>bad guy wants to destroy the universe so it can be remade

>>51320954
Yeah. He's still killing everyone.
If I kill your dog so I can give you a better dog, I STILL FUCKING KILLED YOUR DOG

>>51320969
But everything will be erased and refreshed with a better timeline

>>51320954
How can they know with any certainty their plan will work?
It obviously hasn't been done before.

Yes, because he's taking a huge risk that may not work out, and can easily end up simply destroying the world. Most people would not agree that it's worth that risk.

Also, he has no right to decide what is evil and what is or is not necessary, and this villain is essentially just an egomaniac trying to play God. While he may have good intentions, his methods are too risky and his ultimate goal is a bizarre ideal that very likely is impossible.

>>51320987
And? People aren't programs. I can't just upgrade to Universe 10.2 and everything is fine. You are killing everyone. I'm not zapping your dog with an upgrade ray, I am duct taping a bomb to it and then bringing in a clone dog with go faster stripes.
I shouldn't have to explain that killing everyone is capital E Evil.

>You can't destroy the universe! That's where all my shit is!
Conflict follows

>>51320987
Exactly. Who are you to erase everybody else's shit? If anything, putting such plans into motion gives everybody else the moral right to erase *you* from existence.

I'm gonna bulldoze your home and build a better one according to my subjective criteria of good and bad and I don't give a fuck if you agree with them. WHY DO YOU SAY I FUCKED UP YOUR LIFE WHY ARE YOU NOT GRATEFUL FOR MAKING IT BETTER TT_TT

>>51320954
My pc is actually doing this right now. Only [Spoilers]one plane[/Spoilers] though, and with [Spoilers]some survivors.

>>51320990
It has. It was so terrible that the next guy erased the remade universe and reverted all changes to the previous state.

>>51320954
If he wants to make a new universe, he can wait until we're all done with this one. How about we turn him to stone with a 100 trillion year timer on it, then he can do whatever he wants.

>>51321058
Autocorrecting my tags was extremely painful

>/tg/ cannot refute on why this is bad

A lot of loyalty for a bunch of neckbeards

>>51321095
It basically comes down to selfish reasons, and figuring the guy will just cock it up anyway.

>>51321095
>Is forcing a subjective judgement on other people without due authority or consultation.
>May fuck up and destroy the universe or make it worse
Two great reasons from the thread.

>>51321118
Two great reasons in less then 14 posts, no less

>>51321095
Maybe they're thinking why would someone would bother asking a man such an easily asnwered question.

>>51320954

Ends don't justify means, anon. Didn't your parents teach you anything?

File: 14165158161913.gif (472KB, 500x250px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 500x250px

JUST LET ME DO WHAT I NEED TO DO AND ALL THE BAD THINGS I DID WOULD HAVE HAPPENED

EVERYONE WINS IN THE END DONT YOU SEE

20 MINUTES

>>51320954
Because people who break rules are scum, people who abandon their friends are worse than scum

File: 1479425534220.png (43KB, 190x246px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 190x246px

>>51322418

File: Biggest D in history.jpg (17KB, 213x250px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 213x250px

>>51322415
OP's premise runs on the same logic that your pic did and probably has just as much knowledge about what the actual results would be. So on the one hand, better universe tomorrow and on the other hand, Total annihilation.

I have my reservations about such a plan.

the problem with that is that we'd all still die, but it would just be another version of us in this new world. I don't want me and everyone else to die, so I'll just stop this plan.

>>51321118
>muh grey morals no such thing as good and evil
You are all pussy ass limp dicks cowards

>>51321067
That's how the "sealed evil" became a problem in the first place. Someone fucked up when setting the timer.

File: tip_of_the_day.jpg (15KB, 425x279px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 425x279px

>>51322504
>links to clear cut denouncement of the action as evil
>OH WOW GRAY-AND-GRAY MORALITY ALSO DICKS

>>51322504
Ok, it's evil. Better?
also (You).

>>51320954
>Is it evil?
Clearly.
See: every obvious reason in this thread.

Better question: Is it a necessary evil?
Is it worth it if it can end evil and war?

>>51322574
Surely Evil will always pop up sooner or later.

>>51322574
Wars kill a lot of people, but this action would kill literally everybody.

File: Logan.jpg (53KB, 412x384px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 412x384px

If you torture 100 innocent children in order to save 1 million lives, is it considered an evil act?

>>51322574

No, it's not a necessary evil, and evil and war may be bad, but they won't destroy everyone and everything we love like this guy's plan, even if he could guarantee that it will work the way he says it will.

Even supposing he can somehow prove it will work, if he can't get the assent of every thinking being in the universe before killing them, then it's still wrong, and his only option is >>51321067

I certainly don't want to die just so there can exist a better version of me living a happier life. I mean, great for him, but I'll still be dead along with everyone I know and love. Fuck that.

>>51322711

I'll just quote somebody from back during the Guantanamo Bay scandal:
"I'm sure you could concoct some elaborate scenario where you just HAD to expose yourself to a classroom full of children or a bomb would go off and kill people, but if you keep pushing that story at every opportunity, really pushing it, I'm gonna start to suspect that it's not really about saving lives at all."

>>51320954
This hinges on several different problems:
>What does 'destroying the universe' entail? Utter annihilation to the point where there would be no way of seriously suggesting someone from the old world lives as they did before?
If so, yes. Simply moving everyone around without altering their minds while the landscape changed to become more amiable probably gets a pass.
>Without evil or war: How the hell is this accomplished? Is it actually removing evil and war in such a way that everyone not only agrees, but does so voluntarily, or is it just making things look hunky dory through mind control so the bad guy can feel good about himself, or, better yet, doesn't actually fix jack shit because the bad guy is imperfect/a fucking moron/insane?
If it's not the first option, yes, that's evil.
Protip: It's not going to be the first option.
Repeat ad infinitum.

>bad guy wants to go back in time to change some horrific past event, but he's killing and maiming everyone in the way of his development of the time machine. The suffering he's causing won't matter, since he'll literally rewind time and make space-hitler die before he starts his final solution.
Is it evil?

>>51321025
Why exactly are they different from a program? Unless you assume existence of souls there's nothing else.

To stay away form the path of evil is simple. Do nothing. Inaction can never be evil.

>>51320954
>Is it evil?
Depends on the metric you're using to define that term.

It is obviously not 'objectively' evil, however.

>>51322875

Dude, the ends cannot be used to justify the means. If the means are evil, the act is evil, no matter what happens in the end.

>>51322938
According to one specific conception of good and evil, obviously not the consequentialist one the person you're responding to believes in.

>>51322875
Evil is still Evil.

This isn't fucking rocket science. Why the fuck are there so many people going "If I do this horrible ungodly act to prevent other ungodly acts then did I really do said ungodly act?" Yes, you fucking did. You tortured those 100 children, you burned down that poor village, you did whatever. Nothing bout the future is going to change that.

>>51322982
Only if you think the consequences aren't important.

>>51322881
Because we are supposed to live with them, then creating things like "empathy", "friendship" that are essential for a society to work correctly.
Except maybe for a bunch of crazy, nobody really considers programs as living creatures. Much less living creatures as simple programs.

>>51322995
And if he fails, what then? It wasn't evil after all, just misguided?

Destroying lives and harming people for your selfish greed is evil. That you MIGHT undo these things is irrelevant - you're obviously capable of doing the same goddamn horrible shit to people even if you do succeed at making it all unhappen.

THAT'S what makes you an evil sonofabitch and why the ends never justify the means. You're always capable and willing to use the same ends.

>>51322995
Nigga, the consequences don't change what you did. You don't just delete the last 4o hours of your life after you do something horrible. That's not how it fucking works.

Was it necessary? Maybe. Was it still evil? Absolutely.

>>51320954
He's evil until he succeeds.

But why doean't he try time travel instead.

>>51323044
>>51323045
>evil is one specific, objective thing
Nah, evil is a term we use to identify preferences. What makes things good or evil is dependent upon the means by which those terms are defined. Sometimes it's a deontological ethics where the action itself is good or bad regardless of intent, character, or consequence. Other times, like with virtue ethics, the intent and character of the person acting is what matters. Then there's the most common ethic, consequentialism, and utilitarianism specifically, where what matters is the consequence, and only whether good is maximized, setting aside the issue of suffering. There's variations on all these, including the negative utilitarians, who believe in minimizing evil above maximizing good, or the absolute autonomists, who believe that rebellion against hierarchy, including your own moral code, is necessary and good, as it shows you are in control of yourself.

Point is, there is no "right answer" to this question, or any moral question. There are a multitude of equally valid, equally arbitrary answers.

File: Nox.png (561KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 1440x900px

>>51320954
Is evil necessarily bad?

>>51323019
The whole universe is just a perfect simulation of itself. If you erase people then there is no one to classify things as "evil" - and without actual consciousness "evil" has no meaning.

If you destroy the universe you also destroy all meanings of judging things as "good" or "evil" or "neutral". It's just literally nothing.

Not to mention he isn't killing anybody. If he destroys the universe together with time from their perspective nothing exactly changes (hue)

>>51322982
Things get complicated when you add time travel. All the evil acts done literally will not happen (under some explanation of closed time-like curves, if thre many-worlds interpretation is true, then it's back to OP's post).

>>51323045
You don't delete the last 4 hours in your life, but you do in everyone else's lives.

>>51323147

Consequentialism is bullshit though. It can be used to justify anything, even the most monstrous evils.

>>51323233
No, no, no. You get to GO back. You aren't exactly reversing time. You are just loading up a different save file. Everything you've done still happened. It just hasn't happened in the timeline you're in now. By that logic, the past you isn't exactly Evil. So no one can call the cops, is what I'm saying. But your actions in the future aren't erased. They're still there.

>>51323147
Maybe, but there are things that are objectively bad. Well, one thing comes to mind: initiating aggression.

>>51323207
Pretty much per definition, yes.

>>51323250
Ah, now it becomes more difficult to judge because supposedly no one would know that shit went down except you and you don't thinkwhat you're doing is Evil.

Without an outside perspective, you can justify pretty much everything this way. But that'd kinda ruin the hypothetical part.

>>51323213
So, what you're saying is.. so long as I kill everyone quickly then morality doesn't have time to catch me and put me in evil jail?

>>51323282
What if you don't go back, as in hop into a portal to the past, but literally rewind time making it go backwards, undoing every event one by one? Think Nox from Wakfu actually succeeding.

>>51323265
>Consequentialism is bullshit though
According to your subjective value structure, sure. It is not actually inferior in any objective way to any other scheme of right and wrong.
>>51323285
>Maybe, but there are things that are objectively bad
No other way to put this than that you're simply wrong. Evil is a subjective term.

>>51322711
Depends. Are those 1,000,000 people actually saved or are they going to die soon regardless.

>>51323310
Morality can't be faster than light.

>>51320969
that dog was a cunt, give me better dog you ass

CRASHING THIS PLANE OF EXISTENCE

this is what you were waiting for right?

>>51323323
Well then, explain initiating aggression in a light that will make it not bad.

Yeah, if he opposes what I'm doing he's obviously the badguy because I am a hero of justice

>>51323323
>According to your subjective value structure, sure. It is not actually inferior in any objective way to any other scheme of right and wrong.

Smells like sophistry to me. If you can poke holes in the philosophy and show that it breaks down under scrutiny and becomes self-contradictory, it's bullshit. And consequentialism is passe in modern philosophy for good reason.

>>51322881
You idiot. You're one of the programs. Let's just kill you.

New but similar scenario.
>You can split timelines and take different actions in each.
>After a while you can keep one timeline and delete the other.
If I murder literally everyone in the deleted timeline, but there's no evidence I did anything, is it an evil act?

>>51320987
but will it be better? can you prove it empirically to the current timeline and persuade them they should lay down their existence for the refresh?

if no then evil for unethical duress

if he succeeds he was still evil, but right

Hey guys if I killed a guy in a gas station rest stop but they never caught me, is it still murder?

>>51323375
Your scenario assumes that the other timeline is simply nonexistent after the fact instead of running parallel with the current one

>>51320954
Yes, the ethical thing would be to destroy all of existence and make it impossible for anything to come about again.
>not being an antifrustrationist

>>51322526
>tfw your universe is terrible because everyone kept trying to mitigate evil and created a backlog of monstrosities that all somehow happened to come out of their various containment apparati around the same time as each other

Ultimatums are such a LAZY approach. There's always a third way.

>>51323330
everyone dies eventually, so you really haven't done anything of note at all that won't be extinguished within a generation

>>51323435

Yes, in this case waiting until the heat death of the universe, or near enough, means he can destroy this one without killing anyone.

>>51323453
>everyone dies eventually

So it's okay if I kill you today to take your stuff, then?

>>51320954
"The end justifies the mean" is a flawed principle. There are always better means to achieve your end and you're not choosing them for whatever reason.
Bad guy is either too lazy to bring some actual good into the world (and looking for an easy way out instead), too stubborn and self-centered to see other options and acknowledge good people's ability to change the world, or looking for an excuse to destroy the universe.

>>51323323
>Evil is a subjective term.
You are wrong too.
Evil, like all moral principles and categories, are NORMATIVE, not subjective. It's established by a social consensus and arbitration, and it's identified and punished or avoided because it had some form of highly disruptive or destructive impact on the survivability of the particular social group.

Ethics come in many flavors, but morality itself is a FUNCTIONAL device, existing to facilitate cooperation as an absolutely INTERGRAL evolutionary tool of our survival, and it's always established and facilitated on SOCIAL levels, through normative institutions.
So it's not subjective, even if it isn't objective either.

>>51323364
Consequentialism is still the most important and influential ethical intuition in the world, especially the western one. Saying it's a "passe" in modern philosophy is laughably wrong, especially considering growing influences of neo-marxist philosophy and utilitarianism (both are actually connected to each other) across mainstream public and academia alike.

>>51322894
Evil prevails when good men do nothing.

Inaction when you can do something and claim that good is worth anything is itself evil.

>>51323471
>neo-marxist philosophy and utilitarianism

More garbage.

>>51323471
Damn, sorry for the name tag. Please pretend that did not happen...

>>51323213
At the end of the day he'll know what he did.

>>51323352
Aggression itself may be considered an axiomatic good. There are a billion ways that it can be considered good by virtue of its impact, and many belief systems that hold aggressive conduct in high moral regard.

>>51323364
I'm not a consequentialist, so I don't feel compelled to defend it, but the fact is that regardless its seeming integrity, there is a point at which it can be accepted for what it is, flaws and all, at which point there is no way to mount a critique.

>>51323471
>evil is normative
No, it /can be/ normative. Evil is defined by individuals, and sometimes those individuals shift the burden of that definition towards theoretical objects like "society", but ultimately it will come back to the axioms of a mind who has that preference.

>>51323488
It may be garbage, but it is here to stay for a while and there is not much we can do about it. I'm merely pointing out that consequentialism still features a major role in conteporary philosophy as well as general public moral intuitions.

>>51323344
>waiting
4u

>>51323486
You could turn it the other way around:
Good prevails when evil men do nothing.
Inaction is inherently neither good nor evil.

>>51323459
It's also okay if I disagree with your homocide on a personal whim and decide to kill you in self-defence

All actions are equally invalid, it doesn't matter which one you choose and you cannot refrain from choosing, so just make a choice and live with it.

>>51323213
But then he can't exist outside the universe to make a new one
If he can, so can others whose plans he fucked up by unmaking the universe.

>>51323520
Good can also prevail in the face of evil and vice versa, what are you trying to get at?

>>51322711
Yes. You inflict suffering on one group to inflict your plans upon another.

>>51323502
>No, it /can be/ normative.
No, evil is a moral category. All moral categories are by definitions normative. They also do manifest themselves on phenomenological level, and as such are part of subjective experience set, but that is really only a secondary problem.
Morality exists and evolved as a social behavior regulation tool. That is it's only real raison d'être, it's only function. The fact that sometimes, the concepts start as subjective feelings that only over time get institutionalized is largely irrelevant: we only speak of morality, and morality only trully exists as a relevant concept exclusively in juxtaposition to society, only through it's normative function. As long as judgement remains subjective, it's not a moral judgement, it's a mere state of preference.
The moment said preference becomes a normative and starts systematically affecting group dynamics, ONLY THEN we can speak about morality, or ethics. Individual perspective does not actually play any real relevance in this regard.
And evil is a moral category. So it has to be a normative category too. Some people might treat it as subjective, and we might tolerate that due to charity principle, but technically speaking they are using the term wrong.

>>51322711
Logan's problem was that he had his priorities are fucked up.
He was given a warning years in advance, yet he barely had a standing army by the time you rebelled.
And the Russian gypsies? Why the fuck did he not approach their leader, who believes in magic and tales of heroes, and just say,

"Yo, so a seer revealed to me a being made of fear itself is preparing to attack us, join me or not, but you should probably start fortifying."

>>51323520
that's a semantic argument for the neutrality of occurence, but I was arguing that a moral imperative to do good implies that taking no preventative or obstructive action in the face of evil when an opportunity is available or might be made available constitutes the inactor tacitly approving of the evil event rather than claiming to be a neutral party

BUT

such a person is only committing evil inaction if he explicitly upholds good as imperative rather than merely something one agrees with to be approved of by one's peers

that is, if you are or claim to be a good person you must act against evil when you may put a force against it or else you are not a good person

claiming neutrality is a slippery position because at some point you will be forced to stand to one side or another out of sheer self-interest, so in the end of all things, the judgement of an action can be reduced to the good/evil binary and the appearance of a neutral position only waived as a superpositional state that has yet to collapse into a moral resolution

>>51323608
>bio-neuro-evolutionary shit
Yeah, no, that's all post-facto fixation on worthless bullshit.

We start at the mind and the mind builds everything out from itself.

>>51323651
>Yeah, no, that's all post-facto fixation on worthless bullshit.
Yeah, empiric reality and it's recognition is such an awful thing to recognize. I mean, it's not like our cognition and our existence are directly tied to it. Let's ignore the absolute majority of our existing knowledge of the world that surrounds us because GO SOLIPSISM, IT MAKES ME FEEL IMPORTANT.

No, kid. You are merely a coward and don't like to face the reality that that reality transcends you, not vice versa. Losing the feeling of your own uniqueness does kinda hurt.

File: 1415702543208.jpg (106KB, 1058x705px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1058x705px

>>51323646
>neutrality is a wave function of the good/evil binary and no true third state exists objectively
>everything is black and white and claiming the grey position is actually just most probably cleverly disguised evil
that's some next level shit

>>51323676
>materialism
Nah, see, if you're actually shilling this mechanistic ridiculous bullshit, then you can stop talking about any of this because you're a p-zombie.

What we know to be true is cogito ergo sum, that's it. Reality is just window dressing designed to distort and distract you from the truth.

Goes in tow with this retarded "let's break everything and start over" argument.

He's committing murder, and assuming that his ideal world is somehow better than a world built up by millions of other people who came before him, and probably know better than him despite what his mom said about him when he graduated high school. Utopia doesn't exist, and the very idea of it is a lazy facade to cover up the flaws of humanity. So yes it is evil since it will accomplish nothing that will truly benefit anyone other than himself. He just wants his world his way. He wants to control everything to fit his ideals, and destroy everything that is contrary to them like a... murdering totalitarian dictator perhaps? That logic is how democracies decay. It's no longer for the people,is for one guy promising that his vision is better for the people

>>51323646
>a train is hurtling down the tracks towards three rail workers trapped on the line
>you can throw a switch and save them
>but then two teenagers in a yugo stalled on a rail crossing will be killed
>what do you do?

in your case flipping the switch is evil because it kills people
not flipping the switch is also evil because you're allowing people to die by inaction

>>51323724
Clearly the answer is multi-track drifting!

Doesn't matter if its evil. You expect people to just lay down and and say
>yeah just go ahead and destroy me along with everything I know and love. I totally trust that your intentions are good.

The cost is too high, and the good isn't guaranteed at the end.

>>51323724
The people in the yugo shouldn't have been crossing. If they had any sense, they would not be on the line in the first place and if a car stalls on a track, you GTFO.

Smash them and their car. They're there by their own fault, and the rail workers are not.

>>51323705
Ironically, I'm actually mostly founding this in philosophy of one of the most anti-materialist contemporary philosopher.

>Nah, see, if you're actually shilling this mechanistic ridiculous bullshit, then you can stop talking about any of this because you're a p-zombie.
How is this even supposed to be an argument? Are you fucking retarded? This is some of the worst non-sequiteurs I've seen in a good while. Clean up your drool and try again. I can help you even: it's probably going to have something to do with your problem with determinism...

>What we know to be true is cogito ergo sum, that's it.
Yeah, one vapid, truistic quote of a deluded and completely outdated philosopher from 17th century is literally the only single piece of relevant knowledge in human history. Well, I guess it makes your education a LOT EASIER though.

>>51323705
>Reality is just window dressing designed to distort and distract you from the truth.
THE TRUTH! What is THE TRUTH then? Because last time I've checked, reality is the term we use for our most accurate approximation of the true state of existence.
Why do you even assume there is any other THE TRUTH beyond that?

>>51323724
having perfect knowledge makes you inherently evil, you must have imperfect knowledge to remain in any way good
>inb4 God is evil
therefore a just and benevolent god must be either imperfect or so fully integrated with the material universe as to be a natural process and the qualia of mortal life utterly insignificant in the hereafter such that the ability to do good while in our state as imperfect beings has relevance to our transition to the perfection of the immaterial soul

>>51323749
then you kill everyone or derail the train and kill the passengers- you can't have perfect knowledge of a zero-sum problem and remain a good actor

the ultimate apology to the problem is that you aren't evil for not throwing the switch because you have no moral charge for the beginning state of the dilemma

the ultimately good act however would be to attempt to free the trapped party at risk to yourself or board the train and deploy the brakes

If I kill everybody is it evil? I mean, they're going to die eventually anyway because nothing is eternal

>>51323787
One thing is eternal.

>>51323787
altering the given state of existence places the blame on your actions

allowing the natural state to continue bears no blame unless you ascribe to interventionist good morality, in which case, if you have the power to intervene and resolve evil to good, your own belief bears upon you the responsibility to act

>>51320954
What happens in this universe totally matters.
If you kill a person and everyone who know them, and so on, you have still done something horrible.

>>51323834
this, we can't operate on future possible states for which one has no given priors available

>>51323787
I hope you're trying to mock OP

>>51323845
I wish I could write dilemmas like this into my games and then also have a group that would treat them seriously and not give it the Joe everyman shrug-n-tug

>>5132350
Not aggression in itself. Initiating aggression, that is being the actual first person to start some shit.
If someone tries to kill you and you become aggressive while defending yourself, then your aggression could concievably be considered as not bad. But I'm not talking about resultant aggression.
My position is that there's no situation where initiating aggresion would be considered good. Defense from such aggression is one of the natural laws.

>>51323880
this, NAP only makes sense when you understand it relies on a lack of rationally sufficient apriori cause for the aggression to violate it

>it's "muh good vs. evil philosophical debate" episode on /tg/

Who cares? Live like you think you should.
What others think about good and evil has nothing to do with what YOU think about good and evil.

The assumption of morality being objective comes from a shaky assumption that there are some universal values that are shared by every sentient being in existence.
Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but there's no way to prove that, because Devil's Proof.

You want a definite answer whether an act (or lack of such) during certain circumstances is evil? There isn't one.
You want a reasonable answer that the majority will accept? Don't be a dick.

>>51322574
>Is it worth it if it can end evil and war?

No because literally every time the evil plan works it ends up being bullshit. You cannot guarantee 100% that remolding the universe is actually going to make everything better forever and any attempt is a gamble of retarded proportions.

File: Immanuel-Kant.jpg (143KB, 559x777px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 559x777px

>>51320954
Yes

>>51323917
I'm sorry, but you are an idiot.

>Live like you think you should.
And what the fuck do you think people are discussing here? They are trying to figure out how they should think of living for fuck sake.

>What others think about good and evil has nothing to do with what YOU think about good and evil.
Actually, it has EVERYTHING to do with the others. It really absolutely staggers me how we even allowed people THIS FUCKING SELFISH AND SELF OBSESSED to even exist. Dude, every single step of your existence is ENTIRELY depedent on others: both contemporary and past ones. You live because you were allowed to exist by the social nature of our species. Every single thing you enjoy, every single thing that helps you survive, every single though in your head, including your deranged selfish bullshit, has been provided by others, and is predicated on the fact that we are the most profoundly and deeply cooperating species on this planet. That has been always the sole fucking condition of our survival, and eventually our survival dominance. So fuck off with that "I don't have to listen to others" bullshit. You already are listening to others, and depending on them entirely.

>>51323917
good and evil may be defined thus

good is any thing that is desirable to occur to or be possessed by an organism

evil is anything that would be undesirable

third you have to decide if higher-order consciousnesses have a greater right to possess good unto themselves and reject evil from themselves than lower-orders of consciousness, if the sentient outrank the non-sentient and the sapient outrank the merely sentient, you can establish a working gradient of good:evil transference between organisms and even create cases where the good of a high-order entity doing evil to a low-order entity is outclassed by the disparity of transference, i.e. the good brought unto the person by abusing the dog pales in comparison to the evil of the trauma the dog suffers for the minimal amount of good gained by the person

Why do you people discuss ethics when you're not clearly educated enough on the subject? I mean sweet Jesus look at this.
>>51323992

>>51323992
>you have to decide if higher-order consciousnesses have a greater right to possess...
Not the anon you were responding to, but this line of thinking very quickly devolves into a eugenic argument about capacities and capabilities. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, just warning you.

>>51323981
>So fuck off with that "I don't have to listen to others" bullshit.
Good job missing the point.

Discussing morality in abstract terms detached from the particulars of an actual situation is not how you should ascertain your own morality.

If you really want to examine morality, you should do it in actual, real examples, not in purely philosophical examples like the trolley dillemma or other such bullshit.
Philosophy asks questions, it doesn't give answers.

>>51324018
Agreed, but I also support constructive eugenics, so that's a given. The metric doesn't authorize exterminations of the less capable, but it does create disquieting arguments for denial of treatment- unless the provision of treatment benefits from a surplus, then you really can't argue for keeping nonviable hangers-on as "human goldfish"

>>51324053
can't argue against treating them, rather

>>51324017
sadly, that's not an arguement

>>51324035
>Discussing morality in abstract terms detached from the particulars of an actual situation is not how you should ascertain your own morality.
No, discussing morality as a theoretical problem (which it fundamentally is) is first and often most important step to understand it and improve existing moral systems and values. Ignoring behavioral patterns beneath morality for exclusive focus on particular anecdocial cases is remarkably stupid and short-sighted. It's about as clever as ignoring theoretical physics and the whole math of it and focusing exclusively on real-world daily physical interactions in their individual, anecdocial cases.

You first have to understand what the fuck ethics are and what they are good for, and then you can go and start studying both individual and particular situations, and broader over-arching patterns and normatives too.

>>51324104
>It's about as clever as ignoring theoretical physics and the whole math of it and focusing exclusively on real-world daily physical interactions in their individual, anecdocial cases.
Funny, because THEORY IS BUILT TO EXPLAIN THE EXPERIMENT, NOT BACKWARDS, HOLY FUCKING SHIT.
A "theoretical physicist" is nothing more but a mathematician, operating with imaginary situations that have absolutely nothing to do with reality, just the same as "theoretical philosopher".

>>51322875
See >>51322415

>>51320954
Yes, but only because he plans to create life anew after. Life is inherently suffering, and the creation of an entire universe of suffering, even one without war, would be a monstrous act.

>>51324053
The problem with eugenics is the the metric for good traits and bad traits gets thrown to the wolves and suddenly being X eye color is good but Y is bad. Or traits that seem good until you start stacking recessives and end up with a generation of blind babies or something. If you had a perfect machine that could determine the metric that's great but you're still taking the agency away from the undeaireables. And mutations still occur between desireable progenitors so then you're creating more strife there.

>>51324131
>Funny, because THEORY IS BUILT TO EXPLAIN THE EXPERIMENT, NOT BACKWARDS, HOLY FUCKING SHIT.
First of all, ethics are fundamentally normative, not descriptory. Second of all: yeah, theory exists to allow us understand the "experiment" which is real world already existing and established plurality of existing moral codes in the world.

>A "theoretical physicist" is nothing more but a mathematician, operating with imaginary situations that have absolutely nothing to do with reality,
Outside of having often most profound impact on understanding of material world as well as pioneering bases for future real-world-applicable technologies.
Seriously, are you out of your mind here? Now you are actually shitting on theoretical physics? Is that how deranged you are going to be in a defense of remarkably stupid and self-indulgent rant? Really?
Why don't you just skip the bullshit and go straight to something like:
"Look at all those dumb nerds, studying their dumb shit and not doing real things like football and fucking bitches?"
Ethics have, and should have a strong theoretical component to them. Just like EVERY SINGLE other academic subject in the world. Learn to live with it and fuck off.

>>51324193
what you describe is not constructive eugenics, that's purgative eugenics, in ConEug you only seek to make more prevalent definitively positive traits and allow selection itself to weed out nonviables.

>>51324131
You have misunderstood several things.

Theories are put forward to explain experimental results, but experimental results are also used to test theories. It's a spiral.

Theoretical physicists are putting out theories to explain experimental results. These theories require further experimentation to confirm or deny.

>>51320954
>is it OK to kill everyone in the universe to prevent a proper subset of everyone in the universe from being killed?
Does that help you figure out why the answer to your question is "fuck no you absolute twit"?

>>51324214
>>51324193
also, do realize that any given two traits that might be considered desirable might prove to be exclusive to each other's expressions in a single organism

biodiversity of a genetic group is also a desirable meta-trait; homogenity means death, we've seen nature extinguish apex lines before

>>51324216
Actually, I realize that. I'm not against theory-crafting, because it allows to build an experiment to test the viability of those theories.
But building a theory without an intent to actually test it? That's-- I don't even have a right term to describe that. Hypocrisy, I guess?

>>51320954
Not on a cosmical level.
Definitely on a personal level.

>>51320954
>Is genociding a whole universe evil ?
I don't know anon, what if I came back in time to kill your whole family to stop you from posting stupid thing on the internet, would that be evil?

>>51320954

It is evil if he fails. Victory is the only thing that matters after all.

>>51320954
>Would literally wiping the country off the map to build your utopia there be evil?
The answer is obviously yes.
These questions are philosophically the same, but phrases like "remade" and "undone" are used to trick you into thinking the result involves the same people and would be an actual success.

>>51324319
that's never evil, but it would lead to inevitable cascading genocide of all humanity in the end

>>51324415
>Would literally wiping the country off the map to build your utopia there be evil?

But anon, every civilization ever did exactly that. Is civilization itself evil?

>>51324434
pretty sure the formation of civilization is evil but the foundings of new civilisations that break away from the excess and bloat of the old is sometimes an act of good and yet safeguards the continuance of civilisation

>>51324434
Well people can be pretty mean bastards yeah.

>civilization itself
What exactly do you mean by this? Because conquerors are necessarily evil, but their children are not.

>>51320954
Wait isn't that basically the premise of Yu-gi-oh arc V?

File: yusho carded.gif (3MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x281px

>>51324548
nobody on tg knows what that is

>>51324548
Card games on motorcycles sure have come a long way.
Maybe more wakfu as some anons earlier in the thread suggested.

>>51323947
>every time the evil plan works it ends up being bullshit.
Name three instances that you know of from personal experience (not hearsay) where the world was reforged into a utopia and it didn't work out well.

>>51324645
Well in Arc-V the vilain want to destroy 4 universes to create a new one that he thinks will be better, pretty close to what OP said.

So /tg/, how is OP's scenario any different from a man butchering a pheasant to feed a starving man? An animal is murdered for someone else's benefits.

Checkmate.

>>51323608
>All moral categories are by definitions normative.
You don't get to just claim that. Your definition is certainly not absolute or universal, nor have I ever heard it used outside of people who want to claim morality is normative.

>>51325066
Sorry but other animals aren't valued more than humans in a general sense. It is not comparable at all.

>>51325128
Do you even know what normative means?

File: i give up.jpg (25KB, 540x304px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 540x304px

>>51320954
It doesn't matter if it's evil or not.

It's pointless and impossible. Embrace the inevitable.

File: bait_DidNothingWrong.png (64KB, 800x488px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 800x488px

>>51325066

>>51325066
Fucking vegans.

>>51323623

All the "evil" choises in that game would stop being evil if you just had the option to explain what you're doing to the people.

>Yes I am draining the beautiful lake, but we need to mine the lake bed for the war effort.

>Yes, the whole country will have to work massively long hours, for the next 12 months because the embodiment of evil is coming and we need rifles

>Free education will have to wait, please consider joining the army instead.

>>51326393
>we totally didn't start the war and we now have a pretext to rape the environment
>if rifles stop the embodiment of evil it's most likely the product of propaganda, possibly more worth negotiating into than own government
>free education never, illiterates are easier to manipulate
Propaganda doesn't make evil less evil anon, just like sugarcoating poison doesn't make it safe.

>>51326636
Yes but in this specific case you have several eye witnesses that know that the evil is real and can prove it thanks to magic

>>51326665
What is that "one specific case"?

>>51321111
>>51321111
QUADS

>>51325532
Yes, literally, of or relating to societal norms.

>>51326719
The creeping evil in fable3 the one that can be defeated with zero casualties as long as you throw enough money at it.

>>51320954
yes.

>complete power to remake the universe
>no war

So what you're telling me is he would destroy this violent universe and replace it with one which he has complete control over and nobody opposes any decisions made.


That's slavery. It's well intended like most schemes but looking back it's a clear violation of the NAP

>>51324265
Well I hate to break it to you but most philosophy experiments would hugely unethical to actually test, and yes we are all of aware of the humour in that statement. You know who has no sense of humour though? The University Ethics board that you just asked to let you run a real life trolley experiment.

>>51322881
If people are just programs, programs can't be evil or have evil done to them, and therefore there is no point in resetting the universe because you aren't helping anyone.

>>51326849
And philosophically speaking, it means prescriptive, what should be done.

>>51328491
If you mean only to describe morality in those terms, it is quite meaningless, and disingenuous to claim that good and evil are normative. Obviously they are prescriptive, that is the nature of the terms.

But they are not intrinsically normative in the sense that was suggested, which is to say, that they are not intrinsically defined outside of the individual mind. Indeed, they are very explicitly and necessarily defined in that closed space of the single mind, and of hypothetical single minds. The 'normative' approach to morality is a matter of convenience and efficacy, not sincerity or truth.

I don't want to hear the moaning about how society determines good and evil, because they, objectively speaking, do not, and cannot.

>>51320954

Yes. Even if his plan could work, The chances of other people finding out and screwing everything up are astronomical. Actually, that's probably how we got this universe in the first place.

Fools exist, therefore no plan is foolproof.

>>51320954
well,
he could just set things up so the plan only starts by the time this universe is already dying
hell, he could even start convincing people on helping him, create a religion, a cult

Like, if we're about to die, let's at least die with a present to our children

But instead he's accelerating the process for no reason in particular, and being an impatient jerk.

If you ever plan on having such a villain, have him at least try the good way first, until he's convinced that people hate each other too much to hope that such a complex plan will actually carry out flawlessly aeons into the future; the whole "if you want things done you'll have to do them yourself" but taken up to eleven

>>51321060
>the universe is actually a wikipedia article undergoing edition wars

File: 1479860419568.jpg (50KB, 519x700px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 519x700px

>>51323340
Say that to my face, faggot.

>>51329682
more like BARK sword miniatures hahahahaha

>>51320954
A kinder way is involuntary mass-genetic manipulation. Children's children will have the instinct to dick over the species eliminated, or post-apocalypse will slay me.

>>51330003
Post apocalyptic paladins will slay me, rather

>>51320954
Villains who want to destroy the universe because it's literally a massive, miserable pile of shit are objectively better.

>>51324216
>Theories are put forward to explain experimental
You're the one that got it wrong.
You put an HYPOTHESIS forward to explain REALITY, then you test the hypothesis through EXPERIMENT, after which the hypothesis may become a THEOREM.

Theorems, by representing a simplification of reality, are, by proxy, reality, and thus are base for more hypothesis and subsequent theorems.
Here, a THEORY, is an interwoven network of theorems and how they relate to each other.

Learn the jargon, and don't go around replacing any helenic sciency word with theory just because you feel like it

>>51320954
Is it "what is the plotline of every final fantasy game ever" alex?

>>51330146
Jargon nitpick: hypotheses become theor*ies* when confirmed by experimentation. Theor*ems* are mathematical statements, and require no experimentation; once adequately proven, they are true forever.

>>51320954
>so it can be remade without evil or war
Impossible without denial of free will, and that's its own can of worms.

In the real world, when you commit an evil act you inflict evil upon the world

In this hypothetic case, you commit an evil act, that is key to the premise.
But, because the world in which it was comitted is no longer real and thus never existed, you have not inflicted evil upon the world.

So either those who think or dream that they've done something evil are in fact evil, which can get stupid real fast; or you just can't separate cause from effect and you just can't destroy reality to destroy your evil acts, which denies the question's premise.

>>51330231
bullshit
you can't prove the theory of evolution through a single hypothesis
the hypothesis turnn into laws which group into theories, and scientific laws are the scientific equivalent to mathematical theorems, which require deduction instead of experimentation, but there's still proofing involved, with the possibility of later falsifiability depending on wether the theorem is a law or is mathematical.

>>51320954
Isint this basically the master from fallout 1?

File: 1419554988356.jpg (12KB, 203x209px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 203x209px

>>51330382
The point I was making was that scientists work with theories and mathematicians work with theorems, and you shouldn't bitch about jargon if you yourself don't know how to use it either.

File: Paladin falls, everybody dies.jpg (620KB, 1988x3056px) Image search: [Google]

620KB, 1988x3056px

>>51320954

Yes Hal, it's evil, stop asking.

>>51320954
What if said bad guys make a point of trying to kill everyone in the least painful way possible?
See: Heralds of the Immaculate Morning

>>51320987

So he's going to destroy the entire universe? Wow, what a shitheel.

>>51320987
>everything will be erased and refreshed
killed and replaced*
Aside from the beyond-genocide we're relying on an obvious autistic psychopath to judge what is "evil" to be removed.

>what the fuck, you burned down my neighbour's house with them still inside, you monster!
>oh don't worry I'm actually the saviour of the universe, I hate the colour blue and windows so I'm gonna replace this house with one that I think will be much better and move in some new people that will always do what I want, by the way you're next because you didn't bow to me but it's not bad since when I'm done it'll be like you were never here

File: Top Tier Villain.png (606KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

606KB, 1024x768px

>>51320954
Twenty minutes!?

Nox almost did nothing wrong.

File: 1477064054756.jpg (115KB, 860x747px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 860x747px

>>51320954
Oh hell yeah is it Evil. But that's okay. It's justified evil. It's evil for a good cause. It's the Punisher of moral actions. But not everyone is willing to take that action, and you're trying to force it upon everyone. So you'll get the shounen "if you kill him, you're just like him" brigade, and squads of mahou shoujos riding out to destroy your ass because they're here to protect what's here, and you're trying to destroy it all, even if you get a better here out of it.
Also >>51322418, so I hope your villain is a friendless loser.

>>51320954
Depends, what's the next step of his master plan?

>>51323488
>don't think, just obey
Yeah, whatever, man.

>>51320954

Let's see:

To eliminate evil, you need to eliminate morality - which is the means of defining evil (and good).
Morality (a.k.a.ethics) is a set of social rules (a.k.a. laws) of behaviour.
So, basically, to eliminate morality, you'd really need to eliminate society which produces these rules.
And, since society = any number of people above one (a.k.a. individual) - you basically need to reduce the number of people to one.

Next stop: war.
Since war is, basically, a conflict between two nations (a.k.a. groups of people) - the only way to remove this is by removing either conflict (impossible) or removing groups of people - which, once again, means everything above one man.

So, basically, the guy wants to kill everyone so he can live in his own universe without any other people in it.

Yeah, no - gas the kike.

File: good times coming.png (481KB, 575x770px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 575x770px

>>51320954
when you take away the potential for evil then what is the point of good?
people wouldn't be acting out of choice but compulsion, resulting in a world ordered beyond belief which would be the worst tyranny imaginable and worse yet given that we live in a world of scarcity.
Could we have survived to reach industrialism and thus be able to enjoy the modern world we have now (and spread it in this utopian ideal) without evil, suffering or competition?
Would it be even possible to live as humans, flesh and blood without evil, would removing that capacity leave us as irrational/hyper rational children?
It's not a prefect world, it was never meant to be.

File: lenin.jpg (7KB, 198x255px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 198x255px

>>51334579
it could still be a human hivemind

One group of my players are preparing to do this right now. My other group of players are trying to stop them.

Which is ironic, because the second group unleashed some magical error (accelerated magical entropy) into the universe through stupidity, and only a reboot of the universe can save the multiverse. If the second group wins, the universe will truly die, as in total inert sameness.

>>51323207
depends on the evil, because some people won't consider it "evil"

>>51320954
I know that I'm coming a bit late, but this exact situation has happened twice so far in my game, with the exception that it just restarted the universe with a few changes each time

File: image%3A30702.gif (883KB, 500x269px) Image search: [Google]

883KB, 500x269px

>>51321042

>>51323981
>missing the point ENTIRELY
wow

File: 1431520952431.gif (171KB, 375x375px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 375x375px

>>51323992
>evil is anything that would be undesirable
Yes, because the evil person is convinced that what he is doing is evil you see, but he still wants to reach a greater good !
No. Sacrificing people to the gods in horrible ways wasn't regarded as evil in some culture, but as an act of benevolence. Evil is not subjective

File: 18aa283012b9ab0ec12e251a01bbec5e.jpg (12KB, 236x288px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 236x288px

If you kill 6 million innocent Jews to save one dream, is it considered an evil act?

>>51320954
Until he has the wisdom, mankind will always make war and inflict suffering.

Wisdom cannot be given, only learned.

We suffer so that each generation might be a little bit better. Time is the only solution for mankind's ills, time and effort. You cannot make a perfect universe, only plant the seed for one

>>51324474
>Because conquerors are necessarily evil
For who ? For themselves ? For their children ?
I personally judge the things they did as neutral because I don't care, and I doubt they were reluctant to commit atrocities

>>51330302
I disagree. Nowhere does OP's premise imply the destroyed world will suddenly never have existed in the first place.
Retroactivity is tricky, but here it does not come into play.

If I commit an act of violence towards someone in the real world, it remains evil whether they keep existing or suddenly die the next day, because that person existed and felt the harm of my actions.
If I think or dream of committing an act of violence, it is not evil because the person in my imagination does not exist.

As long as the previous universe remains a part of history then destroying it was evil because it contained real, breathing people.