

it may depend on the style. "For The Greater Good" is a common slogan of fictional evil groups that don't see themselves as evil.

when the character is a Card Carrying Villain, they may be charming, charismatic, and dramatic in their evil- this may be why they impress.

Disney villains are often exceptionally charismatic (or at least have moments of it) despite being very unambiguously Evil.

I know that your powers of retention
are as wet as a warthog' backside
but think as you are
PAY ATTENTION!
my words are a matter of pride...
It's clear from your vacent expressions
the light's are not all on upstairs
but we're talking kings and [/i]successions![/i]!
even you can't be caught unawares!
So prepare for the chance of a lifetime
be prepared for sensational news!
a shining new era is tiptoeing nearer

and where do we feature?

just listen to teacher
I know it sounds sorted
but you'll be rewarded
when at last I am given my dues!
and in justice, deliciously square!

BE PREPARED!

prepare, for the coo of the century!
be prepared for the murkiest scam!
Maticulous planning,
tennacity standing,
their cage of denial
is simply why I'll
be king, undisputed, respected, saluted
and seen for the WONDER I am!
yes my teeth and ambitions are bared
Be prepared!
yes our teeth and ambitions are bared
be prepared!
mwahahahahahahahahaha!:smallbiggrin:

Tyrant:

I thought you mentioned it on the thread that split off from this one. Maybe I was mistaken, maybe I took things out of context, and maybe it was someone else with same avatar as you. If such was the case, I apologize.

Arguing it from a secular viewpoint would henge a great deal on philosophy, which was equally ignored in past discussions.

It's hard to talk about good and evil when limited to only taking things at face value and not taking into account the lives of other living things, because, well, that's the mindset an evil person would be in. I could probably find a way that almost any evil act comes back to hurt the one that did it, it's just I'm sure such arguments would be ignored. So I'm asking why I should even bother.

Don Julio Anejo

2009-04-07, 05:21 PM

It's hard to talk about good and evil when limited to only taking things at face value and not taking into account the lives of other living things, because, well, that's the mindset an evil person would be in
There's also ethics, which is usually the secular person's morality. Ethics pretty much IS taking into account lives of other people without the scriptural overtones. Or are you going to argue that non-religious people can't be good because they don't have scripture telling them what's good and what's evil?

I could probably find a way that almost any evil act comes back to hurt the one that did it, it's just I'm sure such arguments would be ignored. So I'm asking why I should even bother.
If you try hard enough, you can also find a way that almost any good act ends up in people getting hurt, including the one that did it. Heck, self-sacrifice (a good act, right?) ends up hurting the person that did it by definition.

Or again with an archetypal example... You face a dilemma... to save or not to save a drowning little boy you know will grow up to be Hitler irregardless of your actions. What do you do?

Yulian

2009-04-07, 07:57 PM

Don Julio Anejo: look back at history. There have been hundreds of evil overlords bent on world domination. None of them achieved it. Most died horribly trying.

There is evidence that Ghengis Khan is apparently the most reproductively successful human being ever. As many as .5% of all men in the entire world may be descended from him (tracking mutations on the Y chromosome only allows tracking males), given that humans births are about evenly male or female, then potentially as many as 1% of all humans alive today can claim descent from him.

His empire dominated much of the known world. His Golden Horde basically lasted from about the 1240s through about the 1370s.The Khan himself died at 65 years of age. I'd say that's about as good as can be hoped for.

A lot of people may not have ruled "the world" but they certainly ruled as much of it as they could reach, given the technology of the time.

I think a false notion here is that because "evil" doesn't "rule the world" it's not successful. This ignore the fact that no human culture has lasted more than a few centuries, at best. They're transient. It's not really a valid question.

- Yulian

Tensu

2009-04-07, 10:20 PM

There's also ethics, which is usually the secular person's morality. Ethics pretty much IS taking into account lives of other people without the scriptural overtones. Or are you going to argue that non-religious people can't be good because they don't have scripture telling them what's good and what's evil?

...maybe...*

If you try hard enough, you can also find a way that almost any good act ends up in people getting hurt, including the one that did it. Heck, self-sacrifice (a good act, right?) ends up hurting the person that did it by definition.

depends on what you consider "hurt". If profit > cost still means hurt, then yeah.

Or again with an archetypal example... You face a dilemma... to save or not to save a drowning little boy you know will grow up to be Hitler irregardless of your actions. What do you do?

...hmmmm...

the kid's probably better off dead, not just for the world but for himself to be honest. If I'm 100% certain, that is.

There is evidence that Ghengis Khan is apparently the most reproductively successful human being ever. As many as .5% of all men in the entire world may be descended from him (tracking mutations on the Y chromosome only allows tracking males), given that humans births are about evenly male or female, then potentially as many as 1% of all humans alive today can claim descent from him.

His empire dominated much of the known world. His Golden Horde basically lasted from about the 1240s through about the 1370s.The Khan himself died at 65 years of age. I'd say that's about as good as can be hoped for.

A lot of people may not have ruled "the world" but they certainly ruled as much of it as they could reach, given the technology of the time.

I think a false notion here is that because "evil" doesn't "rule the world" it's not successful. This ignore the fact that no human culture has lasted more than a few centuries, at best. They're transient. It's not really a valid question.

- Yulian

because Genghis Kahn united the tribes of his people, established one of the most ethnically and religiously tolerant nations in history, with tax breaks for scholars and religious officials, and realized that it was more important for him to appoint leaders that where good than leaders that where mongols. truly an evil man:insert rolleyes simile:

[size=1]*I kid, I kid. It's just that in past experiences with secular types even ethics for ethics sake and not any greater power was poo-pooed.

Dervag

2009-04-07, 10:27 PM

There is evidence that Ghengis Khan is apparently the most reproductively successful human being ever. As many as .5% of all men in the entire world may be descended from him (tracking mutations on the Y chromosome only allows tracking males), given that humans births are about evenly male or female, then potentially as many as 1% of all humans alive today can claim descent from him.Probably more than that. If .5% of all men in the world carry his Y chromosome, remember that those are only the ones who are the sons of the sons of... [many, many ancestors, all male]... Ghenghis Khan's sons.

How many people are descended from his daughters? Or the daughters of his sons? Or the daughters of the sons of his sons? Or... you get the picture. Realistically, if the male-line descendants alone make up .5% of humanity, just about everyone in Asia probably has Ghengis Khan somewhere in their family tree by now.

I kid, I kid. It's just that in past experiences with secular types even ethics for ethics sake and not any greater power was poo-pooed.Perhaps you have not been acquainted with the many schools of secular philosophy that pursue the goal of "ethics for ethics' sake." Utilitarianism being perhaps the most famous.

Do not presume that the secularists you've met represent the flower of secular thought.

Don Julio Anejo

2009-04-07, 10:44 PM

\
because Genghis Kahn united the tribes of his people, established one of the most ethnically and religiously tolerant nations in history, with tax breaks for scholars and religious officials, and realized that it was more important for him to appoint leaders that where good than leaders that where mongols. truly an evil man:insert rolleyes simile:\
Oh? I was under the impression he slaughtered entire cities that didn't surrender, used captured prisoners to fill moats (as in force them to go forward, fall in the ditch and die just to fill up space) before an assault, conquered for the sake of conquering (back to the original topic of ambition), destroyed and enslaved a major empire (Khwaresm) to the point that instead of being a civilization rivaling Baghdad Caliphate, only nomadic tribesmen lived there afterward and did many other things horrible even by the standards of the day...

Hectonkhyres

2009-04-07, 10:48 PM

How many people are descended from his daughters? Or the daughters of his sons? Or the daughters of the sons of his sons? Or... you get the picture. Realistically, if the male-line descendants alone make up .5% of humanity, just about everyone in Asia probably has Ghengis Khan somewhere in their family tree by now.
And a few of those descendants no doubt trickled out into europe where they permeated the population there and were carried into all of that continent's colonies. The only people not related to the old Genghis are a few backwoods primitives living in the Amazon jungle.

Dervag

2009-04-08, 12:08 AM

And a few of those descendants no doubt trickled out into europe where they permeated the population there and were carried into all of that continent's colonies. The only people not related to the old Genghis are a few backwoods primitives living in the Amazon jungle.Also, the New Guinea highlanders. And quite probably at least some of the Australian aborigines.

To be honest, I think it's at least plausible for an ethnic European to have no trace of Ghengis Khan's genes. It's hard to guess how likely it is, but note that we have no confirmed cases of the Ghengis Khan Y chromosome turning up in the West.

Avilan the Grey

2009-04-08, 01:41 AM

Is it? My concept of evil is better thought out than you might think.

I'm not generalizing evil at all: merely noting consistences within all examples of evil. The main consistency is some form of ignorance. I can't think of single example of evil where ignorance is not a factor.

Your arguments lack basis in fact. Evil and Good, as capital forces, do not really apply to the real world; this is why a lot of us have such problems with the D&D alignment system, for example... The real world is an ever-changing pallet of gray.

You say "Evil Overlords" have tried to conquer and failed. Which ones are you thinking about? A few obvious answers comes to mind, from the last century, and maybe the Mongol and Hunn hordes. But the ones failing are far fewer than the ones that succeeding, as examples above have shown. People in these kingdoms / empires over the centuries have thought about them as "good".

Qin Shi Huangdi, a very unpleasant person, founded a long-lasting "evil empire" that is still around: China. He founded it in 221 BC.

Other examples are the early Egyptian Pharaohs, who expanded their lands with force and diplomacy and created the longest-lasting empire on the planet. Eventually the empire was destroyed, by another "evil empire", Rome.

Newer examples are the United States, which was founded on (partly) Genocide (American natives) and Slavery, as well as lofty ideals and a wonderful constitution. Of course the US has not lasted long enough that we really know if it is a lasting empire or not... :smallwink:

The British Empire too, was expanded because of the idea of the British being superior and having the right to rule others. These ideals together with greed created the largest empire known to man. Ever.

The point is to show that in all big expansions ruthlessness and realpolitik are necessary ingredients, and to everyone not on the expanding party's side, that party is indeed an Evil Empire. But a long-lasting empire will in the end be known for other things: Culture. Order. Trade. We all tend to forget exactly what our ancestors did to other people's ancestors not too long ago (and often get very offended if they remember it).

Avilan the Grey

2009-04-08, 01:52 AM

Tensu

2009-04-08, 01:58 AM

Dervag: My goal is not to sterotype anyone, I've just never met anyone who has a secular viewpoint and still believes in ethics before, so it wasn't what I was expecting.

Don Julio Anejo: His people didn't live in the most not desert conditions of the world, so he can claim this all started as necessity. And they lived in a time where such behavior was the societal norm. Genghis's ascent to power was ruthless, but once he got what he wanted he showed genuine tolerance for the people he had conquered, giving them positions everywhere in society, including the ruling class. How many classical-medieval era conquerors showed that much kindness to their conquerees? You can make a case for Genghis Kahn being not good, but you can't call him evil.

Avilan the Grey: You think everybody is evil, don't you?:smalltongue:

Avilan the Grey

2009-04-08, 02:42 AM

Avilan the Grey: You think everybody is evil, don't you?:smalltongue:

I am just being realistic. In this world there is no absolutes. All is gray.

Emperor Tippy

2009-04-08, 07:27 AM

If you want to argue good and evil, you must first define them. And define them in such a way that any action can be labeled "Good" or "Evil" without changing your definitions (even if you can't label an action, the definitions have to be such that it is one or the other).

If you don't have definitions like that then Good and Evil are entirely subjective and hence worthless.

I use the following definitions:
Good: Any action that increases the chances of humanities survival as a species.
Evil: Any action that decreases the chances of humanities survival as a species.

Finn Solomon

2009-04-08, 07:47 AM

So...what Adrian Veidt did, by your definition, was good?

Good and evil are concepts too large and complex to be easily defined in a single sentence.

I can think of a few examples that defy your definitions. Adopting a stray kitten to prevent it from suffering and dying out in the cold is a good act, but it doesn't affect humanity on a global scale. A shopkeeper charging a black person more than a white person for the same item is an evil act, but again, it does not concern the survival of the species per se.

Emperor Tippy

2009-04-08, 09:04 AM

So...what Adrian Veidt did, by your definition, was good?
It could be. I don't possess enough knowledge to say either way. The nuking of an entirely innocent city could be good, to prevent the spread of weaponized small pox (for example). Most of the time it would prolly be evil. Starting a nuclear war would prolly be evil, because it would kill off so much of the worlds population, but if it killed off an individual who would have gone on to make and release a super virus that would have killed off even more of the worlds population then it was a good act.

The fact that no one possesses enough knowledge and foresight to accurately judge the morality of an act doesn't change the morality of the act. This isn't an excuse to go out and do whatever you want, as laws are generally made to keep society going and society's continued existence is generally a good thing, as it will eventually lead to the colonization of other worlds (finally freeing the human species from extinction because of a single mistake or random chance).

Good and evil are concepts too large and complex to be easily defined in a single sentence.
Good and evil are generally arbitrary and stupid concepts with no real meaning. Something is generally considered good if most people support it and is generally considered evil if most people don't like it. If you want a more meaningful definition you almost have to use something like my definition, use divine command theory (its good because god said it is), or use entirely subjective morality (in which case nothing is ever evil).

Tensu

2009-04-08, 09:12 AM

Avilan the grey: You keep telling your self that, but just because a nations does one or two bad things, even really bad things, early in it's history doesn't make it an evil empire. You're just ignoring all of the good the Americans, Romans, and Eygeptians did. Often times weather a nation can be called "good" or "evil" depends largely on who's in power at the time.

Emperor Tippy: Most religions and philosophies need entire books to define them.

and are still vague.

The problem with your definition is that it makes Many cases of martyrdom and standing up for what you believe in evil acts. Also, if we weren't in the situation we're n now, chastity would be an evil act. It also makes a lot of forms of oppression good acts.

I could go on to define good and evil, but without getting into religion the definition would be so long it would violate the max character limit and then some. However, I believe human beings at their heart want to do the right thing, this is supported by the fact that every villain the world has seen has in some way either tried to justify their actions or admitted what they did was wrong. Thus, I believe humans do evil out of ignorance of what the right thing to do is, or some variation of that, such as ignorance to the existence of a right thing at all.

Finn Solomon

2009-04-08, 09:12 AM

Okay, point taken about the knowledge, but there and then, the mass murder of millions of innocents versus what could potentially happen...Veidt could not have been 100% sure that nuclear war was going to break out. It's an evil act for me.

Good and evil are generally arbitrary and stupid concepts with no real meaning. Something is generally considered good if most people support it and is generally considered evil if most people don't like it. If you want a more meaningful definition you almost have to use something like my definition, use divine command theory (its good because god said it is), or use entirely subjective morality (in which case nothing is ever evil).

My objection to your definitions arise from the fact that they are too wide and unspecific. I'd suggest changing 'survival of the species' to 'well-being of an individual.'

Dervag

2009-04-08, 09:16 AM

Dervag: My goal is not to sterotype anyone, I've just never met anyone who has a secular viewpoint and still believes in ethics before, so it wasn't what I was expecting.Tensu, if you've met more secularists than can be counted on the fingers of a blind butcher, then the claim that you've never met any who were ethical is almost certainly mistaken. I suspect you weren't paying close enough attention, or that you were assuming that anyone you met who was ethical must necessarily be highly religious.

Don Julio Anejo: His people didn't live in the most not desert conditions of the world, so he can claim this all started as necessity. And they lived in a time where such behavior was the societal norm. Genghis's ascent to power was ruthless, but once he got what he wanted he showed genuine tolerance for the people he had conquered, giving them positions everywhere in society, including the ruling class. How many classical-medieval era conquerors showed that much kindness to their conquerees? You can make a case for Genghis Kahn being not good, but you can't call him evil.The people of Central Asia might take exception to that. The region still hasn't really recovered from what he did to them... 750 years later.

Finn Solomon

2009-04-08, 09:21 AM

I'd agree with Dervag. I consider myself secular, religious, and a believer in ethics.

Manga Shoggoth

2009-04-08, 09:24 AM

Good and evil are generally arbitrary and stupid concepts with no real meaning. Something is generally considered good if most people support it and is generally considered evil if most people don't like it. If you want a more meaningful definition you almost have to use something like my definition, use divine command theory (its good because god said it is), or use entirely subjective morality (in which case nothing is ever evil).

Although I disagree, I can't help quoting Belgarath: "I don't like 'good' and 'evil'. I prefer 'us' and 'them'."

Tensu

2009-04-08, 09:38 AM

Dervag: Most secularists I've met were too busy making fun of me to explain their ethical beliefs in detail, so just assumed they had none given the arrogance and hypocrisy they demonstrated.

Finn Solomon: but secular pretty much means "having no religious basis". What exactly do you mean by being secular and religious? Something like Deism?

Finn Solomon

2009-04-08, 09:50 AM

Not exactly. For me secularism is defined as the separation of Church from State, or more commonly the separation of religion from politics, which is something I have full support for.

kamikasei

2009-04-08, 10:02 AM

"Secular" means "not religious" in the sense of "having nothing to do with religion". Unless you think religion should permeate literally every aspect of people's lives, then most of what people do day-to-day is secular. Many (most?) religions recognize a "secular sphere" where religious doctrine doesn't rule (your church probably doesn't prescribe the right way to brush your teeth, build your house, or split the cost of your meal, for example). As Finn Solomon says, it's very often used nowadays to highlight the idea that certain activities, like politics, are separate from a person's religious identity or beliefs, and the ideal that secular agencies wielding secular authority should not be basing their decisions on religious doctrine. Of course there are those who disagree with that, but doing much more than defining it is discussing both religion and politics.

Emperor Tippy

2009-04-08, 10:07 AM

Most religions and philosophies need entire books to define them.

and are still vague.
Because most religions and philosophies are idiotic. Kant's golden rule for example. Or Mill's greatest happiness for the greatest number. Or Aristotle's virtue system, where the morality of the individual committing the act is at least as important as the act its self.

All of them are deeply flawed systems.

The problem with your definition is that it makes Many cases of martyrdom and standing up for what you believe in evil acts. Also, if we weren't in the situation we're n now, chastity would be an evil act. It also makes a lot of forms of oppression good acts.
Just because something is good or evil under my definition doesn't mean that you should or shouldn't do it. Until you get into the really big acts it's mostly irrelevant. But if standing up for what you believe in causes the deaths of a billion people without an outcome sufficient to excuse those deaths then you have unquestionably committed an evil act (either by omission or commission).

And having more kids is at least as likely to lead to long term problems as having fewer is (resource depletion, less time to teach and train each individual kid).

I could go on to define good and evil, but without getting into religion the definition would be so long it would violate the max character limit and then some. However, I believe human beings at their heart want to do the right thing, this is supported by the fact that every villain the world has seen has in some way either tried to justify their actions or admitted what they did was wrong. Thus, I believe humans do evil out of ignorance of what the right thing to do is, or some variation of that, such as ignorance to the existence of a right thing at all.

Justify your actions? Everyone does what they believe to be right, the individual is just evil if most people disagree with their belief. If Hitler had won World War 2 then odds are a good third of the worlds population would consider his actions "good".

Winning justifies the means used to achieve it, at least in terms of general belief and societies.

Okay, point taken about the knowledge, but there and then, the mass murder of millions of innocents versus what could potentially happen...Veidt could not have been 100% sure that nuclear war was going to break out. It's an evil act for me.
An individuals belief can never change the morality of an act, or you get into all of the problems of subjective morality. The individual act its self has to be good or evil. And I don't mean killing, I mean killing this individual at this time in this place.

My objection to your definitions arise from the fact that they are too wide and unspecific.
Those definitions are incredibly specific, the problem with them is that one rarely possesses the knowledge to accurately state whether or not any given act is good or evil. Just because you can't judge the act accurately doesn't change it's effects.

I'd suggest changing 'survival of the species' to 'well-being of an individual.'
That change completely misses the point. The well being of any given individual is irrelevant next to the well being of the species as a whole, its the height of arrogance to state that your well-being is more important than the lives of about 7 billion other humans.

Tensu

2009-04-08, 10:09 AM

kamikasei: I know, But he didn't say he was a secular teeth-brusher, he said he was a secular person.

Finn Solomon: I really wouldn't call that being a secular person...

Finn Solomon

2009-04-08, 10:12 AM

That change completely misses the point. The well being of any given individual is irrelevant next to the well being of the species as a whole, its the height of arrogance to state that your well-being is more important than the lives of about 7 billion other humans.

Yes, but you don't make actions that decide the fate of billions in the course of your daily life, do you? Unless you are actually Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin, in which case I can't comment. It's irrelevant to discuss actions that affect humanity on a global scale when you are talking about the good and evil that one person can do, simply because they often aren't in a position to make those decisions.

My definition is a little more flexible than yours because it can encompass both global events and small personal everyday acts. By both our definitions, mass murder is evil. Kicking a small child would be considered evil by my definition, but not by yours.

Tensu: Hey ho. I do try to find middle ground but it's rather hard these days.

Manga Shoggoth

2009-04-08, 10:30 AM

Not exactly. For me secularism is defined as the separation of Church from State, or more commonly the separation of religion from politics, which is something I have full support for.

I think you will find that the former is disestablishmentarianism.

Finn Solomon

2009-04-08, 10:40 AM

You may be right, mate.

kamikasei

2009-04-08, 10:53 AM

kamikasei: I know, But he didn't say he was a secular teeth-brusher, he said he was a secular person.

Technically that just means he's not a member of the clergy.

Finn Solomon: I really wouldn't call that being a secular person...

This is partly due to the imprecision of the term, but mostly, I would say, due to your own misunderstanding.

Emperor Tippy

2009-04-08, 11:20 AM

Yes, but you don't make actions that decide the fate of billions in the course of your daily life, do you? Unless you are actually Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin, in which case I can't comment. It's irrelevant to discuss actions that affect humanity on a global scale when you are talking about the good and evil that one person can do, simply because they often aren't in a position to make those decisions.

My definition is a little more flexible than yours because it can encompass both global events and small personal everyday acts. By both our definitions, mass murder is evil. Kicking a small child would be considered evil by my definition, but not by yours.
Every action, no matter how small and trivial, effects the world and humanity as a whole. Even if it is only by precluding the taking of another action. Most actions don't have a noticeable effect though, which generally makes it hard to tell.

In general, you could consider illegal actions immoral because every time a law is broken it weakens the authority of the government to create laws, and without law society ceases to exist. And without society humanity will cease to advance, which will eventually lead to its extinction.

Finn Solomon

2009-04-08, 11:30 AM

Every action, no matter how small and trivial, effects the world and humanity as a whole. Even if it is only by precluding the taking of another action. Most actions don't have a noticeable effect though, which generally makes it hard to tell.

You're a big picture guy, aren't you? For me, I see it from person to person and then work my way up. It's just a difference in views though.

In general, you could consider illegal actions immoral because every time a law is broken it weakens the authority of the government to create laws, and without law society ceases to exist. And without society humanity will cease to advance, which will eventually lead to its extinction.

Then again you have to consider the laws which don't make sense or are by nature harmful to the people of society, as well as times whereby breaking the law is the only way to perform an act of good. Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread and so on.

snoopy13a

2009-04-08, 11:42 AM

Then again you have to consider the laws which don't make sense or are by nature harmful to the people of society, as well as times whereby breaking the law is the only way to perform an act of good. Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread and so on.

I think you missed his point. He defined morality as the law. Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread would not be considered a good act under what I interpret his logic to be. It would be an immoral act because it violated the law and therefore weakened society. Under my interpretation of his points, there isn't a good or evil in a moral sense, only good or evil in a legal sense. Law-adiding is always good and law-breaking is evil. Thus, by definition there are no laws that do not make sense.

I disagree with his points but I don't have the energy to argue right now.

Emperor Tippy

2009-04-08, 12:45 PM

You're a big picture guy, aren't you? For me, I see it from person to person and then work my way up. It's just a difference in views though.
Mostly.

Then again you have to consider the laws which don't make sense or are by nature harmful to the people of society, as well as times whereby breaking the law is the only way to perform an act of good. Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread and so on.
I said in general. And I would say that making laws that you either can't enforce or that will be seen as stupid and ignored is the immoral act. It's like giving an order that you know won't be obeyed, all it does it weaken your authority to give orders.

That's not to say that breaking the law is good or evil, it would depend upon why you are breaking the law and the results of your actions. As I said before, judge each action upon it's own merits. Law's and rules only deal with generalities, not specifics.

I think you missed his point. He defined morality as the law. Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread would not be considered a good act under what I interpret his logic to be. It would be an immoral act because it violated the law and therefore weakened society. Under my interpretation of his points, there isn't a good or evil in a moral sense, only good or evil in a legal sense. Law-adiding is always good and law-breaking is evil. Thus, by definition there are no laws that do not make sense.

I disagree with his points but I don't have the energy to argue right now.

No, the law and morality are only linked in the sense that most laws tend to be put in place because they are perceived as being generally a good idea for society. Just because an action breaks the law doesn't make it immoral and just because an action complies with the law doesn't make it moral. But as a general statement and assuming that all else is equal, the action that breaks the law would be more immoral than the same action if it complied with the law.

Tyrant

2009-04-08, 01:10 PM

Sorry to derail from last page.

So...what Adrian Veidt did, by your definition, was good?
If we are talking the movie (it's been a while since I read the book, so it is quite possible it is different there) then I think he did the right thing at that moment. At that point, he could be as certain as any human being can be as certain of anything that nuclear war was not only going to happen but it was going to happen right now. Nixon was in the middle of preemptively hitting the USSR. They were at DEFCON 1 and the bombers were on the way. Nothing short of a miracle was going to stop it. He created the miracle (horrific though it was).

In the book where he elaborated on things a little more, his goal seemed to be to end war altogether. Just think of the massive amounts of money spent on defense (which I admit does help fuel some civilian projects as well) that could be going to do things like cure cancer or allow humanity to move beyond this lone world we posses. So, assuming his plan worked (and I see no way the journal could have realistically undone it because it's not like it said "Veidt planning to destroy New York") and world peace was maintained for a long enough time then it was worth it for our species. I could see where those killed would feel a little differently about it however.

I can see the argument that Veidt accelerated events by making Dr.M leave the earth. He did, but it was going to happen at some point anyway. He was drifting more and more out of touch with humanity. Or the Soviets would have attacked because they had enough nuclear weapons to get around Dr.M. What he did was horrific and I would like to believe there was another way, but it did stop the extinction of the human race and bring about world peace. That has to count for something.

Tensu

2009-04-08, 01:47 PM

Fin: I can defiantly understand searching for middle ground

Kamikasei: Now here's something I hate: when people change the definition we're using in the middle of the discussion. up until now we've been using definition 1 of secular (not religious). In the middle of the discussion you changed to definition 2 and then said I was wrong for using the word secular in the context of the discussion (i.e. definition 1). Please don't do that.

I'm sure Vedit could have found a way to stop nuclear war without destroying a city.

I don't know the whole story, but it seems like the "plan" was more likely to start a nuclear war than prevent one.

kamikasei

2009-04-08, 03:18 PM

Kamikasei: Now here's something I hate: when people change the definition we're using in the middle of the discussion. up until now we've been using definition 1 of secular (not religious). In the middle of the discussion you changed to definition 2 and then said I was wrong for using the word secular in the context of the discussion (i.e. definition 1). Please don't do that.

No one had actually given a definition. It certainly seemed to me that you were using the word differently to others in the discussion. It seems presumptuous to accuse me of switching definitions rather than consider that you may have been misunderstanding the one being used by others.

Dervag

2009-04-08, 05:53 PM

Dervag: Most secularists I've met were too busy making fun of me to explain their ethical beliefs in detail, so just assumed they had none given the arrogance and hypocrisy they demonstrated.No, most of the secularists you've met didn't make an issue of it, so you never noticed that they were secularists.

Unless you are using a very strange definition of "secularist," secularists normally don't wear secularism on their sleeve. Like any other group with such a broad definition, most of the members are impossible to tell from people outside the group.

Finn Solomon: but secular pretty much means "having no religious basis". What exactly do you mean by being secular and religious? Something like Deism?"Secular" and "atheist" are not the same thing. "Secular" has a specific meaning. It means "not part of a religious organization." For instance, the Defense Department in the United States is secular. So are the Boy Scouts.

"Secularism" refers to the belief that religious organizations and the state should not control each other- government does not get into the business of telling you which religion to practice, and churches don't get into the business of telling the citizens what civil rights they do and don't have.

It is quite possible to be devoutly religious and still favor the separation of church and state.

Tensu

2009-04-08, 07:58 PM

Tyrant

2009-04-08, 08:45 PM

I'm sure Vedit could have found a way to stop nuclear war without destroying a city.
The only problem with that line of thinking is that the story never provides us with this possibility. As he examined the problems more and more in terms of the big picture, he saw that catastrophy was going to happen unless drastic action was taken. I am not saying he is omniscient or infallable, but if that's the plan the smartest man in the world came up with then I have to believe the alternatives weren't practical or possible. No one provides any alternative in the story. Of course, how you interpret the meaning of Tales of the Black Freighter could change your perspective on that.

I don't know the whole story, but it seems like the "plan" was more likely to start a nuclear war than prevent one.
I will admit the plan had a chance for failure. However you have to look at it from Veidt's perspecitve. In his mind (and for sure in the movie) nuclear obliteration was going to happen unless something stopped it. So, to him, the people in that city were dead no matter what happened. It was a choice of if they died now and maybe stopped WWIII or if they died a little while later with everyone else in nuclear fire. So, his choice was either kill people who were dead no matter what and maybe save the planet or let the bombs fly and find out firsthand if there is a creator along with everyone else. To him, that should have been a very simple choice. Even a 1% chance of success is better than what appeared to be a 100% chance of oblivion.*

*I am pretty sure someone on here came up with this explanation but I don't recall who. Or at least that was the first place I saw it.

13_CBS

2009-04-08, 09:15 PM

A bit off topic, but about Veidt's plan in Watchmen...

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=2768

Interesting interpretation to Ozy's plans.

Tensu

2009-04-08, 10:03 PM

A bit off topic, but about Veidt's plan in Watchmen...

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=2768

Interesting interpretation to Ozy's plans.

states most of my problems with this. couldn't he have played political puppetmaster and worst-case scenario get his fellow heros to stop the nukes. manhattan could have stopped things alone.

Xuincherguixe

2009-04-08, 10:46 PM

states most of my problems with this. couldn't he have played political puppetmaster and worst-case scenario get his fellow heros to stop the nukes. manhattan could have stopped things alone.

My understanding is, that if this was an option he would have. It makes sense given how bleak the setting is that, "The smartest man in the world isn't smart enough to figure out how to get people to solve their problems without violence."

Cynical? Absolutely. That's basically what watchmen was. A story about how disturbed human beings are.

Or, Ozy may have just been delusional. But even then, he could still be a symbol for the sorts of people who bring such disasters as Nuclear Wars.

As to the rest....

As one of my eBuddies just said, and I couldn't put it better myself, "Well, the whole point of secularism is to remove ethics from the strict domain of religion."

If you want to get technical, I think it's not possible for someone to be moral without being a secularist. Religious or not. Why? Because it is contrary to freedom of speech.

And if you are mixing up the words secular and athiest, I suspect you're listening to the wrong kind of people. I would be willing to wager that they are the sort that are the reason why you think most athiests are too arrogant to discuss their own ethical framework.

These are the kind of people who will say how wicked everyone else is, and are going to hell. And there's a few who don't seem to have any empathy for that fact.

They aren't bothering to discuss it with you, because they assume you simply don't care, and there's no point. Because when it comes to the public face, Christians who are talking about secular forces, there really isn't.

I'm very tempted to say directly what "Secular Left" is a code word for (guess what folks, they can't say what they really want to, so they're doing it anyways in a way to sneak around it!) but the fallout from that would definitely get the thread locked.

13_CBS

2009-04-08, 10:58 PM

I think we're really toeing the "no religion" line here.

Tyrant

2009-04-08, 11:20 PM

My understanding is, that if this was an option he would have. It makes sense given how bleak the setting is that, "The smartest man in the world isn't smart enough to figure out how to get people to solve their problems without violence."
That's been my understanding as well. I don't get why people keep asking why he couldn't just get Dr.M to take out the nukes. I know that the movie for sure addresses this and I am pretty sure the book did as well. The Soviets have too many for him to stop and that if even a tiny fraction get through (and they will) it will be more than enough and the Soviets also know this. Dr.M is as much a part of the problem as anything else. If he were to start disabling Soviet warheads, you can be pretty sure they will launch the rest (which he can't stop all of). Or being super cynical, right after the USSR has been neutered Nixon will bomb them with our nukes. Given that Dr.M won the Vietnam war when they asked him to take care of it, if anyone believed it were possible for him to disarm the USSR they would have asked. I believe we can assume that he told them that it was impossible or they figured it out themselves. The other heroes wouldn't be that helpful dealing with the USSR. Well, maybe the Comedian.

Xuincherguixe

2009-04-08, 11:34 PM

I think we're really toeing the "no religion" line here.

How about all of us, agree to stop right here? No ones opinion is going to change, and I think we've all made our points.

LurkerInPlayground

2009-04-08, 11:44 PM

Secular was, If I'm not mistaken, first brought into the discussion by lurker, who seems to have been using the first definition, and then used by myself several times, also using the first definition. so yes, you're changing the definition we're using mid-discussion.

Dervag: they weren't religious, and my dictionary says that's the definition of secular.
I have to put my foot down here.

You're the one who was making a big deal out of secularism. You're the one who wanted to talk about it and quibble over semantics. Dervag's entire point is that there is no reason you couldn't represent your views as secular individual.

So let me put this out there for the sake of clear and straightfoward communication:
I take a very dim view of your using the word in a way that is so divisive and pretending to be the victim whilst degrading the meaning of our language.

You don't get to hide behind a crass appeal to authority and pretend to be persecuted. So cut it out.

Dervag

2009-04-08, 11:46 PM

That's been my understanding as well. I don't get why people keep asking why he couldn't just get Dr.M to take out the nukes. I know that the movie for sure addresses this and I am pretty sure the book did as well. The Soviets have too many for him to stop and that if even a tiny fraction get through (and they will) it will be more than enough and the Soviets also know this. Dr.M is as much a part of the problem as anything else. If he were to start disabling Soviet warheads, you can be pretty sure they will launch the rest (which he can't stop all of). Or being super cynical, right after the USSR has been neutered Nixon will bomb them with our nukes. Given that Dr.M won the Vietnam war when they asked him to take care of it, if anyone believed it were possible for him to disarm the USSR they would have asked. I believe we can assume that he told them that it was impossible or they figured it out themselves. The other heroes wouldn't be that helpful dealing with the USSR. Well, maybe the Comedian.The other side of the problem is that Dr. Manhattan made the US of the Watchmen timeline incredibly arrogant compared to our history. In anything less than an all-out war against the USSR, Dr. Manhattan was a decisive force on the American side, as the Watchmen-timeline version of Vietnam proved.

So the US got used to being able to bully the Soviets and push them back, while the Soviets got used to the idea that the Americans were arrogant, imperialistic in the extreme, and (this is important) much more powerful than they were. To make matters worse, the "detente" of Ford and Carter never occured in this setting, and Nixon remained an anticommunist in his 1950s style.

The overall result was a world where Cold War tensions were even greater than they were in real life during the Reagan administration. One where nuclear war was a lot more likely, especially with Dr. Manhattan gone.
_____

It's historically accurate for the US in the Watchmen setting to expect a Soviet first strike once Dr. Manhattan was out of the picture, too. The US was very concerned about the idea that any temporary weakness on their part might provoke a Soviet attack. Little did they know that on the Soviet side of the line, there was little or no interest in starting a general war with a nuclear attack on America.

Don Julio Anejo

2009-04-09, 01:26 AM

Tensu

2009-04-09, 01:56 AM

You're the one who was making a big deal out of secularism.

No I'm not. I just stated I have trouble explaining things from a purely secular point of view.

You're the one who wanted to talk about it and quibble over semantics.

no, I'm not. Kamikasei brought that up.

So let me put this out there for the sake of clear and straightfoward communication:
I take a very dim view of your using the word in a way that is so divisive and pretending to be the victim whilst degrading the meaning of our language.

secular
adjective
1 denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis : secular buildings | secular moral theory. Contrasted with sacred .

that's how I'm using the word. it's in the dictionary. it is in no way against they very usage of language

You don't get to hide behind a crass appeal to authority and pretend to be persecuted. So cut it out.

I'm not pretending to be presecuted, I stated that past relations with atheists where not pleasant. though it sure feels like I'm being persecuted now. let's look at some of the things that have been said at one point or another during this thread: "You're not allowed to use that word that way" "you don't do X because you lack the ability" "your beliefs are stupid".

yeah, no persecution here.

I've gone down this road before, and it doesn't go anywhere I'd like to go again. I only got back into this discussion by mistake (clicked on the topic bt accident and figured might as well) and now I realize what a bad idea it was.

kamikasei

2009-04-09, 03:15 AM

no, I'm not. Kamikasei brought that up.

How do you figure? You questioned Finn Solomon's use of the word, which is what started the entire digression. Seems to me that you were using the word one way and assuming everyone else was doing the same, and when you found they meant it differently, accused us of weaseling instead of acknowledging a misunderstanding.

Don Julio Anejo

2009-04-09, 03:22 AM

Surprisingly, I'm with Tensu on this one. We've gone from a morality discussion to arguing semantics of the word "secular." :smallannoyed:

How about we just take the middle ground and use "secular" to mean "non-religious" for the purpose of this discussion? Operational definition, if you will.

No I'm not. I just stated I have trouble explaining things from a purely secular point of view.
As a suggestion, you could try to explain them the same way you would, with one change. Cross out all the religious references and explanations and replace them with "secular" or non-religious ones.

For example you consider following the 10 Commandments pertinent to the discussion and want to bring them up. You can still do so, but instead of mentioning what they are or where they're from, you can list them and add subscript along the lines of: "these are fairly universal ethical guidelines that help society maintain its stability. Following them isn't necessarily a sign of virtue, but consciously and intentionally breaking them means you're committing evil against other people."

LurkerInPlayground

2009-04-09, 12:31 PM

Tensu> You are using the word to mean "atheism" and essentially saying that I'm the one who decided to start arguing its definition. I'll note that you're the one who decided my outlook was secular and decided that this somehow correlated with atheists being mean to you.

As Dervag pointed out, it was never an issue until you brought it up and got tiffy about it. Not all secularists are atheists and talking about how atheists have supposedly persecuted you in the past doesn't really endear yourself to me since that was never the topic of discussion.

I also don't buy for a moment that you were treated unfairly. You were asked to defend yourself based on your own strengths and rationale, nothing more or less.

To be fair, you say you have no other argument to present in the vein. And try to bow-out of the discussion. You basically state that you have no other argument than an argument from authority (i.e. religion). When pressed, you complain about people finding "exceptions" to your worldview - which you yourself state is absolute and not amenable to discussion with outsiders.

But that's not what really riles me. What riles me is that you put words in my mouth in order to be divisive - to make this an "us versus them." Nobody accepts your a priori assertions and you act like this is a form of persecution.

Sorry if I don't like having you drag me into your grievances about atheists killing your parents and casting you out of society like a leper.

Dervag

2009-04-09, 11:46 PM

Kinda funny that, you know, the Soviets never made ANY plans for a nuclear first strike... All their military plans revolved around either conventional warfare (e.g. WWII style Blitzkrieg into Western Europe) or around retaliatory strikes.Well, you see, now they're willing to let historians rummage around in the Strategic Rocket Force's old filing cabinets.

Back in the '50s, '60s, '70s, and '80s, this was not possible.
_____

secular
adjective
1 denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis : secular buildings | secular moral theory. Contrasted with sacred .

that's how I'm using the word. it's in the dictionary. it is in no way against they very usage of languageAnd yet, it is quite possible to favor having a secular government and a secular legal system, while being religious. It is possible to understand one of the many secular systems of ethics while being religious.

"Secular" is not a synonym for "atheist." I'm not joking; it really isn't.
_____

I'm not pretending to be presecuted, I stated that past relations with atheists where not pleasant. though it sure feels like I'm being persecuted now. let's look at some of the things that have been said at one point or another during this thread: "You're not allowed to use that word that way" "you don't do X because you lack the ability" "your beliefs are stupid".

yeah, no persecution here.Out of curiousity:

Is disagreement persecution? Even if you call me a fool or call my opinions foolish, can you truly be persecuting me if you have no power over me?
_____

Sorry if I don't like having you drag me into your grievances about atheists killing your parents and casting you out of society like a leper.While I have no real disagreement with the rest of your post, I have to say that that's jackassery right there.

Twilight Jack

2009-04-21, 01:16 PM

That depends heavily on the warrior and the beggar, but I take your meaning. Or his, rather. Or both.

It's not impossible, but the set of all viable lazy villains is a lot smaller than the set of all viable villains. Many villainous archetypes (anyone out to conquer anything, anyone who poses a creditable threat to an equally powerful enemy) just do not work well with someone who has no ambition.

"Villainous" and "slothful" are not mutually exclusive. If I said they were, I shouldn't have. But they don't fit together very gracefully. It's sort of like trying to combine "heroic" and "spiteful."

In a world where there exist people who have ambition and a desire to gain or control power, people who are unambitious will be the main targets of people who are ambitious. And any kind of power that can be stolen from them will be stolen eventually.

Of course the set of viable lazy villains is smaller than the set of viable villains. The one is a subset of another. The set of all viable ambitious villains is smaller too.

The set of all integers divisible by four is smaller than the set of all integers, even though both sets are infinite.