F4F: Evil

[TheWesDude]

thread: TL;DR

what the fuck is F4F ?

 

[Crni Vuk]

I was wondering (inspired by Mass Effect's Reapers), since the good/evil dichotomy is an entirely human invention, would an action that kills the entire humanity in one swift shot be considered evil?

After all, there'd be no human present to perceive the action as evil, therefore it'd not be evil. Or would it be evil regardless of context (humans present to rate it)?

depends who is doing it.

 

[Stealste]

95% of all species that have ever existed are already dead. We will die.

You gotta go some way. And i think a massive alien eradication is a bit cooler than leprosy or cholera.

I don't think 'the way things work' give two hoots about the morality of our demise. It's probably rational. All species seem to fit very carefully into the workings of the world - Balance. We mess that balance up like a sugar-leaden six year old on a trampoline. An anomaly that probably shouldn't exist.

 

[Kahgan]

I saw a documentary on baboons, and the males would fight each other for dominance in the group. One of the males decided that he could defend himself better if he grabbed one of the toddler baboons so that the baboon challenging him wouldn't be able to attack him (essential a child baboon shield). Now once the females of the group saw this they ganged up on this male until he let the toddler baboon down and chased him away. Note that it wasn't just the toddler's mother, but other females as well. Animals that rely on each other in social groups usually have evolved a sense of empathy, and this leads to some sort of moral code (not necessarily an absolute one) more than just a hierarchy.

Those are basic survival instincts. Chimpansees occasionally kill other chimps that aren't a part of their group and eat them, wich viewed by human morals would be truly evil. Yet it is still only about survival, the other chimps are a threat, and once you've killed one, it's a damn good source of proteins too.
If my dog eats a stable of pancakes that's laying on the table while I'm out it will certainly know that it isn't allowed to do so, and when I get home, it will look all guilty.
Now if my dog kills a bird, it will not know that it has done something that with human eyes would be considered evil. Even if it doesn't eat the bird. It will wonder of and forget the thing ever happened. Eating the stable of pancakes is to my dog not evil, in its eyes the pancakes are mine, and by eating them it has provoked the leader of the pack, and if I were a dog I'd probably tear it apart.

You gotta go some way. And i think a massive alien eradication is a bit cooler than leprosy or cholera.

Personally I'd prefer nuclear disaster

 

[iridium_ionizer]

Those are basic survival instincts. Chimpansees occasionally kill other chimps that aren't a part of their group and eat them, wich viewed by human morals would be truly evil. Yet it is still only about survival, the other chimps are a threat, and once you've killed one, it's a damn good source of proteins too.

I'm not saying that there is necessarily something divine about it. I'm just saying that when survival instincts are directed towards the survival of the group (by it being favored by evolution for a species) and the species has developed a sense of empathy (by evolution again) then something bad happening to the group will be viewed as evil by the group. Animals have feelings (although they typically don't have anything we would call intellectual thought) and one of those feelings could be called the feeling of evil (or the feeling of something bad happening for the group). This concept definitely predates organized religion.

So if your neighbor decides to kill half of the people living on your street you will likely feel that this was an evil act, irregardless of whether you went to Catholic school as a kid or not, or whether you are a rabid atheist or not. You would probably still think it was evil even if your landlord to whom you owed rent was killed too. Now, if it's someone of a different nationality or someone halfway across the world, you may not have this feeling, but that is likely because you don't consider the people killed part of your group.

 

[MrBumble]

I have a dog. His name is Charlie. He's a cocker spaniel. He's very intelligent, much more than my previous dog. Oh and he's cute, he looks a bit like that :

However he needs me to feed him, to walk him, to love him, to play with him. I'm the world to him.

If you wipe the entire human race off the earth, then Charlie will probably starve to death, or die of sorrow ( he won't feast off my body, he's not like..that ).

Therefore, destroying the human race = killing a puppy. That's bad by human standards, isn't it ?

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

the act itself is unlikely to be good or evil.
the motivations might be.

you should add the consequences to the mix too. maybe it prevents us from totally fucking up the galaxy in the future.

anyhow, does it matter? we'd all be dead anyway!

The aliens can somehow see the future, or better yet, are from the future?

So, if they are time travelers, why would they kill us in our current present?
Wouldn't it be better if they went back further in time and killed our primitive ancestors during that crucial moment in history when our species was about to go extinct from starvation?

Or better yet, go further back in time and prevent that mammals ever developed into the dominant species on Earth, ensuring humanity will never come into existence.

Perhaps the aliens want to kill us because we will kill them all in the future/their present, which can mean that the human time fleet is right on their trail.

Then there are of course alternate timelines/universe, in which the aliens failed to kill us off in case they have succeeded in killing us in this universe, meaning there is a universe out there where humans have come into existence who might think its a good idea one day to conquer and colonize alternate universes and who decide that they really don't like this alien species which are occupying some prime real estate.

Either way, I guess we will survive no matter what genocidal maniacs, mad scientists or conqueristic aliens might decide.

I take comfort that if I die that there is some evil interuniversal double of mine who is out leading the human forces in wiping out alien species and taking their worlds.

 

[MrBumble]

The aliens can somehow see the future, or better yet, are from the future?

So, if they are time travelers, why would they kill us in our current present?
Wouldn't it be better if they went back further in time and killed our primitive ancestors during that crucial moment in history when our species was about to go extinct from starvation?

My theory is that time travel won't ever work. Why ? Well, because if time travel is to exist in the future, then someone would surely have used it ( in the future ) to get rid of HITLER's mother ( in the past ) before she gives birth to him !!!!!!!!!11!0!!!


Or maybe they don't care about Hitler anymore in the future...because...he's from the past.

 

[Pope Viper]

Dude.

Temporal prime directive.

 

[MrBumble]

Or better yet, go further back in time and prevent that mammals ever developed into the dominant species on Earth, ensuring humanity will never come into existence.
.

What fun would they get out of it ? None.

That's why they waited for us to discover nuclear firepower, so we can put up a ( pathetic ) fight.

 

[Slaughter Manslaught]

My theory is that time travel won't ever work. Why ? Well, because if time travel is to exist in the future, then someone would surely have used it ( in the future ) to get rid of HITLER's mother ( in the past ) before she gives birth to him !!!!!!!!!11!0!!!


Or maybe they don't care about Hitler anymore in the future...because...he's from the past.

I think they never got rid of Hitler because everyone knows that trying to kill, maim or stop Hitler always ends with:

1. A worst leader assuming his place in story. He's also smarter, which leds to the nazis winning.
2. Everything goes as it was supposed to be.
3. World War II turns into a Soviet invasion of Europe
4. The time police arrests whorever the hell thinks that messing with World History is a good idea.
5. Somehow, someone else growns up to be Hitler. Things go as predicted.
6. World War II turns into a Jew Invasion of Europe.
7. The assassins are killed by German soldiers and their futuristic technology is salvaged. Nazis with lasers ensue. Oh crap.

 

[Crni Vuk]

My theory is that time travel won't ever work. Why ? Well, because if time travel is to exist in the future, then someone would surely have used it ( in the future ) to get rid of HITLER's mother ( in the past ) before she gives birth to him !!!!!!!!!11!0!!!


Or maybe they don't care about Hitler anymore in the future...because...he's from the past.

I think they never got rid of Hitler because everyone knows that trying to kill, maim or stop Hitler always ends with:

1. A worst leader assuming his place in story. He's also smarter, which leds to the nazis winning.
2. Everything goes as it was supposed to be.
3. World War II turns into a Soviet invasion of Europe
4. The time police arrests whorever the hell thinks that messing with World History is a good idea.
5. Somehow, someone else growns up to be Hitler. Things go as predicted.
6. World War II turns into a Jew Invasion of Europe.
7. The assassins are killed by German soldiers and their futuristic technology is salvaged. Nazis with lasers ensue. Oh crap.

This has really a few very strange points

6. World War II turns into a Jew Invasion of Europe.

You did right now not seriously tried to say here that without Hitler jews would have invaded europe? If I think now what the core point about Hitlers propaganda was ...

3. World War II turns into a Soviet invasion of Europe.

talking about anachronism and stereotypes. Cause everyone knows. Every russian loves war. Playing Command & Conquer Red Alert much lately ?

4. The time police arrests whorever the hell thinks that messing with World History is a good idea.

Only if they get Van Damme or Arnold Schwarzenegger doing it.

1. A worst leader assuming his place in story. He's also smarter, which leds to the nazis winning.

Many historians in Germany today are assuming certain possibilities for the case someone would either have assasinated Hitler or if he died before the war. Obvously there are many things that could happen, but no one of them assumes a "better" "stronger" or "victorious" Nationalsocialism.

A few people indeed tried to "stop" Hitler before 39. Mainly people out of the Military wing in Germany. There was even a intention to arest Hitler for the case a war would break out with France and Britain. But Munich Agreement and the ruslting political and propagandistic popularity for Hitler as it solved the German occupation of Czechoslovakia without war made this impossible and silenced any opposition against Hitler since a few feared a lot Hitlers agressivity and wilingness for war [Henning von Tresckow even since 1933]. With the removal of any critical voices in the Wehrmacht with the Blomberg-Fritsch Affair Hitler gained finally control over any military part in Germany [it was not only used to replace miliatry personal but also many critical voices or those not close to the party in civilian areas]

But To understand the chaos for the case of Hitler dissapearing one has to get some knowledge about German economy between the 1930 till 1938/39. Hitlers effect on the Nazi Party [NSDAP], military and civilian live. Most realistic interpretations assume that even a civil war might have been possible in Germany for the case Hitler disapeared before the war.

In 1938 the German Reich was bankrupt and with the end of 39 the Reich would have become insolvent. This was even a issue trough the whole war that could only be solved by a heavy exploitation to the occupied nations by Germany. The first thing the German Bank did after every "win" was geting control over any financial transactions in the occupied nations and the local banks. German Solders based in the nation got payed in the local currency many locals obligated in the construction of any project of the Army or economy like construction of bunkers, strongholds and work in factories. Alone between 1939 and 45 aprox between 7 and 11 Million civilian people did forced labor for the German Reich. There was a huge demand for finances before the War to make sure the social structure for the German people would still be working. Alone the corporate income tax was risen from 20 % in 1933 to more then 40 % in 38 and many companies were either state-run or had nazi functionaries inside to make sure they are willing, the Reich as well occupied many of the jews finances, assets and exploiting them as cheap workers in the concentration camps pushing "arians" in their former jobs. And all that was still not enough to make sure the Reich is not facing insolvency. But this are only economical facet.

Hitler never bothered about to adjust the rules of replacement after him or the case something happens. As long Hitler was around this obvously is not a issue. But the situation was that everyone around him either the SS with Himmler, Luftwaffe with Goering, OKW (Wehrmacht) with Keitel or the NSDAP with (nazi party) Goebels/Heß would have claimed for them self a right to the leadership of the nation. It might have lead to a civil war eventualy in relation with the economical chaos that would have likely occured in 1939/40 with the insolvency of the German Reich.
A difference to the Soviet union where replacement came from the communist party.

 

[aenemic]

I have a dog. His name is Charlie. <snip>

dude, best post in this thread. bringing up puppies = instant win.

 

[SuAside]

The Dutch Ghost, i wasn't even talking about time travel, only meant to imply that acts can and should also be judged in the grand scheme of things (i.e. over time).

 

[Ashmo]

I'm with Kahgan on this.

Evil wasn't invented by religion. The relationship more goes the other way around. We have religion because we have arbitrary concepts of "good" and "evil" and can't be arsed to justify them all the darn time.

You can have morals without religion. Fuck, most people don't get their morals from religion in the first place. Religion is just handy for justifying your morals and imposing them on others.

Essentially, the core question is whether something is good or BAD. If you can't justify your morals, they're completely arbitrary -- and the justification that underlies most people's morals is simply "I wouldn't want anybody to do that to me" (plus a crapload of arbitrary religion-induced superstitions like "if I touch myself, I'll go to a bad place after I die").