Gesh
Planet
Mishap Molly Cordell
Posts: 453
|
Post by Gesh on Apr 16, 2010 23:15:26 GMT -5
So, some of you might remember a quote of Voldemort's in the first Harry Potter movie. I'm not sure of the exact wording, but it was something like: "There is no good or evil. There is only power, and those who choose to seek it." Except a lot more creepy-like. So my question is - Do you agree with his statement? To what extent? Why? I honestly am not sure as to whether I agree with it or not. Hence why I created this thread. But here is why I see that it is possible the statement could be true. The people who many regard as "evil" see themselves as being the protagonists. For lack of a better way of phrasing, they would see us as "evil" and themselves as "good." Therefore, defining good and evil can be difficult right off the bat. Plus, those people who do seek power for themselves, and seek to be in control of everything, usually end up being the ones we see as "evil." They are trying to get all the power for themselves. That is usually what is at the heart of every villain's plan.
|
|
|
Post by paradoxasaurus on Apr 17, 2010 2:42:03 GMT -5
Pretty much what you said. XD Evil and good to me are just opinions people created to make their enemies seem more threatening and in the wrong. Then power wraps in nicely because whoever has the most power decides the common definition of morals, thus controlling the good and evil of the majority of people in their controlled area. Just like how history could be controlled and destroyed in Russia under Stalin and the other communist leaders, good and evil can be manipulated. That's just me though.
|
|
|
Post by stephen5000 on Apr 17, 2010 3:45:22 GMT -5
It's interesting that Voldemort made that statement. Because I don't think he really believed it. In the last book, Voldemort outright persecutes those he considers evil - the witches and wizards not of pure blood. So clearly Voldemort does have some sort of morality. It could be that he considers some people to innately be good (purebloods) and some innately evil (mudbloods and muggles), but doesn't ascribe morality to actions. Certainly he would do anything to further his own cause. In the end I guess he believed that "might makes right".
It might be interesting to look at that in our society. The strength and might-backed agencies (government) have traditionally made the rules and determined what is right in society. When change has occurred it is because the makers of that change have attained some sort of power to back them up (military, political or otherwise).
Individually, we have our own morality, but are the morals of society simply the result of the manipulation of power?
|
|
Gesh
Planet
Mishap Molly Cordell
Posts: 453
|
Post by Gesh on Apr 17, 2010 6:57:39 GMT -5
Individually, we have our own morality, but are the morals of society simply the result of the manipulation of power? Not necessarily. A lot of people take their morals from religion and such, and also there are people who have different morals than the masses. (I being one of those in the respect that I still find it morally wrong to, for example, have sex before marriage, while most others don't see a problem with it). I do see your point though, and it's a good one. You had a very interesting post. Still, the question is not so much "Did Voldemort believe his own statement?" as it is "Do you believe his statement?" Because it certainly is an interesting, thought-provoking statement. So, either you never answered that, or I just missed it somehow. I do think your post was very interesting, but I would also like to know your opinion on the original question (again, unless I missed it and read your post wrong or something).
|
|
|
Post by stephen5000 on Apr 17, 2010 11:20:22 GMT -5
As to my own opinion on Good and Evil: Tricky. Well, many people would state that there aren't good and evil people, only good and evil actions. I would mostly agree, but probably say that there are actions and attitudes that I would consider right and wrong, but others might disagree with me. In other words, I don't see an objective morality - though this is a tough topic. I would say that actions leading to the harm of others are "wrong", though I don't think I go as far as to say they are evil. Evil (and good) is an ideal, that has no real place in the human world. As to power, I would say people with power aren't necessarily right (or wrong), but it is hard to ignore their influence. However, I would consider the pursuit of power at any means to be something that is "wrong" in most cases.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Apr 17, 2010 11:22:51 GMT -5
"There is no good and evil, there is only power and those too weak to seek it."
Sorry, the thread reminded me of one of Voldemort's lines from Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2010 12:40:17 GMT -5
^^ wow, you really didn't take the effort to read the first lines of the first post? :/
Good and evil are man-made categories to place people in. So the notion exists, but I don't think there's something as a "good" being or an "evil" being.
|
|
kernoll
Meteor
Why so serious?
Posts: 63
|
Post by kernoll on Apr 18, 2010 3:17:17 GMT -5
Good and Evil is just statement of society. And its important to know that this statement is evolving (and really fast in modern history)
|
|
Gesh
Planet
Mishap Molly Cordell
Posts: 453
|
Post by Gesh on Apr 18, 2010 7:19:39 GMT -5
As to my own opinion on Good and Evil: Tricky. Well, many people would state that there aren't good and evil people, only good and evil actions. I would mostly agree, but probably say that there are actions and attitudes that I would consider right and wrong, but others might disagree with me. In other words, I don't see an objective morality - though this is a tough topic. I would say that actions leading to the harm of others are "wrong", though I don't think I go as far as to say they are evil. Evil (and good) is an ideal, that has no real place in the human world. As to power, I would say people with power aren't necessarily right (or wrong), but it is hard to ignore their influence. However, I would consider the pursuit of power at any means to be something that is "wrong" in most cases. Very well stated. I think you're actually supporting the quote in the original post, which says "There is no good or evil. There is only power, and those who choose to seek it." It simply happens that those who seek power and domination, are considered bad, wrong, or evil by the rest of society.
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 18, 2010 9:21:19 GMT -5
Madness! There is absolutely good and evil.
Maybe they are not black and white ideas or easily recognized but they absolutely exist and you only need to watch the news or look around you to see evidence of that.
How can anyone who has been through secondary school say there is no good or evil? I knew a girl bully who drove another girl to suicide, and apparently after-wards said "Serves her right."
She was probably a sociopath, probably had terrible parents, and maybe isn't responsible for her own evilness, but she was absolutely evil. I feel bad for her and i don't know where she is now, but evil had permeated right into her and I doubt she is anywhere nice.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Apr 18, 2010 11:55:16 GMT -5
^^ wow, you really didn't take the effort to read the first lines of the first post? :/ Holy SHIRT. I am so dumb.
|
|
|
Post by Ferrrrrre on Apr 18, 2010 13:17:13 GMT -5
(my 2 cents without having read everything that came before:)
I recently came up with the conclusion that most people ASSUME mankind is BORN GOOD and that this GOOD is very strictly separate from what's EVIL and that there's a very thin line between the both ..
I believe we have created our own system of what needs to be believed to be right and what to be wrong and that we teach our children and other fellow "humans" what's good and what's right based upon our own experiences and our own "lessons".. So when one doesn't has this education of morality then end up for the worse (what believe to be so..)
So everybody good isn't the same good somebody else would believe to be so.. and vice versa for evil..
(Did that made sense?)
|
|
The Doctor
Moon
I wear my sunglasses at night
Posts: 147
|
Post by The Doctor on Apr 18, 2010 15:22:39 GMT -5
In other words, you mean good and evil are subjective things, which is infact pretty much so... To mark someone evil is often a trait of beeing evil...
I myself like to say that people make informed decisions, or uninformed decisions, Good and Evil are so abstract words!
|
|
|
Post by Ferrrrrre on Apr 18, 2010 15:58:59 GMT -5
Yes, I kinda do =P . To mark someone evil is often a trait of beeing evil... You mean like saying you hate/dislike people who disciminate is also discriminating?
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 18, 2010 17:52:51 GMT -5
Sometimes it's absolutely not subjective.
Evil is pain acted out. It's a violent black contagion that spreads from one person to another; from abused mother to abused child, from one bullet to one heart and out to everyone it loved. It's anger and fear and shame and cruelty and sadness and revenge and a domino affect that spreads out and out and is so hard to stop. It is a force as real as gravity.
|
|
The Doctor
Moon
I wear my sunglasses at night
Posts: 147
|
Post by The Doctor on Apr 19, 2010 15:17:53 GMT -5
People allways have reasons for doing things, which means actions will allways be subjective, Stalin probably didnt think himself he was a bad person! Hence it is subjective, the same way that Rosevelt didnt think it was a bad thing to kill hundreds of thousands with a bomb, to win a war already won, Invading Afghanistan is something bad for the taliban, but is something good in the US. The list can go on forever, Good and Bad are ultimatly subjective things, sure you could go by majority rules, but that would still be subjective since not everyone have that opinion, since noone does something for no reason.
|
|
bleabot
Moon
Set phazors to dance, Mr. Warf.
Posts: 109
|
Post by bleabot on Apr 19, 2010 15:59:36 GMT -5
I agree with M. Scott Peck's definition of evil. He points out that "evil" is "live" spelled backwards, going on to explain that evil is simply something that opposes life, but you cannot have one without the other. Actions and people that do anything against life are evil; actions and people that support and nurture life are good.
They didn't think it was good so much as necessary. It was the lesser of two evils (the greater being to let Japan continue and lose more lives), but still not a good act.
That isn't true from everyone's perspective =P I understand what you're saying though. The point still works.
I agree for the most part, but fear and sadness? Those are definitely negative, but I wouldn't say evil. They seem like reactions to evil acts more than anything else. In other words, evil acts (based on M. Scott Peck's version of evil) will breed negative emotions, and good acts will breed positive feelings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2010 17:31:40 GMT -5
They didn't think it was good so much as necessary. It was the lesser of two evils (the greater being to let Japan continue and lose more lives), but still not a good act. Common misconception here. Less lives would have been lost if the bombs hadn't been thrown. When the planes left with the bombs, the emperor of Japan was in meeting with the bakufu (govnmt) to discuss surrendering. The great majority was pro-surrendering. They just hadn't decided on how yet. Then the bombs got dropped. First Hiroshima. Let's assume that this was necessary to end the war (which it wasn't), but why the second bomb? Totally unnecessary. Also, why on a city, not on a military base? Or ffs, even on a mountain. The show of force would have been more than convincing. Then, if you look at all the deaths afterwards due to radiation complications, the death toll due to the atom bombs is way higher than what the war could have brought. Last but not least: civilians vs. soldiers. I know which I think shouldn't die in war... so conclusion: bomb was the bigger of two evils.
|
|
bleabot
Moon
Set phazors to dance, Mr. Warf.
Posts: 109
|
Post by bleabot on Apr 19, 2010 18:00:55 GMT -5
I agree with you, but I was going based on what they knew back then (or what I think they knew, at any rate). Unless I'm mistaken, the US didn't know that they were planning on surrendering.
Even so, I see my mistake concerning the rest of what you said. Thanks for correcting me. =D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2010 18:21:56 GMT -5
to be honest, I think the US did realise it, and I'm certain they realised the bombing of Nagasaki was unnecessary. I think their main reason to throw the second bomb was to show off to the Russians..
|
|