What if there was a war between all good and all evil people?

[lockecole]

Which side would win and why?

 

[Pengwuino]

whoever gets their hands on the US and russian nuclear arsenal first :D

 

[Janus]

Which side would win and why?

Who's standard of "Good and Evil" would you use to divide up the sides?

 

[arildno]

This type of simplistic division into good&evil only serve one purpose:
To demonize those given the epithet "evil", justifying that the ones given the epithet "good" can maim, torture and kill those they call "evil" because they are "bad guys".
Does this sound somewhat familiar?

Hint: Try and name the world leaders today most insisting upon calling others "bad guys".

 

[olde drunk]

thread killer! there are no good or evil people.

it's an olde saw, but all people, by nature, are good. unfortunately, some of their acts are considered evil or bad.

within the theory of probable worlds/futures - you will have a victor based on your expectations, fears and beliefs. the observer witnesses the future world of his creation.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[motai]

It seems like the 'evil people' will win. After all... they are evil... going to any lengths to win. Id imagine at least a few of the 'good people' will lose faith (because naturally, being good, they'd hate war), but I am not sure.

 

[Enos]

can't be sure. The Evil could betray one another for more power and the Good could refuse to take lives even if the lives belong to the good. a war probably needs a little good and a little evil on each side.

But listen to the olde drunk when he says there is no good or evil.

 

[BobG]

The 'good' will win. They'll be the ones who write the history books and will explain it all in a way that makes it perfectly clear why they are the 'good' and the other side was the 'bad'.

 

[ShawnD]

The 'good' will win. They'll be the ones who write the history books and will explain it all in a way that makes it perfectly clear why they are the 'good' and the other side was the 'bad'.

This guy wins.

I would say the bad guys at the time would win because evil is more efficient. For example, why capture people and waste food on them when you can just kill them?

 

[Danger]

You missed on obvious follow-through there. Were one truly efficient, the enemy not only would not have food wasted on him, he would be the food.

 

[Andy]

Would good people bother going to war?

 

[arildno]

Would good people bother going to war?

Sure, if they regard the other side to be composed of howling demons.

 

[LENIN]

There can't be a war betwen good an evil people. All poeple are evil.

PS. I would go to war if it was for a good couse. But since it seams that there won't be any communistical revolutions in Europe soon, I don't believe you will find me anywhere nere a military institution.

 

[matthyaouw]

Without thinking about this too much-
Evil would fight dirty. Sharp kicks to the testicles and all that.

 

[arildno]

Without thinking about this too much-
Evil would fight dirty. Sharp kicks to the testicles and all that.

How dare they?
Makes you want to bite their balls off, doesn't it?

 

[Danger]

To fight fair is to fight by someone else's rules, but I don't think that I'd take it quite that far. I'm not even close to homophobic, but really...

 

[arildno]

To fight fair is to fight by someone else's rules, but I don't think that I'd take it quite that far. I'm not even close to homophobic, but really...

Nor do gay men go that far. They stop at licking..

 

[Danger]

Even the S&M guys? Never mind; I'm not really sure that I want to know.

 

[Telos]

Now you see.

 

[Andy]

But if War is evil, then participating in a war is also evil, is it not? The ends cannot justify the means can they?

 

[loseyourname]

What's the cutoff point at which a person becomes part of the "evil" camp rather than the "good" camp? Good and evil come in degrees, after all. Every man has a bit of both in him.

 

[loseyourname]

Hint: Try and name the world leaders today most insisting upon calling others "bad guys".

Does Osama count as a world leader?

 

[arildno]

Does Osama count as a world leader?

Of course he is.
And yes, he is one of those who are excessively fond of regarding others as subhuman, and has even gone so far to call a whole nation for "Big Satan".

 

[Loren Booda]

It seems that most wars start from fighting over who is good and who is evil.

 

[motai]

It seems that most wars start from fighting over who is good and who is evil.

Unfortunately war exposes it's true side, corrupting and spreading its waste across the face of humanity. War by its very nature is an evil.

 

[Gale]

I think that the "good" side will win, because that's whose side i'd be on, and i make these really awesome cookies that'd make everyone forget about some stupid war.

Heh, but really, no one would ever win a war like that. No one fights one of those sorts of wars to win...

 

[ShawnD]

There can't be a war betwen good an evil people. All poeple are evil.

http://myfiles.dyndns.org:8080/macros/roborally.jpg

 

[matthyaouw]

But if War is evil, then participating in a war is also evil, is it not? The ends cannot justify the means can they?

Is it evil to defend yourself against an invasion?

 

[Hurkyl]

Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.


(I can't believe this quote didn't appear in the first 3 posts)

 

[kaos]

Define good and evil.

Is evil the "heathen" who lacks "civilization"??

 

[Telos]

Hurkyl, did you see my post?

 

[Hurkyl]

Yep. Didn't actually follow the link though...

 

[juvenal]

"We at War
We at war wit terrorism, racism but most of all we at war wit ourselves"

 

[Andy]

Origionally posted by matt
Is it evil to defend yourself against an invasion?

Personally i think not, but killing someone is evil no matter what way you look at it. Unless its a mercy killing which is far too complicated and difficult to go into.

 

[Astronuc]

Ya'll have fun. Count me out.

I took a vow of non-violence when I was 16, out of respect for Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jesus, Buddha, and others.

Peace - Shalom - Salaam.

 

[olde drunk]

The evil guy is always the 'udder guy', there is no real good and evil. it is a subjective excercise.

Accept pacificism and you will understand. It isn't until you look at other ways of handling problems that you see the futility of any war or any violence. You are only killing or harming yourself.

We are one!

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[ShawnD]

Accept pacificism and you will understand. It isn't until you look at other ways of handling problems that you see the futility of any war or any violence. You are only killing or harming yourself.

So we should have just let Hitler take Europe and let the Soviets take Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan without a fight? I don't understand

 

[Philocrat]

Which side would win and why?

Decisively, bad and good are natural 'Lovers'! How can you get involve in such a fight? You can't even take sides, let alone take part in the fight.

 

[Danger]

Some extemely sensitive people in the audience might consider this politically incorrect, but I tend to go with the twin philosophies of "Peace Through Superior Firepower" and "Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark." (But hey... that's just me.)

 

[olde drunk]

So we should have just let Hitler take Europe and let the Soviets take Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan without a fight? I don't understand

I am sure that you and others will not like this answer, but, it was Europe's 'fear' of war that allowed Hitler to gain his power, etc. Keep in mind what has been said earlier or on another thread, if the Germans did not have a sense of hopeless, helplessness they would not have allowed Hitler to gain power.

The european victors, after WWI, abused Germany, out of fear, and when Hitler rose to power they gave into him out of fear.

So, fear of war is not a positive view of peace. To make peace work, we must be fair or altruistic with those we encounter. You cannot roll over and be a wuss and then get attacked, blaming the 'utter guy' for your violent reaction.

Hitler did not deserve to rise to power. If the world community had helped those in need, then he would never have been elected. Hey, do you think Osama could recruit a well fed, happy moslem to fly a suicide mission? We dropped the ball by being ignorant of the cultural and social needs of the mid-east.

Our biggest problem is that the judeo-christian ethic, while preaching love thy neighbor, condones violence. That contradiction creates wars. I am not a very black and white kinda guy, but if you accept or justify violence of any kind, you are adding to it's expansion.

Please understand that I was a platoon sargent in an armor division way back. I was lucky, sneaked in tween Korea and Nam. I have wrestled with this issue for many years and have not found violence to be a good answer for anything.

Philosophically, violence begets violence.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[arildno]

olde drunk:
Terrorists are usually drawn from the upper middle class level, rather than the class of destitutes (compare with the members of Rote Armee Fraktion, Black September, and the 9/11-bombers who had quite a high degree of education)

My own view is that many of these poison their own minds through a pathological indignation over that many are deprived of the types of privileges they themselves had.
Hatred and disgust over often arbitrary and unjust wealth distribution seems to occur primarily among malcontents in the privileged classes; people with next to no means don't have the time and luxury to develop arcane ideologies of hatred.

 

[Artman]

People are basically good, not perfect, but good. Given this concept, if sides are drawn between good and evil those sides are determined by actions and goals of the leaders.

The evil side will lose because people (which are basically good) will not fight hard to achieve evil goals. They will make a pretense and fight for their own interest (self preservation), but not to achieve evil purposes. Two examples would be the Germans in WWII started plotting to kill Hitler; and the scientists escaping from Germany to the USA and other countries.

 

[hypatia]

I had a epiphany this morning..that if such a world war happened, that I would win. Only because I am neither good nor evil and I always seem to be one cleaning up other peoples messes.

 

[olde drunk]

olde drunk:
Terrorists are usually drawn from the upper middle class level, rather than the class of destitutes (compare with the members of Rote Armee Fraktion, Black September, and the 9/11-bombers who had quite a high degree of education)

My own view is that many of these poison their own minds through a pathological indignation over that many are deprived of the types of privileges they themselves had.
Hatred and disgust over often arbitrary and unjust wealth distribution seems to occur primarily among malcontents in the privileged classes; people with next to no means don't have the time and luxury to develop arcane ideologies of hatred.

I will grant you that the 'movers' or 'leaders' are of better means. Unfortunately, 90% of the casualties of any violent act -war- are among the lower middle and low income strata.

Yes, a wealthy fanatic may choose to be a martyr, but after that all volunteers are from the 'ignorant' masses.

By waging war, I include us in the ignorant masses category.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[lawtonfogle]

thread killer! there are no good or evil people.

it's an olde saw, but all people, by nature, are good. unfortunately, some of their acts are considered evil or bad.

within the theory of probable worlds/futures - you will have a victor based on your expectations, fears and beliefs. the observer witnesses the future world of his creation.

love&peace,
olde drunk

sorry but people are bad by nature. Who taught you to take cookies out the cookie jar? Did someone show you how? Or did you one day say 'I want a cookie and I'm going to get one', and with that you stuck your hand in the jar and grabbed the cookie.

How about this. Did anyone teach you how to lie. Maybe someone taught you how to lie without being caught, but a child will lie on there own.

I might need to correct myself. People are not bad by nature, but selfish by nature. We want to get what we want, and we will do anything to get it if we want it bad enough, even breaking your parent's rules or the law.

 

[Artman]

sorry but people are bad by nature. Who taught you to take cookies out the cookie jar? Did someone show you how? Or did you one day say 'I want a cookie and I'm going to get one', and with that you stuck your hand in the jar and grabbed the cookie.

How about this. Did anyone teach you how to lie. Maybe someone taught you how to lie without being caught, but a child will lie on there own.

I might need to correct myself. People are not bad by nature, but selfish by nature. We want to get what we want, and we will do anything to get it if we want it bad enough, even breaking your parent's rules or the law.

Selfish by nature, maybe. But most people develop a sense of right or wrong. This development happens in stages, the higher stages being when a person does what is right just because it is the right thing to do, not because of fear of punishment, or even the possibility or reward.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Selfish by nature, maybe. But most people develop a sense of right or wrong. This development happens in stages, the higher stages being when a person does what is right just because it is the right thing to do, not because of fear of punishment, or even the possibility or reward.

Mabey but I have just observed 5 teenagers, and 4 would not help just to help since there were no rewards.

I think some people will help just to help, but many others will not help unless they get something for it (selfish sounding ).

It probably has something to do with how the person is raised. If they grew up with people who would not help just to help, they will be the same. That also works if they were raised with people who always help one another just to help.

 

[Artman]

Mabey but I have just observed 5 teenagers, and 4 would not help just to help since there were no rewards.

I think some people will help just to help, but many others will not help unless they get something for it (selfish sounding ).

It probably has something to do with how the person is raised. If they grew up with people who would not help just to help, they will be the same. That also works if they were raised with people who always help one another just to help.

Yes, I think how a person is raised makes a difference. Most people will not achieve the highest levels of morality. Most get stuck at the stage where they do what is right to avoid punishment, or to help those who can help them.