The "Evil" versus the "Good"

[Christophe]

And, still without reading your development, I think that currently politically in France (and elsewhere) we are passing EVIL for GOOD ... and GOOD for EVIL ... under the guise of false health promises based on scientific and political speculation!

We'll talk about it in 6 months!

[Christophe]

Another example ... instead of choosing econology as a project ... if I had chosen web porn ... so the exploitation of the image of men (and women especially) ... I would be very probably between 10, 100 to 1000 times richer in view of the hours spent on the project ... and therefore up to 1000 times more "respected" see more ... So is it good or is it bad?

And especially if it happens Brigitte would have already invited me to a fine game!
This is really bad!

I'm going to bed I'm tired I think!

[Macro]

I would have a tendency to say ... That we are very badly barred….

[Grelinette]

I would have a tendency to say ... That we are very badly barred….

and in addition we go around in circles! .... which brings us straight to the Yin and Yan which means somewhere that Good and Evil are closely intertwined!

But I do not necessarily agree with this observation ... and I therefore come back to my first question which leads me to conclude that the notions of Good and Evil can be, in my opinion, quite distinct even if the limit is not so sharp in many cases, and that the evil seems more present than good in our genes, our brain, our spirit, our education, our achievements, our innate, our triatum, our society, ... anyway, somewhere in us or not far away!

In my opinion, some human behaviors are primarily motivated by pure and simple evil, in the sense that it does nothing more than just doing evil. Moreover, curiously, we admit more readily that we can want to do good without compensation (apart from possibly "doing good to yourself" at the same time), while Evil will introduce the question of why to do this. Evil, what interest?

If I see a homeless man in the street and I put € 1 in his bowl, no one will ask me why I made this donation, implying that, a priori, it is a good gesture, a gesture Well which will bring a little good to the homeless. On the other hand, if when I walk past the same homeless person and take € 1 from his bowl, people will ask me why I did this, implying, a priori, my gesture has no beneficial justification except to do Evil without interest!

The relativity of Good and Evil is complex and can have a very subjective justification according to one and the other when one seeks to understand the objective reasons or not which direct towards the qualifier Good or Bad.
There are many situations where this notion of Good or Bad is very delicate.

There are, moreover, experiences which are of interest, such asMilgram experience that I had studied in psychology class at the Faculty. (even if the conclusions can be very different depending on the benchmark).

To put it simply (and save you from reading the long Wiki!), This experiment involves having a volunteer be the teacher and testing the evolutions of a student's learning abilities with painful punishments if the student is wrong, thestudent being an accomplice but not the teacher.
When the student makes a mistake in an answer, the teacher has the possibility to send an electric shock to the student and to ask him the same question, and to increase the shock, therefore the pain, if the answer is still incorrect. ...
Obviously, the false student goes back, and the teacher increases the discharge ... until you reach a fatal discharge knowingly!

Yep, this experience seems to say that most of us are able to kill a stranger just because they make a mistake in a trivial experiment !!! If it doesn't mean that Evil is in us! ...
It would be very interesting to have the opposite experience to know if the Good is also in us and in what proportion!

(There is another similar but even more significant experiment in which students were asked to simulate the prison environment: student volunteers were chosen to be guards, other prisoners. Some guards soon developed violent behavior. and cruel without any justification, especially since it is a simple experience with only informed volunteers).

[Janic]

both good and bad have no existence in themselves. It's like asking the question of whether hot is good or bad versus cold, or day versus night.
So the lioness who kills an antelope does well for herself and her cubs, but it's bad for the antelope, whose cub, slower, more fragile, will end up in the stomachs of lions.
therefore these notions of oppositions are above all subjective and cultural.
The yin yang symbol is interesting in this regard. When the yin gains "space on the yang, it is to give up a part of itself to the yang elsewhere and the same in the other direction!" Namely that if the lions ate all the antelopes they themselves would die for lack of food in the end and if the antelopes were not "eaten they would multiply until they destroy all vegetation within reach of its mouth. Hence animal diseases. and plants which complete these previous selections by eliminating the weaker ones too, hence covid vs vaccine or war vs peace!

[Grelinette]

both good and bad have no existence in themselves. It's like asking the question of whether hot is good or bad versus cold, or day versus night.

Yeah ... it's semantics and comparing good and bad by analogy with hot and cold seems tendentious to me. Hot is no more valuable than cold except that hot is good if there is a risk of dying of cold and vice versa.

It remains, to return to the question at the beginning of the debate, that it seems to me that "Evil" is expressed more readily than "Good" in humans.

The history of humanity is characterized mainly by wars, colonizations, exterminations, peoples who subjugate others, etc., followed by a flashback that makes you think and say to yourself afterwards: "All that for that !..."

even: "Wouldn't it have been more judicious to help each other rather than to kill each other?".

This last question brings to mind the recent remark of our former Minister (2000s) of Regional Planning and the Environment (also an early ecologist), Yves coachman who said, commenting on the theory of collapsology (of which he is one of the fervent defenders):
"When the collapse of human societies arrives, men will have no other alternative than to help each other or to kill each other!"

(Note that it foreshadows a beginning of crisis with collapse of our societies for 2030 ... "Wait and See", and Conclude).

It's stupid to say, but it is only in the case of a real crisis in humanity that we will finally know whether Good or Evil prevails in the brains of men! ...

[Janic]

Yeah ... it's semantics and comparing good and bad by analogy with hot and cold seems tendentious to me. Hot is no more valuable than cold except that hot is good if there is a risk of dying of cold and vice versa.

It is precisely the semantics that gives meaning to our words followed by our actions.
What is tendentious is to want to give them a "moral" meaning which has nothing to do in a field like this because culturally this meaning changes according to the societies and the good of one day becomes the bad of tomorrow . For example Nazism (which nobody dares to mention because the wounds are not all healed) started in a society going towards a better than their situation. of the moment, then it drifted into this monstrous madness.
The same goes for vaccines, the initial idea of ​​which is to protect and which becomes an authoritarian measure flouting the claim asserted at the front of town halls: FREEDOM and in the declaration of human and citizen rights, of the following Oviedo convention the Nuremberg code [*] of the NEVER AGAINST CA, while neighboring countries, less pretentious on the semantic level, do not even dare to make vaccinations MANDATORY.

[*]The precise nature of the “Nuremberg Code” - an international criminal case law - has often been overlooked or ignored, including by legal doctrine.
https://www.inserm.fr/sites/default/fil ... dAmiel.pdf
This INSERM being at the forefront of loss of sight in question however!

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

For example Nazism started on a society going towards a better than their situation of the moment, then it drifted into this monstrous madness.

Well no, from the start it was monstrous, the program was, the speech too. Afterwards, if that fascinates you to the point of thinking that the Nazis had good intentions, you are free to ... The work that the regime gave to its people consisted mainly of making highways to invade neighbors and manufacture weapons for slaughter them.

[Janic]

Well no, from the start it was monstrous, the program was, the speech too.

it is to deny History by not taking into account the dates punctuating these changes.

Afterwards, if it fascinates you to the point of thinking that the Nazis had good intentions, you are free ...

do not distort what I wrote. I hate all forms of totalitarianism whether it is Nazi or not, such as our government's for vaccines.

The work that the regime gave to its people consisted mainly of making highways to invade neighbors and manufacture weapons to slaughter them.

it's also part of history, but not only, it's as if you considered that the French women were collaborators in making weapons for the invader while their guys who had gone to be murdered on the front line and found themselves in prison camps, working for the enemy too.
The great history is not straightforward!

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Well no, from the start it was monstrous, the program was, the speech too.

it is to deny History by not taking into account the dates punctuating these changes

Sorry to find you talking about what you don't know. Reread Hitler's speeches, (re?) Read Mein Kampf and watch the actions of the NSDAP before his coming to power ...