Ethical question: Can a member of an evil and corrupt organziation be good?

[Crooked Man]

I'm working on this idea for a book, it's a fantasy land that thanks to fear and hate it created an inquisition.

Let's say the inquisition is back, and they torture and kill everyone who is different.

But one inquisitor is able to rise to the ranks using diplomacy, compromise and understanding.

Using his influence and political power he brings peace, joy and prosperity for all races, genders and sexualities.

Can he be considered good? Or the fact he comes from an evil organization who kills and tortures for no reason makes him unable to be good despite the fact he is doing good.

[Leecros]

I believe that the Buffy: The Vampire slayer spinoff series "Angel" plays with the idea of a good person in a corrupt organization.

Angel, an evil fighting vampire with a soul joins up with Evil Law Firm Wolfram & Hart after realizing that he was fighting a useless battle against them. He hoped to be able to change the organization from the inside.

What ended up happening is that he was involved in more and more morally gray decisions until it turns out that Wolfram & Hart are planning an apocalypse and Angel and gang decide to take a stand and Hard Break from the company.

It doesn't end well for them.

(I'm probably not doing that summary very well. It has been a few years since I watched that series)

So to answer your question...Yes probably, but if the organization is truly evil and truly corrupt, then it's likely that at some point they're going to catch wind of it and force him into an impossible situation where he either has to sacrifice his morals, rise up and overthrow the evil organization, or rise up and fail to overthrow the evil organization.

[Telonius]

It depends a bit on how evil the organization is, and exactly how much of its members' lives it wants to take charge of. If it's more corrupt than totalitarian (i.e. the people running it just want to use it as an excuse to destroy their enemies), you're more likely to be able to get away with trying to change it from the inside. It's more possible to stop a witch hunt if the people doing the hunting don't at least make a show of believing it. But if it's going full-throttle, religious fanatic, "prove your loyalty to the gods!"-style oppression, you're going to have a much harder time working with them and staying "good," however you define that.

[factotum]

Well, in the stated example, I think it's entirely possible for someone in that organisation to be good (albeit misguided), so long as they believe that they're doing more good through the torture etc. than would occur if they weren't there.

[Anymage]

Nowadays some degree of moral ambiguity is much more popular than strict black and white, and many protagonists have some form of troubled past anyways. Having some of your protagonist's troubled past happen on screen shouldn't make them irredeemable.

Something else to consider is how close they are to the actual evil going on. The First Order in Star Wars are broadly speaking bad guys, but Finn is far enough removed from the major evil that his past doesn't define him. Being an active member of a murder/torture club like something out of Hostel (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450278/?ref_=nv_sr_1) is going to be harder to find redemption for.

[hamishspence]

Finn is closer to Neutral than Good, at least till the end of the movie. He's far more interested in helping friends than strangers, or running away from the First Order compared to opposing the First Order.

Finn: "I'm just here to get Rey."
Han: "People are counting on us! The galaxy is counting on us!"

[Knaight]

There's also the matter of degrees of membership. Take an evil and corrupt country (I'll be sticking to a generic and hypothetical country here, but I'm sure everyone has at least one government they're thinking of here). There are going to be a lot of people who work for the state, across a wide variety of jobs. An agent of the secret police is probably not a particularly good person, but there's no reason to think that a state employed street sweeper is shady just because of their job.

[2D8HP]

In a Fantasy?

Sure whatever you want (Gene Wolfe's Severian (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severian) comes to mind).

In reality?

I think most of us have had the misfortune of working for employers that were at nest amoral.

[Tvtyrant]

I'm working on this idea for a book, it's a fantasy land that thanks to fear and hate it created an inquisition.

Let's say the inquisition is back, and they torture and kill everyone who is different.

But one inquisitor is able to rise to the ranks using diplomacy, compromise and understanding.

Using his influence and political power he brings peace, joy and prosperity for all races, genders and sexualities.

Can he be considered good? Or the fact he comes from an evil organization who kills and tortures for no reason makes him unable to be good despite the fact he is doing good.

An organization can't be evil, you are anthropomorphising a concept. Does the person involved personally do or enable morally dubious activities? In this case being an Inquisitor who let's people off on technicalities and blocks others would be good, one who just watches or even participates would be bad.

[Aedilred]

The short answer is "yes, but it is highly dependent on circumstances". Someone who is working completely in accordance with the goals and methods of an organisation that is evil can probably not be considered good so long as he is doing so. Of course, people can have a moral awakening after being a previously loyal member of such an organisation and change their ways while nevertheless remaining part of it, at which point it would probably be fair to consider them good despite their public affiliation.

For a fictional example, Gerd Wiesler from The Lives of Others would be one that's fairly textbook.

In real life, the most obvious examples would be Oskar Schindler and John Rabe.

[Spacewolf]

For the example you gave then yes I'd say that person is good as it sounds like he's going against the standard rules of the organisation and actively trying to do good. Aedilred already gave some examples of real life people.

Personally I'd say the more interesting question is in the other direction when does someone working for an evil organisation become evil, is is just through complacency or do the have to actively contribute?

I think I'd go with the quote from Kingdom of Heaven as my measure.

"Remember that howsoever you are played or by whom, your soul is in your keeping alone, even though those who presume to play you be kings or men of power. When you stand before God, you cannot say, "But I was told by others to do thus," or that virtue was not convenient at the time. This will not suffice."

I.E. That the persons actions dictate where they fall on the scale of good vs evil.

[GolemsVoice]

The example you give makes it sound like the guy already achieved what he wanted, and achieved it partaking in as little of what makes the organization "evil" as possible, so he seems like a person who kept his hands clean, I'd call him good.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

From the very short (compared to the full final book) description it sounds like he's no doubt good. He steps into the offices of the great evil plaguing the land and turns them into a happy sunshine organization that heals the entire world. Yes, that's good. You can go a lot grayer than that before it really becomes questionable, in my opinion.

A good watch for inspiration might be Nikita, the original movie, although all the remakes and incarnations have some elements of this. The main person is a rightfully convicted murderer, and not completely right in the head, but she's still not as evil, or at least not in the same way, as the company she's taken up in, and she has to deal with that. She's not completely alone in that either, an organization does not have to be made up of only superevil goons to be an evil organization and carry on its evil work.

[Frozen_Feet]

Trivially, yes.

Remember: the actions of the participants, in aggregate, define ethical direction of an organization. An organization is not good or evil by itself, its good or evil based on whether its members are good or evil.

The link to the other direction is much weaker. It's easy and common for individual member of an organization to be unaware of motives and actions of another member. It's easy and common for individual members to be making their ethical decisions largely independent of other members.

This works both ways. You could have a "good" organization, let's say Scouts, with nice-sounding ideals and mission, but individual scouts who don't give a crap about the ideals and are engaging in all sorts of unsavory behaviour following the mindset "it's not a crime if you don't get caught". Meanwhile, you could have an "evil" organization, let's say National Socialists, with overarching goal of genocide, with individual members who really are in just to defend their family and neighbours and don't even know the genocide is taking place, and would be opposed to it if they knew.

The idea that a person's ethical value is defined by an organization they belong in, rather than the other way around, is based on a collectivist notion where every member is seen at least as implicitly condoning, supporting and participating in the evils of the system. On a large scale, it turns into prejudice where people are judged by a stereotype of the group they belong in, not their actual beliefs nor qualities.

[Jackalias]

Sure, they can be misguided, trying to reform the organization, a mole, ignorant of the organization's corruption, subverting the organizations goals, forced to join, etc.

[AMFV]

Well in real life people aren't "good" or "evil". Morality is a great deal more complex than that. Most people have done a great deal of things that are both good and evil.

[Lord Joeltion]

It's your actions what defines your morality, not your allegiance. Judging people based on allegiance alone (or even partially) is borderline prejudice at worse, simple mistrust at best.

As it has been pointed out, groups of people and social constructs bear no morality. They are outside the realm of morality. This even applies to "evil" schools of thinking or philosophies. The philosophy by itself is amoral. People who act under that philosophy is the one that must be judged.

Anyway, I think about Good vs. Evil under this view: "All that Evil needs to triumph is that good men fdo nothing".

The omision or overlook of "evil" actions makes you Evil. It's not even about neutrality, you can't be "neutral" when somebody is being hurt or suffereing. By overlooking the fact that somebody, somewhere is suffering, you are accepting it, and as such, you are "not good". Good is about stopping evil, no matter what.

This doesn't involve the topic whether "means justify goals"; because allowing someone to suffer in order to achieve something else, is not the same as simply accepting it. For instance; in a hostage situation, you may chose not to act. That doesn't mean you are accepting the villains to win, it simply means you are powerless or you are still looking for the most viable option. You acknowledge the situation shouldn't be. That is what "being a good man" is about.

tl;dr: OP's question isn't all that complicated IMO, but it lacks essential information. If the character in question acknowledges the organization's methods aren't the best and plans to act against such acts to repeat in the future; then he is Good. If he simply allows the organization to commit "evil actions", and isn't planning to stop them or change their ways; he is Evil, because he is aware of the crimes but isn't acting against them.
"Neutrality" is more of a D&D concept, but even then, to be neutral it requires you to be unable to do anything or being unaware of any crime being committed, which doesn't fit OP's profile.

[AMFV]

It's your actions what defines your morality, not your allegiance. Judging people based on allegiance alone (or even partially) is borderline prejudice at worse, simple mistrust at best.

It's worth noting that giving allegiance is an action. Doing things that ingratiate you to one group are going to have moral qualities. If I am trying to join forces with a band of Orcs, who are raiding and murdering, that does say something about my moral compass. And very likely I'll have to accept doing things that might be considered evil by one group or another to fit into that particular group. Now it's possible that there are mitigating factors in my allegiance, certainly, but to say that allegiance has no bearing on morality is silly, because allegiance is not just random or happenstance it's a matter of choice.



As it has been pointed out, groups of people and social constructs bear no morality. They are outside the realm of morality. This even applies to "evil" schools of thinking or philosophies. The philosophy by itself is amoral. People who act under that philosophy is the one that must be judged.


Groups and social constructs do have moral quality. If I'm in a group that believes that doing something that is fundamentally immoral is moral and required, then that group is immoral. There are philosophies that are of poorer moral quality than others, because those philosophies inspire said actions of people. If a philosophy causes somebody to act evilly when they might not then it is by definition evil.



Anyway, I think about Good vs. Evil under this view: "All that Evil needs to triumph is that good men fdo nothing".


And you can't really boil down good and evil into this particular platitude without a lot of discussion as to exactly what is good and evil.



The omision or overlook of "evil" actions makes you Evil. It's not even about neutrality, you can't be "neutral" when somebody is being hurt or suffereing. By overlooking the fact that somebody, somewhere is suffering, you are accepting it, and as such, you are "not good". Good is about stopping evil, no matter what.

Suffering isn't evil though. There's plenty of hurt and suffering that can lead to good things. Also you're also overlooking the fact that somebody is suffering. Suffering and evil are separate Evil can cause it, but it isn't certainly all that there is to it, unless you are subscribing to certain moral systems, but those are definitely not universal.

As a matter of fact there are groups who believe that many kinds of suffering are often good, if not you wouldn't have groups practicing self-denial, or flagellation or even people exercising.



This doesn't involve the topic whether "means justify goals"; because allowing someone to suffer in order to achieve something else, is not the same as simply accepting it. For instance; in a hostage situation, you may chose not to act. That doesn't mean you are accepting the villains to win, it simply means you are powerless or you are still looking for the most viable option. You acknowledge the situation shouldn't be. That is what "being a good man" is about.

But if you aren't acting because of fear, and you aren't acting because you're "looking for a better option" the end result is exactly the same, so why should your ideas about your motivations matter here?



On a more personal note, a member of my family actively served in Hitler's Army, in a POW camp. I don't think that makes him inherently evil or even a bad person. I think that you have to look at situations like this as the complex thing they are. If I was born in Hitler's Germany, I would undoubtedly have been a soldier, and I'd have been proud to be so. Because I believe in service to my country, a "good" ideal. The thing is that everything is complicated and trying to boil a real world situation down to a D&D-esque morality is at best tricky and at worst can result in moral judgements that people are not qualified to make.

[Lord Joeltion]

It's worth noting that giving allegiance is an action. Doing things that ingratiate you to one group are going to have moral qualities. If I am trying to join forces with a band of Orcs, who are raiding and murdering, that does say something about my moral compass. And very likely I'll have to accept doing things that might be considered evil by one group or another to fit into that particular group. Now it's possible that there are mitigating factors in my allegiance, certainly, but to say that allegiance has no bearing on morality is silly, because allegiance is not just random or happenstance it's a matter of choice.
Not on its own. You may want to join the band because you want to protect your baby brother who is a moron and joined first. Maybe your plan is simply to protect him or you want to reform him with a closer insight about his situation. IMHO, the reasons behind an action are as important as the action itself. It's true that motivation alone isn't a real cause to judge anyone, but reasons explain actions better than simple observation.

Now if you join a party of evil people because you share their evil beliefs, then that's completely different. But allegiance, on its own, shouldn't cause us to judge people prematurely.


Groups and social constructs do have moral quality. If I'm in a group that believes that doing something that is fundamentally immoral is moral and required, then that group is immoral. There are philosophies that are of poorer moral quality than others, because those philosophies inspire said actions of people. If a philosophy causes somebody to act evilly when they might not then it is by definition evil.
I see your point, but I don't think its truly important. We could discuss whether a group of people is evil because it's fostering evil behaviour upon people, or because the people within the group share their evil traits. What I was referring to is that you can't use "tags" as a way to stamp moral judgement upon anyone. It simply shouldn't be that way. Say I'm a groupie of a band of rock (let's brand them "Dayuppies"). If most dayuppies are "criminals", am I a criminal too? What if I oppose them from within? Is it a case of No True Scotsman? I don't think it really matters in the end. There are groups, there is criminal thinking, and then there is criminal people. They overlap, yes, but they aren't always inseparable. That's why I think declaring a certain faction/group/tag within a certain moral prejudice is wrong. Not because it is erroneous per se, but because I consider it kind of inappropriate.


And you can't really boil down good and evil into this particular platitude without a lot of discussion as to exactly what is good and evil.
Yeah, true. I still think OP's question isn't that hard to aswer. Problem is OP hasn't given sufficient data IMHO.


Suffering isn't evil though. There's plenty of hurt and suffering that can lead to good things. Also you're also overlooking the fact that somebody is suffering. Suffering and evil are separate Evil can cause it, but it isn't certainly all that there is to it, unless you are subscribing to certain moral systems, but those are definitely not universal.
I didn't meant suffering was evil. Causing suffering is evil. Letting people to suffer (unwillingly) is not what Good people do (broadly speaking). It's true that a great deal of improving yourself involves suffering, but overcoming/accepting suffering as a part of life doesn't mean we should allow people to suffer unwillingly. Then again, I see your point. I was always permeated by Eastern phylosophies, even before I truly investigated about them. Evil can be more than suffering, but for me, a whole lot deal of it can be summed up on just that. Specially in non-RL cases (like OP's).


But if you aren't acting because of fear, and you aren't acting because you're "looking for a better option" the end result is exactly the same, so why should your ideas about your motivations matter here?
I'm not sure if that's what you mean, but "fear of doing something" isn't "unwilling to take action" for me. It's more like "unable to take action". It's justifiable to let somebody be eaten by a raging raccoon if you fear for your safety or somebody else's. Like I said, even if motivation don't necessarily justify, they still explain a lot about the person in question, and how his/her reasoning works.


On a more personal note, a member of my family actively served in Hitler's Army, in a POW camp. I don't think that makes him inherently evil or even a bad person. I think that you have to look at situations like this as the complex thing they are. If I was born in Hitler's Germany, I would undoubtedly have been a soldier, and I'd have been proud to be so. Because I believe in service to my country, a "good" ideal. The thing is that everything is complicated and trying to boil a real world situation down to a D&D-esque morality is at best tricky and at worst can result in moral judgements that people are not qualified to make.
There's been plenty of cases of soldiers, administrators and entrepreneurs of that period of time who had no option but to work within the system they lived under (Hitler's rule). There's also some cases where it was later revealed their discomfort and their subversive actions (a la Schindler) against said system. Then again, claiming allegiance isn't the same as sharing all the beliefs or being aware of everything that happened at the time (specially without the internet :smallbiggrin: ). You could be a proud well-intentioned German Soldier (AFIK, not everyone claimed being part of the Nazi party) and be honored as a war-hero by Hitler himself. Whether you consciously allowed war crimes to be committed under your nose and the reasons why you did so, can tell more about your morality than simply taking into account your uniform's colors.

Bolded for Absolute Veracity :smallwink:

[Crooked Man]

Let's go with:

Good as in implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good is to make personal sacrifices to help others.

And Evil as in:

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others, also restricting rigths and being prejudiced with the different.

[pendell]

In the real world it's very rare for an organization to be either so morally corrupt as to be beyond redemption, OR to be so pure that it is beyond question. Take, for example, google: The phrase "Don't be evil" is right there in their motto, but there's plenty of reason to call this motto into question, from time to time. Can you say: "large monopoly"? Can you say dubious lobbying (https://www.wired.com/story/looks-like-google-bought-favorable-research-to-lobby-with/)? The list could go on.

Suffice it to say, "not being evil" is a goal to aim for. But it isn't always how we live, day to day.

Or take another example: The US Justice Department. Very few people take that job because they're evil. But when the person running the show is a political appointee, appointed by ... well, you can guess ... how long will it be before you find yourself asked to something ethically dubious?

IME -- and I did 14 years as a defense contractor -- every organization, public and private, is engaged in a battle for its soul. Greedy and unscrupulous people can be found wherever there is a heap of money to be made. Careerists, rent-seekers, and all the rest of it sprout like mushrooms after rain in any successful organization.

So I would say that a person of good morals and reputation -- the best they can do is to be part of the solution, in whatever organization you find yourself.

The alternative -- well, I've worked in a lot of organizations in twenty years. If you're waiting to work for someone who is pure, you will find yourself waiting a very long time. Even if they were utterly clean when you joined, odds are they'll be tempted to take 'the quick and easy path' during your time there.

So you aren't going to be able to escape confronting evil wherever you work. So you do what you can where you are. That is, unless you're working for someone like the Mob, in which case, GET OUT.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Tyndmyr]

Sure. The story for why they are in this organization becomes important then. Did they not realize it? Were they formerly flawed, but recently had a realization and are trying to do good?

We have real life stories of say, folks inside a bad organization risking their lives to save people from said organization, and nobody seem to have a problem with those stories, so your fiction can use a similar setup.

You can have nearly any setup in fiction, the question is why you want that setup. Does it allow you to tell the kind of story you want to tell, and provide suitable challenges for your protaganist(s)? If so, sure, go nuts!

[Crooked Man]

What if he used insidious means to keep the rest of the organization in check?

Such as blackmail, political favors and turning a blind eye for harmful yet immortal acts of his co-inquisitors?

[Tyndmyr]

What if he used insidious means to keep the rest of the organization in check?

Such as blackmail, political favors and turning a blind eye for harmful yet immortal acts of his co-inquisitors?

Potentially good. Maybe flawed.

Honestly, good and evil are a bit subjective, what matters more is if he's interesting to read about. If that tale is great, then it's perfectly fine if he's not always perfectly good.

[evangaline]

I'm working on this idea for a book, it's a fantasy land that thanks to fear and hate it created an inquisition.

Can he be considered good? Or the fact he comes from an evil organization who kills and tortures for no reason makes him unable to be good despite the fact he is doing good.

While not 100% comparable, I would like to refer to Field marschal Erwin rommel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel). He was one of the highest ranking nazi generals. He is described äs follows:
Among his British adversaries he earned a strong reputation for chivalry and his North African campaign has often been called a "war without hate".

Of course he suffered a tragic ending:
Due to Rommel's status as a national hero, Hitler desired to eliminate him quietly. Rommel was given a choice between committing suicide, in return for assurances that his reputation would remain intact and that his family would not be persecuted following his death, or facing a trial that would result in his disgrace and execution;

Because of the efforts of the both the german and the britisch propoganda machines it's hard to be sure if his story is true. If it's true he must have been a pretty cool guy serving one of the most evil* empires ever.

I hope this has been a useful example

[Knaight]

On a more personal note, a member of my family actively served in Hitler's Army, in a POW camp. I don't think that makes him inherently evil or even a bad person. I think that you have to look at situations like this as the complex thing they are. If I was born in Hitler's Germany, I would undoubtedly have been a soldier, and I'd have been proud to be so. Because I believe in service to my country, a "good" ideal. The thing is that everything is complicated and trying to boil a real world situation down to a D&D-esque morality is at best tricky and at worst can result in moral judgements that people are not qualified to make.

Alternately, one can look at this piece of information as a reason to question whether military service to one's country is inherently a good ideal absent the context of what the military is actually doing.

[pendell]

Reading this thread reminds me of the PS2 game Radiata stories. In it, the hero is given the choice to join one of two sides:

1) The human side, which intends to at the least enslave all the non-human species in the world, if not outright wipe them out.
2) The non-human side, which is equally determined to exterminate the human race down to the smallest infant.

Neutrality, in this world, is not an option; you're going to be caught up in this war whether you like it or not. And regardless of who you join, you're going to be facing up with 'allies' who do some pretty terrible things.

So it's not so much choosing the good guys over the bad guys , as it is a matter of choosing the side which is marginally more acceptable. Then do what you can to make it better.

In the real world, the Eastern Front during WWII was rife with choices like that. Whichever side you joined, you're going to be signing up with people who torture, commit mass executions, and mass death even if they didn't operate actual death camps.

That's why the Finns allied with the Nazis against the Russians. It wasn't that they liked the Nazis so much as they were the only game in town.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[AMFV]

Not on its own. You may want to join the band because you want to protect your baby brother who is a moron and joined first. Maybe your plan is simply to protect him or you want to reform him with a closer insight about his situation. IMHO, the reasons behind an action are as important as the action itself. It's true that motivation alone isn't a real cause to judge anyone, but reasons explain actions better than simple observation.

Well certainly there can be mitigating factors. And the reasoning is potentially important. But aligning with a group is a moral action, regardless of how it is or is not mitigated. There is a moral quality to it.



Now if you join a party of evil people because you share their evil beliefs, then that's completely different. But allegiance, on its own, shouldn't cause us to judge people prematurely.


Well that depends entirely on circumstance, no? It might not be appropriate to condemn somebody to prison or what-not because of their group affiliation. But there are certainly circumstance where it is appropriate to do so. For example if I am a soldier and I come upon somebody who is wearing the uniform of an enemy... and I engage them as directed by SOP, that is certainly "judging" but that's an appropriate circumstance to judge somebody solely by their affiliation.



I see your point, but I don't think its truly important. We could discuss whether a group of people is evil because it's fostering evil behaviour upon people, or because the people within the group share their evil traits. What I was referring to is that you can't use "tags" as a way to stamp moral judgement upon anyone. It simply shouldn't be that way. Say I'm a groupie of a band of rock (let's brand them "Dayuppies"). If most dayuppies are "criminals", am I a criminal too? What if I oppose them from within? Is it a case of No True Scotsman? I don't think it really matters in the end. There are groups, there is criminal thinking, and then there is criminal people. They overlap, yes, but they aren't always inseparable. That's why I think declaring a certain faction/group/tag within a certain moral prejudice is wrong. Not because it is erroneous per se, but because I consider it kind of inappropriate.

But the thing is that you can't argue that a group has no moral character at all. You can talk about how it's complex, and it is.... but that translate to an absence of moral quality just because it is complex.



Yeah, true. I still think OP's question isn't that hard to aswer. Problem is OP hasn't given sufficient data IMHO.




I didn't meant suffering was evil. Causing suffering is evil. Letting people to suffer (unwillingly) is not what Good people do (broadly speaking). It's true that a great deal of improving yourself involves suffering, but overcoming/accepting suffering as a part of life doesn't mean we should allow people to suffer unwillingly. Then again, I see your point. I was always permeated by Eastern phylosophies, even before I truly investigated about them. Evil can be more than suffering, but for me, a whole lot deal of it can be summed up on just that. Specially in non-RL cases (like OP's).

Is it though? If I'm a soldier and I fight in war, that causes suffering even in a just war. If I am a banker and I foreclose on a home, that causes suffering even when that is the morally correct action to do. If I'm a cop and I lock somebody away, that causes them suffering. I would say all of those can broadly speaking be very good people. There is a tendency in modern nerd circles to identify with specific moral theories without realization that you're ascribing to a very specific theory.



Alternately, one can look at this piece of information as a reason to question whether military service to one's country is inherently a good ideal absent the context of what the military is actually doing.

My point was that I had done so and what I was stating was my conclusion, that military service is inherently a good deal absent context.

[pendell]

Reading this thread brings two examples to mind I should mention:

1) Kurt Gerstein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gerstein). SS Lieutenant. He witnessed the extermination camps in action. Horrified, he carefully compiled a report and smuggled it out to Sweden, so that the world would know the truth. He was actually in charge of purchasing poison gas for the camps, and it is noted in the source below that on at least one occasion he was able to "lose" a shipment.

2) Albert Battel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Battel), Wehrmacht Lieutenant. He 'requisitioned' a hundred or so Jewish families for the war effort, so he drove right into the Ghetto with army trucks and brought them out. When the SS tried to interfere, he ordered his men to shoot them.

He got away with it, because he was something of a hero and it would cause a big stink to disappear him. Nonetheless, he was marked for liquidation after the war. The Nazis never got around to it, but he died of heart disease in 1944 so it was sort of irrelevant anyway.

Were they good people? The Jews think so. These two men are recognized as Yad Vashem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yad_Vashem), 'righteous among the nations' . You can read their story and many others Here (https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Unsung-Heroes-Holocaust-ebook/dp/B004MYFULO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1505786148&sr=8-1&keywords=righteous+unsung+heroes+of+the+holocaust) . Some fair use snippets can be found here (https://books.google.com/books?id=1mQBeR9F0isC&pg=PA208&lpg=PA208&dq=gerstein+divert+delay&source=bl&ots=ctBoLVXtAg&sig=F7Tt5JraYaRK6ubKd0a5GMiUn8Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4jpzIkLDWAhVKMyYKHRNeD9IQ6AEIKDAA#v=on epage&q=gerstein%20divert%20delay&f=false).


It really doesn't take much to be Righteous. They didn't expect you to be some action movie hero or stop the Holocaust all by yourself; this is real life, not a TV show. A small band of plucky heroes can't wrap the whole thing up in a 13 episode season. It's too big for that. But they do expect you to do SOMETHING.

Reading in the book, Saul Friedlander is quoted as stating that if there were thousands, or even hundreds, of other Germans who were willing to perform even small acts of sabotage in the machine as Gerstein was, then many, many more lives could have been saved.

But there weren't.

Most people simply did their jobs , didn't ask questions, and just followed orders.

And don't think for a minute, by the way, that evil was only committed by Germans in that war. Atrocities committed by the allies weren't even close to on the same scale, to be sure, and they weren't matter of policy, but there was the occasional sub skipper who machine gunned lifeboats in the water (http://www.warfish.com/patrol3con.html).

My point is that even if you're fighting for the most righteous army ever to grace the face of the earth, you're going to have to confront evil. And you may not have the realistic option of overthrowing it or bringing the criminals to justice. But you've got to do something.

And I would also point out, in passing, that in my experience you need to beware of people who believe most strongly in their own righteousness. Those types especially are likely to commit atrocities in the belief that , because theirs is a sacred cause, they are justified in whatever they do, and because the enemy is utterly evil that you can do whatever to them and be considered righteous. That is not just a highway, but a superconducting magnetic levitrain, directly to Hell.

ETA: This just in (http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/man-who-saved-the-world-from-nuclear-armageddon-in-1983-1818501062?utm_source=jezebel_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2017-09-18). The man who saved the world from nuclear holocaust -- by correctly identifying a false alarm without a shred of evidence -- died this month. That, I believe, is what a good man does in a corrupt organization. I'm glad he took the job and did the right thing rather than becoming a dissident or something like. If the only people left in jobs like that are unthinking robots, why, there would be a lot fewer of us alive today.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Themrys]

I'm working on this idea for a book, it's a fantasy land that thanks to fear and hate it created an inquisition.

Let's say the inquisition is back, and they torture and kill everyone who is different.

But one inquisitor is able to rise to the ranks using diplomacy, compromise and understanding.

Using his influence and political power he brings peace, joy and prosperity for all races, genders and sexualities.

Can he be considered good? Or the fact he comes from an evil organization who kills and tortures for no reason makes him unable to be good despite the fact he is doing good.

No, he is not good. A good person would not be able to rise in an evil organisation. At the very least, they'd have to condone the violence done by others in that organisation. Or recruit more people to the evil organisation. Even if your hypothetical "good" inquisitor was just working as accountant, he's ensure that the evil organisation's evil actions run smoothlessly and efficiently. (Unless he does it badly, but in that case, he'd not rise in the ranks)

If you, of your own free will, join an organisation that beats up grannies because they said something the organisation doesn't like, you can be the nicest , sweeteset person ever, if you defend this organisation, recruit other people to this organisation, and forward the goals of this organisation, you are evil.

I know it is hard to swallow that an organisation that castrates children and wants to burn women who don't conform to their ideals at the stake, is evil, and everyone who supports it also is, as in that case, the Catholic Church comes across as rather evil, historically, and that's obviously not how the people in it see themselves, but, nevertheless, the fact remains that if you voluntarily support a group that does evil, you are evil.


Examples of Germans who saved Jews don't work here, because people like Schindler did not have a choice. Nazi Germany was not this group out there that they could join or not join, people had to at least pretend to agree with the Nazis to survive, and if you wanted to get anywhere, career-wise, you had to join the Nazi party.

It is possible to live under an evil government and be good. But joining an evil organisation is an evil act.

You can have a morally grey hero, of course. Lots of fantasy books doing it. But if you try to sell him as good .. no.


Edit: And SS men who were horrified by their own actions can be considered good only from the moment onwards when they regretted their previous actions.

[AMFV]

No, he is not good. A good person would not be able to rise in an evil organisation. At the very least, they'd have to condone the violence done by others in that organisation. Or recruit more people to the evil organisation. Even if your hypothetical "good" inquisitor was just working as accountant, he's ensure that the evil organisation's evil actions run smoothlessly and efficiently. (Unless he does it badly, but in that case, he'd not rise in the ranks)

This argument only holds water if you are arguing that the Evil organization only does things things that are evil rather than things that have affects that are not evil. In reality few organizations are only evil. For example Nazi organizations in Germany in the 30s and 40s did some things that were pretty much good, in terms of employment and other things. That's the problem with complexity is that things get messy morally. If somebody is a Nazi doctor who cares for soldiers who are injured, who ensures that they can get better, is that bad? Is that morally evil if he is helping them return to fighting against other people? Does it become immoral if he is a Waffen-SS doctor who is helping people who are engaging in atrocities? Does it become immoral if he, by his medical assistance, by saving their lives allows them to return to said atrocities?

He is saving lives, that would be morally good, so the question is what sort of responsibility does he hold. As a doctor, he should work to save all lives, regardless of who the life belongs to. In fact many doctors take an oath to that effect. So in that context his actions are pretty morally good, but the impact of his actions is not going to be universally good. But that could be said for anything, say we have a US military doctor, who helps a soldier who later does something untoward or evil, is the doctor then responsible? I would argue, no. But there's certainly room for that sort of argumentation.



If you, of your own free will, join an organisation that beats up grannies because they said something the organisation doesn't like, you can be the nicest , sweeteset person ever, if you defend this organisation, recruit other people to this organisation, and forward the goals of this organisation, you are evil.


Well that depends does the organization ONLY beat Grannies who speak out? Or do they have some other purposes, which I might believe are morally good? Are all the goals of the organization evil? I would argue that even high level members of an evil organization would not be any more evil than anybody else, since even good organizations are going to have negative results.



I know it is hard to swallow that an organisation that castrates children and wants to burn women who don't conform to their ideals at the stake, is evil, and everyone who supports it also is, as in that case, the Catholic Church comes across as rather evil, historically, and that's obviously not how the people in it see themselves, but, nevertheless, the fact remains that if you voluntarily support a group that does evil, you are evil.


So then by your logic, I would be evil? Actually by your logic EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON EARTH IS EVIL. Everybody has participated in groups that have done evil, everybody has benefitted in some way from evil done to others, every single person. I would argue that it's important to contextualize this sort of thing. It's also important to remember that good can balance out or outweigh evil, if what you do is good, it will affect that evil things as well.



Examples of Germans who saved Jews don't work here, because people like Schindler did not have a choice. Nazi Germany was not this group out there that they could join or not join, people had to at least pretend to agree with the Nazis to survive, and if you wanted to get anywhere, career-wise, you had to join the Nazi party.

So it is acceptable to be supporting an organization that is evil as long as you are advancing your career? It sounds like you're not too sure of your own argumentation here, or you have a very low bar for mitigating circumstances.

I would argue that the evil that resulted from Oskar Schindler, who was a MUNITIONS MANUFACTURER, he made weapons of war that were used by the Nazis in War, against probably both legitimate and illegitimate targets. But the things he did that were good were enough to push him to being considered a good person. By many. As far as the state of his soul? I don't know. I know that he did many things that I would consider reprehensible. He was a war profiteer, he was an adulterer. But I would consider him to be a good person.



It is possible to live under an evil government and be good. But joining an evil organisation is an evil act.

Again, you're removing any room for complexity of discussion here, and that's particularly important for these kind of questions.



You can have a morally grey hero, of course. Lots of fantasy books doing it. But if you try to sell him as good .. no.

Well a person who does some evil can still be good, all people do some evil, and there are good people. It's entirely possible to have a good person who has moral flaws, in fact all moral human beings have flaws.

[Jackalias]

"I would argue that the evil that resulted from Oskar Schindler, who was a MUNITIONS MANUFACTURER, he made weapons of war that were used by the Nazis in War, against probably both legitimate and illegitimate targets. But the things he did that were good were enough to push him to being considered a good person. By many. As far as the state of his soul? I don't know. I know that he did many things that I would consider reprehensible. He was a war profiteer, he was an adulterer. But I would consider him to be a good person."

Actually Schindler prided himself on the fact that his factory produced worthless munitions, buying finished munitions on the black market whenever the authorities got suspicious, and while he may have began the war as a war profiteer he spent substantial amounts of his own wealth on bribes and other things to keep his workers safe.

[AMFV]

Actually Schindler prided himself on the fact that his factory produced worthless munitions, buying finished munitions on the black market whenever the authorities got suspicious, and while he may have began the war as a war profiteer he spent substantial amounts of his own wealth on bribes and other things to keep his workers safe.

His factory in 1945 produced no munitions. Prior to that he'd produced plenty of functional munitions. And he would not have had the contracts or resources to have accomplished the good things he did without producing working munitions. So I guess you could argue that was a net good. But it's worth noting that the movie grossly exaggerated his good qualities and diminished his negative qualities. Like in the movie he was penniless at the end, in real life, he left in a car with a load of cash, black market goods, and his wife and his mistress. So not exactly as heroic as Hollywood portrays.

This is I suspect one of the problems when people look at people who are heroic, even Hollywood are only allowed certain sins. They can't be greedy or money obsessed, but they can be lustful. It has to do with which sins people consider to be acceptable.

[pendell]

His factory in 1945 produced no munitions. Prior to that he'd produced plenty of functional munitions. And he would not have had the contracts or resources to have accomplished the good things he did without producing working munitions. So I guess you could argue that was a net good. But it's worth noting that the movie grossly exaggerated his good qualities and diminished his negative qualities. Like in the movie he was penniless at the end, in real life, he left in a car with a load of cash, black market goods, and his wife and his mistress. So not exactly as heroic as Hollywood portrays.

This is I suspect one of the problems when people look at people who are heroic, even Hollywood are only allowed certain sins. They can't be greedy or money obsessed, but they can be lustful. It has to do with which sins people consider to be acceptable.

IME there are very few organizations that are wholly good or wholly evil. You served in the US Army, correct? That is a name which has covered itself in both glory and shame, at different points in its history.

One example, of course, is our civil war in which we freed the slaves. But it's also the army that fought the Mexican war, which both Abraham Lincoln (then a congressman) and US Grant (then a junior officer) protested as an unjust war, an act of aggression. That's to say nothing of what First Americans might say.

So does that mean that the Army is an evil organization? Of course not; it has saved a number of lives and fought in good causes as well. The whole point of "civilian control" of the military is that that politicians decide when and how the army is used, on behalf of the voters who appointed them to make those choices.

The alternative -- the military decides for itself when, how, and where to fight -- does not bear thinking about (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_the_Major-Generals).

In a fictional world, consider the Sapphire Guard in OOTS -- they are literally a lawful good organization. That doesn't mean that everything they do is good or worthy of approval. The whole book of Start of Darkness is devoted to this. Likewise the Elvish resistance fighters had their own issues, even if they were of good alignment.

In a world where even good people do evil deeds, it's best to be prepared to confront evil wherever you find it, in any organization. There are some organizations which are obviously evil, such as the Mafia, but that's not something most college students have to worry about.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[DRD1812]

I'm no historian, but I heard about this guy in passing the other day. An interesting historical point of reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rabe#Death_and_legacy

[Scarlet Knight]

I'm suprised no one mentioned the obvious examples of undercover police, spies, double agents, whistle blowers, or moles.

[AMFV]

I'm suprised no one mentioned the obvious examples of undercover police, spies, double agents, whistle blowers, or moles.

Well to be fair that doesn't really fit with OP's example. And since they're part of the organization under false pretense it's questionable how much actual membership they have in those organizations.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Well to be fair that doesn't really fit with OP's example. And since they're part of the organization under false pretense it's questionable how much actual membership they have in those organizations.

It fits the example perfectly. The example is a good person who enter the evil organization and immediately starts turning the whole thing around into a happy sunshine club.

[pendell]

Well, the examples in classic western writings describe situations where good people are enslaved and forced to labor for evil masters. While it's wonderful to get your freedom if you can, all too often slaves in Rome who ran away wound up becoming bandits in the hills, preying on travelers. This was a cure worse than the disease. Not to mention that by the laws of those days the misdoings of one slave would result in punishment for the entire household.

So instead slaves were encouraged to obey their masters, even the evil ones, and by so doing set such an example that perhaps their hearts would be changed.

That didn't happen often.

Themrys implies that, since we are 'free', we have more choice than slaves in those days or conscripts in the 20th century.

That has not been my experience. I have a diabetic wife in a country that does not have universal health care. I have a house payment to make. Also, while I was very fortunate in my last job search and was hired in less than a month, my more average experience is a job hunt lasting a year.

When you have a power bill, a house bill, and a sick wife at home, you think twice about grand gestures such as storming out :smallamused:. And if you've spent months getting rejection letters and you finally get a job offer that will allow you to pay your bills, well, you're not always careful in reviewing the particulars of the employer.

Incidentally, I've worked for a lot of employers in the last twenty years. They all had moral and ethical challenges. Not all the same, to be sure, but there's always been something. So if you're leaving one employer because of ethical concerns, the odds are pretty good your next employer won't be much better -- that is, unless you're working for an organization well outside the mean of ordinary misdoings.

Ultimately, the only way you're going to work for an organization that has a chance of meeting your own ethics and morals is if you found your own company -- and even then, it's going to be difficult because you'll still face the same challenges, the same customers, the same environment that tempted your former employers to cheat as well.

I don't think you'll ever be able to be totally pure, either as self-employed or as an employee. But perhaps, in Pratchett's phrase, you can find someplace between impossible perfection and the dark where you can hold your head up somewhat unashamed.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Luz]

No, you can join the mafia and become Don just to use the organization resources to save orphans and kittens.

Good? Nope, where d you think the power, money and influence comes from?

In the mafia case, criminal activity.

In a inquisition case, fear and the use of faith to justify discrimination.

It's like using a magic wand powered by the blood of orphans to save a city and claim you are the good guy for saving it despite the fact you had to kill orphans to have the power to do it.

Ends don't justify the means. You may have noble goals but the tools you used to archive it are forever tainted with the blood of the innocent.

[Bohandas]

"Can a member of an evil and corrupt organziation be good?"

Two words: Oskar Schindler

So definitely yes, though they must first become disillusioned with the organization

EDIT:
NVM, I see he's already been brought up

[Frozen_Feet]

As a matter of fact, the greatest wealth, power and influence for the biggest mobs, triads and yakuzas comes from completely legal business enterprises. Yeah, maybe once upon a time those enterprises were started with blood money or for purposes of money laundery. But you had nothing to do with that, and if nothing stops you now from joining such enterprise and using the money you gain to help the people you wronged as well as others, with no participation in additional criminal activity, to brand you evil requires either a ton of prejudice or a retroactive notion of guilt and condonement.

If a reformer gets in a discriminatory organization, succesfully cleans the house and turns it into a non-discriminatory one, it is backwards to claim they supported or condoned the discriminatory acts. If they had, they wouldn't have went through the effort to reform it!

[Scarlet Knight]

“If you can get some of the devil’s money to use for the Lord’s work, if you have to borrow it, it is all right and carry on the work.”
— John Harvey Kellogg

[anjxed]

Ends don't justify the means. You may have noble goals but the tools you used to archive it are forever tainted with the blood of the innocent.

If only the real world is as black and white and as simple as that.

[Frozen_Feet]

It isn't a matter of black or white. The quoted claim is obtuse because it doesn't apply to the example given anyway, because no-one anywhere claimed that "made Inquisition into non-discriminatory, non-corrupt, beneficial entity" is what justifies "joining the Inquisition" . It might as well be saying it is wrong to return stolen money to a victim of thievery, because the money had to be stolen first, and stealing is bad.

[veti]

Yes.

They may have no idea of what the organisation does. Or it may do a variety of things, so that as well as the occasional torture, it also keeps the peace, feeds the hungry and houses the homeless - I can think of quite a few historical organisations that match that description, including incidentally the original "Inquisition" (which is much misunderstood (http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200811h.html)). A person may enthusiastically promote the good works, but that doesn't necessarily put them in a position to do anything about the less-good ones.

Or, a person within an evil organisation may have a change of heart (I believe this fits the Schindler case). Or they may join it for reasons unrelated to its purpose, and never actually promote its ends.

Or - and this is where it gets controversial - they may see those ends differently from you. What to you looks like "torture and intolerance" may to them be "peacekeeping". If burning a few heretics from time to time will preserve the entire countryside from being pillaged, burned, beaten and raped - well, they may say sadly, pass me the matches.

[Tyndmyr]

No, you can join the mafia and become Don just to use the organization resources to save orphans and kittens.

Good? Nope, where d you think the power, money and influence comes from?

In the mafia case, criminal activity.

In a inquisition case, fear and the use of faith to justify discrimination.

It's like using a magic wand powered by the blood of orphans to save a city and claim you are the good guy for saving it despite the fact you had to kill orphans to have the power to do it.

Ends don't justify the means. You may have noble goals but the tools you used to archive it are forever tainted with the blood of the innocent.

I can't guarantee that every dollar in my pocket has never been used for ill. How would I know? I mean, as much as money circulates around, probably all of us have handled money that is, by your standards, tainted.

But end of the day, it's just a piece of paper. It's what you do that matters. If you turn something evil into something good, wonderful. If you turn something good into something evil, why, it's the opposite.

[pendell]

I can't guarantee that every dollar in my pocket has never been used for ill. How would I know? I mean, as much as money circulates around, probably all of us have handled money that is, by your standards, tainted.

But end of the day, it's just a piece of paper. It's what you do that matters. If you turn something evil into something good, wonderful. If you turn something good into something evil, why, it's the opposite.

And , if it's American money , odds are good it has traces of cocaine on it (http://www.snopes.com/business/money/cocaine.asp).

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Spanish_Paladin]

I suppose there can be circunstances (coercive, cultural, etc) that makes a good person be on an evil organization. An example in my country (Spain) was the "movimiento nacional". Anyone who wanted to have any success in civil or economic activites under Franco dictatorship should join the movimiento. But usually a good person wont reach the upper positions unless his goal is to sabotage that orgsnization from within.

But usually a good person will try to destroy the organization with all the means he has.

[S@tanicoaldo]

That's sounds like someone joining the KKK and using it to end racism.... Why don't they just... You know... End racism without joining the KKK? :smallconfused:

[Liquor Box]

The answer is clearly yes in my opinion.

It is possible to excel in an evil and corrupt organisation without even knowing that it is evil and corrupt.
Any evil taint from working for the evil and corrupt organisation might be outweighed by the good achieved from working for it (whether merely supporting your family, or working undercover to destroy that very organisation). A person may have been seduced into working for the evil and corrupt organisation but may be inherently good (depending on how you look at good and evil - are all criminals evil?) [8] the person may be under duress.


There may be some specific contexts where it would be much more difficult to justify a good person working for an evil organisation (such as participating in a paedophile ring). But as phrased, then there is no doubt that a member of a corrupt and evil organisation can be good.

[Bohandas]

That's sounds like someone joining the KKK and using it to end racism.... Why don't they just... You know... End racism without joining the KKK? :smallconfused:

I can see how joining the kkk could help end racism if you had some kind of contagious disease

[Bohandas]

Also, how about an apathetic disinterested and possibly lazy functionary of an evil organization

[Frozen_Feet]

That's sounds like someone joining the KKK and using it to end racism.... Why don't they just... You know... End racism without joining the KKK? :smallconfused:

*shrug*

The story so far doesn't tell.

Why would it be relevant?

---


Also, how about an apathetic disinterested and possibly lazy functionary of an evil organization

Doesn't sound good. May be evil in that banal, "my drinking buddies are stabbing each other but I can't be made to care as long as there's still booze" kind if way.

I mean, scratch over the word "evil" in your sentence. What happens to an organization when enough of its members are lazy, apathetic and disinterested? That's breeding ground for corruption and dysfunctionality. This kind of person may not care about kicking puppies persobally, but he can't be arsed to stop anyone else from doing so. These kind of people are why "Sloth" is a cardinal sin.

[2D8HP]

....These kind of people are why "Sloth" is a cardinal sin.


I plead guilty!

[Tvtyrant]

Ends don't justify the means.

http://www.hwdyk.com/q/images/futurama_s03e14_02.jpg

I can guarantee you that there is no statement build on more privilege than that one. Everything built anywhere was done so on a tide of blood and misery, and only once you get up out of the water do you have the privilege to ask that the tide stop rising.

[Luz]

“If you can get some of the devil’s money to use for the Lord’s work, if you have to borrow it, it is all right and carry on the work.”
— John Harvey Kellogg

Well, one day the devil will ask for the money back, with interest.


I can't guarantee that every dollar in my pocket has never been used for ill. How would I know? I mean, as much as money circulates around, probably all of us have handled money that is, by your standards, tainted.

But end of the day, it's just a piece of paper. It's what you do that matters. If you turn something evil into something good, wonderful. If you turn something good into something evil, why, it's the opposite.

Yes, because that wasn't a metaphor and I meant literal money and literal blood. :smallannoyed:


Also, how about an apathetic disinterested and possibly lazy functionary of an evil organization

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke.


http://www.hwdyk.com/q/images/futurama_s03e14_02.jpg

I can guarantee you that there is no statement build on more privilege than that one. Everything built anywhere was done so on a tide of blood and misery, and only once you get up out of the water do you have the privilege to ask that the tide stop rising.

Well, tell that to the indian independence movement and the civil rights movement.

[anjxed]

Well, tell that to the indian independence movement and the civil rights movement.

Indian independence came about because Britain was bankrupt, that is why most colonizers "decolonized" there is no money left to maintain them. And not bloody? How about the partition? Sepoy rebellions? Civil rights movement? So what about the black panther movement? Almost everything was built in blood sweat and tears. We do not sing kumbaya and live happily ever after.

[Bohandas]

I mean, scratch over the word "evil" in your sentence. What happens to an organization when enough of its members are lazy, apathetic and disinterested?

It becomes ineffectual


"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke.

And vice versa

EDIT:
"A foolish man tries to be good,
And is therefore not good.
A truly good man does nothing,
Yet leaves nothing undone.
A foolish man is always doing,
Yet much remains to be done."
-Tao Te Ching, chapter 38

[Frozen_Feet]

That reminds me of a certain matrix. To paraphrase, people can be smart or stupid, and lazy or energitic.

Those who are stupid and lazy you either ignore or direct. They are harmless if left alone, as they will not seek to cause trouble on their own initiative, and usefull if commanded, for they will only do the least possible amount in the simplest manner, and thus are predictable.

Those who are clever and lazy, should be placed in leadership positions, for they will have necessary vision to see and solve problems, yet will naturally seek for the most effortless implementation.

Those who are clever and energetic, should be made the second-in-commands and middle-managers, for they can both comprehend the vision of their superiors and summon forth the energy to make lazier people follow suit.

Those who are stupid and energetic should be taken behind a sauna and shot, because you never know what those idiots will do.

[Luz]

Indian independence came about because Britain was bankrupt, that is why most colonizers "decolonized" there is no money left to maintain them. And not bloody? How about the partition? Sepoy rebellions? Civil rights movement? So what about the black panther movement? Almost everything was built in blood sweat and tears. We do not sing kumbaya and live happily ever after.

Sure what ever you want to belive, it's because of people like you who sees violence as the only solution that we where we are.


It becomes ineffectual

And vice versa

EDIT:
"A foolish man tries to be good,
And is therefore not good.
A truly good man does nothing,
Yet leaves nothing undone.
A foolish man is always doing,
Yet much remains to be done."
-Tao Te Ching, chapter 38

Well, I rather be a foolish man then a wise man who does nothing.


That reminds me of a certain matrix. To paraphrase, people can be smart or stupid, and lazy or energitic.

Those who are stupid and lazy you either ignore or direct. They are harmless if left alone, as they will not seek to cause trouble on their own initiative, and usefull if commanded, for they will only do the least possible amount in the simplest manner, and thus are predictable.

Those who are clever and lazy, should be placed in leadership positions, for they will have necessary vision to see and solve problems, yet will naturally seek for the most effortless implementation.

Those who are clever and energetic, should be made the second-in-commands and middle-managers, for they can both comprehend the vision of their superiors and summon forth the energy to make lazier people follow suit.

Those who are stupid and energetic should be taken behind a sauna and shot, because you never know what those idiots will do.

That's.... Actually sounds kind of awesome. Who wrote this?

[anjxed]

Sure what ever you want to belive, it's because of people like you who sees violence as the only solution that we where we are.

Oh yes, we should totally not do any violence at all even if we see that other people is prepared to do violence against us. Seriously, believe what YOU want to believe that everybody just gather arounds the campfire and sings kumbaya.

[Frozen_Feet]

That's.... Actually sounds kind of awesome. Who wrote this?

The concept is attribited to Helmuth von Moltke and Erich von Manstein, high-ranking officers in Prussia and Nazi Germany, respectively. :smallamused:

Though the idea exist elsewhere. Replace "good" with "smart" in that Tao Te Ching quote, and it says much of the same thing.

I'd consider that a sufficient rebuttal to the sentiment (shared by you) "Well, I rather be a foolish man then a wise man who does nothing". Because foolish action is recipe for disaster. Same reason why we have the saying "road to Hell is paved with good intentions".

[Bohandas]

That's.... Actually sounds kind of awesome. Who wrote this?

I think I recall something like that in a Scott Adams book but I'm not sure if he originated it

[S@tanicoaldo]

Oh yes, we should totally not do any violence at all even if we see that other people is prepared to do violence against us. Seriously, believe what YOU want to believe that everybody just gather arounds the campfire and sings kumbaya.

I ask you then what good has violence caused that wasn't to solve or mitigate another problem also caused by violence?

[Bohandas]

Now as for the lazy incompetent phone-it-in thing, Imagine if you will someone who makes bombs for the Nazis that consistently fail to explode due to real incompetence rather than merely feigned incompetence.

[Spanish_Paladin]

EDIT:
"A foolish man tries to be good,
And is therefore not good.
A truly good man does nothing,
Yet leaves nothing undone.
A foolish man is always doing,
Yet much remains to be done."
-Tao Te Ching, chapter 38

I think the "wu wei" teaching of Lao Tze refers to not "force" any action on others or the world. To be with the Tao is to flow not to resist, but it doesn't mean the lack of any action.

EDIT: sorry, this post is a reply to Luz not Bohandas.

[Bohandas]

Imagine if you will someone conscripted into the nazi or confederate army who deserts out of cowardice. Is that not good or at worst neutral?

EDIT:
NVM, that negates the premise. Ok, how about someone who stays with the nazis or confederates solely to steal supplies?

[AMFV]

Imagine if you will someone conscripted into the nazi or confederate army who deserts out of cowardice. Is that not good or at worst neutral?

EDIT:
NVM, that negates the premise. Ok, how about someone who stays with the nazis or confederates solely to steal supplies?

Oooh, what about somebody who is conscripted or joins an evil organization to protect somebody close to them like a family member, and they only act in the interest of protecting their family?

[Frozen_Feet]

Now as for the lazy incompetent phone-it-in thing, Imagine if you will someone who makes bombs for the Nazis that consistently fail to explode due to real incompetence rather than merely feigned incompetence.

Mere ineptitude makes no-one good, otherwise, not enough information to decide.


Imagine if you will someone conscripted into the nazi or confederate army who deserts out of cowardice. Is that not good or at worst neutral?

Again, mere ineptitude (which cowardice is one form of) makes no-one good. Otherwise, not enough information to decide.


How about someone who stays with the nazis or confederates solely to steal supplies?

Amoral. Anyone who is in anything solely to steal supplies is at best operating on 1st level of Kohlberg's moral theory. That is, they're doing it to benefit themselves under the premise that they don't caught.


Oooh, what about somebody who is conscripted or joins an evil organization to protect somebody close to them like a family member, and they only act in the interest of protecting their family?

Two different scenarios are presented here. Conscription implies enforcement. It implies refusal or failure to be conscripted entails failure of the goal "protect your family".

Such implication is absent if a person joins out of their own will.

Regardless, mere desire to "protect family" does not make anyone good. See Heinz dilemma (which aforementioned Kohlberg's moral levels were based on) to see all the various ways in which other considerations may be considered (or considered not to) trump "protect family" as a moral goal.

Anyways, absent of other information, someone who works only "to protect family" is at best on third of Kohlberg's moral levels and quite likely amoral.

[AMFV]

It's important to note that you are arguing from a moral theory that is NOT, and I repeat NOT universally accepted as a solid moral theory. Or even a solid ethical theory.

I'm not particularly fond of Kohlberg, I could probably figure out a way to frame a desire to protect my family that could fit in any of his stages. I'm not sure that you can use Psychology in absence of philosophy as a source of moral reasoning, at least not without making really shoddy unstated assumptions about morality. And that's the problem with Kohlberg.

He makes the assumption that a system of ethics that is based around Consequentialism is the superior system of ethics, ergo we're looking at the harm principle, and then he assumes everyone is harm motivated and the better ethics is the system where somebody is considering harm to fewer and fewer people. That's why things that value the good of humanity is considered the highest on his moral scale.

But it completely falls apart once you have any different valuing systems, and that's why psychologists make really ****ty moral philosophers. Because they don't look at the understated assumptions about things.

What if it is morally good to follow orders? To obey one's direct superior? There are moral philosophies that have argued that, not new ones really, but certainly they exist, in which case Kohlberg's Stage One, is suddenly the best stage and everybody else is worse. See you can't have moral philosophy if you don't philosophy and Kohlberg pretty clearly doesn't have the background to effectively assess morality.

[Frozen_Feet]

I'm not particularly fond of Kohlberg, I could probably figure out a way to frame a desire to protect my family that could fit in any of his stages.

Uh, that is the entire point of Kohlberg's theory of moral development and the use of Heinz dilemma to begin with: to see the different ways in which people justify whether to steal or not to steal.

The thing you miss is that while you maybe could BS an explanation to fit any level, not all people can, and in fact narrow majority fail to consistently operate on levels above three.

More, as these being called stages of moral development suggests, the stage a person operates on correlates heavily with maturity and cognitive skill.

And that's a pretty important observation when you start comparing various moral philosophies. Your statement that Kohlberg favors consequentalism is, in fact, wrong. If anything, Kohlberg's ideal system would've been Kantian, but there are both consequentalist and deontological systems that fit higher stages of his theory. The point is that when you look at how those ethical systems are constructed, you can make a difference between something that literally could've been invented by a child versus something that would see serious discussion among adult philosophers. Whenever you start asking questions of someone who is only motivated by single, concrete goal, you are describing trivial morality.

In examples such as someone who is only motivated by acquiring supplies, or only motivated by protecting family, you might as well be talking about a dog. And dogs as moral operators is something that belongs in a kindergarten.

[Liquor Box]

I ask you then what good has violence caused that wasn't to solve or mitigate another problem also caused by violence?

The arrest of a non-violent criminal in circumstances where some minor degree of violence (restraining and cuffing) was necessary to bring about that arrest?

[The Eye]

The arrest of a non-violent criminal in circumstances where some minor degree of violence (restraining and cuffing) was necessary to bring about that arrest?

Is there such thing as a non-violent crime?

[Lord Joeltion]

Is there such thing as a non-violent crime?

Petty theft? Identity theft? Scam? Recommending Twilight every time you meet a stranger? 50 Shades work too...

[2D8HP]

Recommending.....


:eek:

Please, they're some deeds too foul to even speak of!

[Frozen_Feet]

Is there such thing as a non-violent crime?

*blank stare*

Are you not aware that from a legalistic viewpoint, "a crime" is whatever is defined as such by the entity making the laws? "Crime" can and often does include things like standing in the wrong place at the wrong time. Then there are strict liability crimes which entitle use of force against you, not on the basis that what you're currently doing is committing violence on anyone, but on the basis that if enough people did that thing, it would lead to increased violence. Drunk driving would be one example. Speeding is another.

The inverse of that is the principle that "there can be no punishment without a crime, and no crime without the act being defined as such in the law". So a violent act is not necessarily a crime.

[Luz]

I'd consider that a sufficient rebuttal to the sentiment (shared by you) "Well, I rather be a foolish man then a wise man who does nothing". Because foolish action is recipe for disaster. Same reason why we have the saying "road to Hell is paved with good intentions".

Well, tell that to Charles XII when he was taking over Krakow.

[Bohandas]

Is there such thing as a non-violent crime?

How about pickpocketing? Dine and dash? Embezzlement? Tax evasion? Bribery? Illegal dumping?

Or was that meant as some sort of pseudoprofundity?


*blank stare*

Are you not aware that from a legalistic viewpoint, "a crime" is whatever is defined as such by the entity making the laws? "Crime" can and often does include things like standing in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Especially the wrong place. It's never the right time to be somewhere like North Korea or Saudi Arabia.

[The Ari-tificer]

This is the plot of many a story.

[Aedilred]

The arrest of a non-violent criminal in circumstances where some minor degree of violence (restraining and cuffing) was necessary to bring about that arrest?

But if the criminal isn't violent, why is it necessary to use violence to restrain them?

Yes, I suppose they could be trying to do a runner, but it's a pretty grey area. Personally I've always found at least the TV depiction of US police in action: guns out, everyone cuffed behind their backs, no matter what the crime, very heavy-handed. It probably (hopefully?) isn't like that in real life.

As for "what good has violence ever done other than to challenge other violence?" I think that depends entirely on your definition of violence.

[Tvtyrant]

I ask you then what good has violence caused that wasn't to solve or mitigate another problem also caused by violence?

Well, let us see.

Decision to renege on an agreed upon payment is not typically violent but can destroy the other person and without violence there is no way to enforce consequences.
Stealing their property is a more direct version of the above.
Allowing pollutants from your property to spill onto theirs, or into the common lands.
Use of banned chemicals.
Mining in protected areas.
Driving your cattle through other individuals properties or public property, destroying crops or wildlife there.
Diverting water upstream of another individuals property.
Drilling for oil/natural gas near anothers property without permission and endangering them or their property.
Overfishing protected regions.
Overhunting protected regions.
Poaching.
Breaking copyright/IP laws.
Libel cases.
Noise violations like playing the sounds of a jackhammer 24 hours a day.


And those are just the ones that involve unrelated individuals. Imagine how inheritance laws would work if just taking the whole property and shredding the will was nonpunishable. If divorce seems bad now, imagine if taking the kids when you don't like the courts decision is met by a "oh well, what can you do?" Unless we somehow define violence as "anything detrimental to anyone else" then you need it to enforce protections against detrimental but none-violent actions, many of which are just as devastating.

[Bohandas]

Well, let us see.

Decision to renege on an agreed upon payment is not typically violent but can destroy the other person and without violence there is no way to enforce consequences.
Stealing their property is a more direct version of the above.
Allowing pollutants from your property to spill onto theirs, or into the common lands.
Use of banned chemicals.
Mining in protected areas.
Driving your cattle through other individuals properties or public property, destroying crops or wildlife there.
Diverting water upstream of another individuals property.
Drilling for oil/natural gas near anothers property without permission and endangering them or their property.
Overfishing protected regions.
Overhunting protected regions.
Poaching.
Breaking copyright/IP laws.
Libel cases.
Noise violations like playing the sounds of a jackhammer 24 hours a day.


And those are just the ones that involve unrelated individuals. Imagine how inheritance laws would work if just taking the whole property and shredding the will was nonpunishable. If divorce seems bad now, imagine if taking the kids when you don't like the courts decision is met by a "oh well, what can you do?" Unless we somehow define violence as "anything detrimental to anyone else" then you need it to enforce protections against detrimental but none-violent actions, many of which are just as devastating.
What good is done by modern America's IP/Copyright laws. As they are they cause far more harm than good.

[Tvtyrant]

What good is done by modern America's IP/Copyright laws. As they are they cause far more harm than good.
An interesting opinion, but not one that I share. I believe the protection of authorial rights has helped us in creating an ever richer literature, not to mention allowing investment into sectors not covered by patent laws.

[Bohandas]

An interesting opinion, but not one that I share. I believe the protection of authorial rights has helped us in creating an ever richer literature, not to mention allowing investment into sectors not covered by patent laws.

I specified America's copyright laws, where protections last effectively forever for the benefit of dead men and soulless corporations

[Frozen_Feet]

Regarding "what good has violence ever done other than to challenge other violence?", I would as well ask "why would it even need to have done any other good?"

Violence is one of the most trivial ways to affect other people. The capacity for it is not something that can be removed from people in any sane way. There is, and has never been, any shortage of violent people, so even if the only good violence has ever done is oppose them, that's plenty of good to go around.

No other justification is required.

[Tvtyrant]

I specified America's copyright laws, where protections last effectively forever for the benefit of dead men and soulless corporations

So you strawmanned what I said so you could refute me and feel good about yourself? Nice.

[Maxilian]

Yes, if not that would imply that most people are somewhat evil for what those above them (that may be Evil -Selfish-) do.

[FlammySenpai]

I'd say yes, definitely. It just depends on the circumstances that this individual ended up joining. It could be that this person didn't know about the organizations illicit or shady dealings. Or maybe they are fully aware of this, but this individual is only agreeing to work for them because they are under duress, or they need the money to help their family.