Berserk 307 - Falconia

[Starnum]

We're working on it. Unfortunately it might be a couple more days before we're done, sorry. Hang in there.

[The Herald]

luckily i'm too intoxicated with turkey and stuffing to really care

[War Machine]

Some people (examples: Hitler, Stalin, Griffith, etc.) are simply evil.

We've had this conversation before, "evil" is not a word that has a widely accepted precise, concise, or quantitative meaning that can be attributed to someone specifically regardless of anyone else's opinions. It's a subjective word that changes a lot through cultures. The Spartans threw newborns into a chasm to their deaths if they considered the child was unfit for military service. Maybe you would consider that to be evil, but the Spartans certainly didn't, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

Many people do atrocious things, but you can't label them "evil" just like that.

[Rolos]

Well, that very same problem is what gave birth to sophism in ancient Greece.
Socrates dedicated his life to prove that "true objective evil" exists. Most classical philosophers did.
I read a book about it. It's called "Evil: A philosophical Perspective". If someone is interested, I can scan it and upload it, it's no problem, really.
Anyway, they all made a very simple mistake: They assumed that what is evil for all is evil for the particular. Why? Because, under the assumption that there is a "supreme good", which contains all the "lesser goods", and that humans tend toward what they think is good, the lesser goods will always be treated as means. Since what is good for society is a greater than what is good for a single individual, what is good for the individual has to be treated as a mean for the achievement of the greater good.
To judge whether a particular course of action is good, they proposed three steps:
1- Is the action inherently evil?
2- Is the reason I am doing this evil?
3- Is this action appropriate? (circumstances)

I know I just butchered centuries of hard work by many very talented individuals, but for brevity's sake that's all I am going to say about classic ethics.
Anyway, while their argument is logically sound, that doesn't mean it's true.
I mean, according to them, only virtuous, law abiding people would achieve happiness. In your experience, is that what really happens?

The problem with their ethical system is that it assumes reason and logic will allow humans to reach the truth, and that there is a final, absolute "truth" to be found. That's a false premise. Logic can reach total consistency. Not truth.
It's not the same.

Without a "supreme good" that transcends individuality, all you have left is the "particular" good, and the association of many of them to create societies with "common goals".
There is, without a doubt, a common goal for all of humanity. Which means there is a common "evil" for all of us. But, as this "common goal" is nothing more than an association of particulars goals, those particulars are free to change their goals at any point, changing the morality of their actions.

So you can be evil and good simultaneously. And so can Grififth.

PS: I am sorry if this post is confusing. Philosophy has a shitload of very specific terms, and I had a lot of trouble translating them.

[The Prince]

Some people (examples: Hitler, Stalin, Griffith, etc.) are simply evil.

We've had this conversation before, "evil" is not a word that has a widely accepted precise, concise, or quantitative meaning that can be attributed to someone specifically regardless of anyone else's opinions. It's a subjective word that changes a lot through cultures. The Spartans threw newborns into a chasm to their deaths if they considered the child was unfit for military service. Maybe you would consider that to be evil, but the Spartans certainly didn't, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

Many people do atrocious things, but you can't label them "evil" just like that.

"Evil" is a concept. I find these discussions fruitless on the basis that everyone is free to interpret it as they see fit and therefore can never be any less/more right or wrong in their POV......Assuming there even is a such thing as "right" or "wrong".

So who are you to tell me I can't label someone as "evil". And how do you define "atrocious"?

[War Machine]

So who are you to tell me I can't label someone as "evil". And how do you define "atrocious"?

We talked about this pretty much right after I joined, so it must've been mid 2007. But basically, in some far off thread, Istvan was trying to say there's some universal definition of Evil and we went on and on talking about it. My post was pretty much directed at him specifically.

Forget that last sentence, I phrased it wrong,it should've been something like "you can't expect everyone to agree with your definition of Evil".

[The Prince]

So who are you to tell me I can't label someone as "evil". And how do you define "atrocious"?

We talked about this pretty much right after I joined, so it must've been mid 2007. But basically, in some far off thread, Istvan was trying to say there's some universal definition of Evil and we went on and on talking about it. My post was pretty much directed at him specifically.

Forget that last sentence, I phrased it wrong,it should've been something like "you can't expect everyone to agree with your definition of Evil".

I believe Istvan is evil. Can we all agree with that?

Also unless your German, I think we can all agree David Hasselhauf is one evil son-of-a-bitch as well.

[Rolos]

Well, I love this kind of discussions. They are fun, informative, and, even if in the end dissension still exists, they let people revise (and perfect) their views.
If you think they are pointless, well, good for you.
Anyway, I did some search-buttoning and found the old thread you were all talking about:
http://www.evil-genius.us/forums/viewto ... l&start=25

It made me remember why love this frigging forum so much.

One thing though:
Metaphysics. Many claims of the existence of a single, absolute concept of evil are based on them. Does anyone has any opinions or otherwise valuable input regarding that matter?

[War Machine]

Well, I love this kind of discussions. They are fun, informative, and, even if in the end dissension still exists, they let people revise (and perfect) their views.
If you think they are pointless, well, good for you.
Anyway, I did some search-buttoning and found the old thread you were all talking about:
http://www.evil-genius.us/forums/viewto ... l&start=25

It made me remember why love this frigging forum so much.

Yeah, that's the thread, I was reading right after my last post, it went on pretty long.

[Istvan]

I could be wrong (I'm not bothering to re-read that entire thread at the moment) but as I recall no one was able to disprove/make a real argument against my definition of evil back then. Part of my contention is that when people say things like "evil is subjective and varies by culture," they're making the mistake of looking at things superficially. Sure, some conceptions of bad/evil behavior are culture-specific, but those tend to be the more superficial aspects. Most of the core definition is fairly universal, when you really study it. First, bear in mind that there are a number of different values a society can have which determine good/evil, and that different societies can prioritze these values differently. That right there accounts for most of the seeming difference in the conception of good/evil. The core values are the same, but since they're ranked differently, they seem to have a very different conception. The other point to remember is that humans are very good at thinking up excuses (both as individuals and as societies) to do what we really want to do, even if we know it's wrong. When you focus on a single core value at a time, and work to eliminate the grounds for excuses, it's pretty easy to find a universal sense of good/evil. As I recall, my challenge in the last thread was for someone to find a society/culture (I ignore individual views for this kind of discussion, since individuals can be insane, stupid, just plane contrary, evil, etc.; the focus should be on what the society/culture as a whole believes) which thinks it is acceptable for a person to kill another person of that same society who is the same rank/status as the killer who has done nothing to deserve it. To the best of my knowledge, no society in history would label such an action as anything other than wrong/evil.

"Evil" is a concept. I find these discussions fruitless on the basis that everyone is free to interpret it as they see fit and therefore can never be any less/more right or wrong in their POV......Assuming there even is a such thing as "right" or "wrong".

Is it merely an arbitrary belief to believe that all beliefs are arbitrary?

I believe Istvan is evil. Can we all agree with that?

Well sure. There are another couple of threads with a long discussion as I explain the fact that I'm a lord of the Outer Darkness (see my location) and explain what that means. Just because I am evil doesn't mean that I don't believe in evil. Just the reverse, really.

[The Herald]

must. keep. self. from. searching. for. raws.

nevermind, I peeked ... I won't say anything other than I can't read japanese and therefore didn't understand ANYTHING that was going on

[Rolos]

Well, as interesting and informative as the previous thread which treated this issue was, it was choke-full of argumentative fallacies (they are not the same as logical fallacies).
The main problem was that everyone was defending their own argument on a different...mmm....level. I think that's the word.

Lets focus on one first. I'll start the line of reasoning and everyone who feels like it can continue it or point out any mistakes.

Human nature.
What is the final goal of humans? Happiness.
But happiness is not a concrete thing we can simply acquire, its a state.
So, whatever makes us more "perfectly" happy is good.
Whatever makes us unhappy is evil.
Since we are more than animals (due to our ability to produce abstractions and generalizations that go beyond our five senses), happiness is beyond the mere satisfaction of our sensual desires. Pleasure =/= happiness. (sensibilities fulfilled =/= happiness)
Joy is not happiness either. You can be having one hell of a time, laughing your ass off, and still be miserable. So joy =/= happiness. (intellectual fulfillment =/= happiness).
I think it's fair to conclude that happiness requires the fulfillment of both the intellectual and sensual capabilities of humans.
If something impedes their fulfillment, it's evil.
There are actions that, by themselves, do that, such as suicide and self-mutilation. Thus, it is fair to conclude that there are actions that are, by themselves, evil to all humans.

[Istvan]

Well, as interesting and informative as the previous thread which treated this issue was, it was choke-full of argumentative fallacies (they are not the same as logical fallacies).
The main problem was that everyone was defending their own argument on a different...mmm....level. I think that's the word.

Lets focus on one first. I'll start the line of reasoning and everyone who feels like it can continue it or point out any mistakes.

Human nature.
What is the final goal of humans? Happiness.
But happiness is not a concrete thing we can simply acquire, its a state.
So, whatever makes us more "perfectly" happy is good.
Whatever makes us unhappy is evil.
Since we are more than animals (due to our ability to produce abstractions and generalizations that go beyond our five senses), happiness is beyond the mere satisfaction of our sensual desires. Pleasure =/= happiness. (sensibilities fulfilled =/= happiness)
Joy is not happiness either. You can be having one hell of a time, laughing your ass off, and still be miserable. So joy =/= happiness. (intellectual fulfillment =/= happiness).
I think it's fair to conclude that happiness requires the fulfillment of both the intellectual and sensual capabilities of humans.
If something impedes their fulfillment, it's evil.
There are actions that, by themselves, do that, such as suicide and self-mutilation. Thus, it is fair to conclude that there are actions that are, by themselves, evil to all humans.

I understand where you're coming from, Rolos, but I think you're making some massive overgeneralizations that the argument won't really support. For example, a person can deliberately make a choice that he (or she) knows will make him miserable, in order that someone else be happy, because that person's happiness is more important than his own. Or again, just because something destroys my happiness, does not necessarily make it evil, and I think most people are capable of recognizing this. When's the last time you heard someone call cancer, for example, "evil?" Terrible, horrible, a tradgedy, all of these and more, but not evil. Basically I would say that your definitions of good and evil are not sufficient. The fact that something makes me (or someone) happy, or grants said individual happiness is not enough, in-and-of-itself to make that something morally good; obviously it is enough to make it "good" in the sense of "beneficial." It's entirely possible for such a thing to be morally neutral. Likewise, the fact that something makes a person miserable is not enough (even to the person in question, usually) to name that thing "evil."

[The Herald]

I think that's an issue that Miura's trying to bring up: What is good, and what is evil? From his somewhat objective style of writing sometimes we, the audience, feel that Griffith is evil, sometimes Guts. I believe it has to do with what the audience feels. I absolutely hated Griffith when I watched the Great Eclipse, but now not as much because he has made so many people happy. And got rid of an invading force. But I do have to continuously remind myself of what he has done so that I may continue hating him, but that hate isn't as strong. I was excited to see him be Femto again when dealing with Ganishka.

At the same time I always find myself letting the bad things that Guts does go because he's supposed to be the good guy. But in all reality, he isn't. He has killed, stolen, destroyed the well-being of villages, but because it was for a reason we felt for we let it go. Miura is asking us who is the greater evil? Or the greater good? Guts is becoming good, but Griffith is as well. Guts tends to react, even if he doesn't know it, to Griffith's actions, whether they're quiet or good or evil. To break the cycle Guts will have to do something that isn't expected. We all expect Guts to attack Griffith at one point, as does Griffith. If he does something different, or cleverly, then Griffith won't be able to plan for it, and then Guts will finally be dominant over him.

[Starnum]

I believe Istvan is evil. Can we all agree with that?

Well sure. There are another couple of threads with a long discussion as I explain the fact that I'm a lord of the Outer Darkness (see my location) and explain what that means. Just because I am evil doesn't mean that I don't believe in evil. Just the reverse, really.

Being an elven king, I'm known for ruling with benevolence. I would say I'm somewhere between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good.

Anyway, like Gatts, I have a hard time forgiving Griffith for what happened during The Great Eclipse. Regardless of good and evil, I still see him as the bad guy. Keep in mind he is the Overlord of the Godhand and the acting will of the Idea of Evil. It's up to Griffith what he does with his kingdom, now that he has it. However, I think this whole shining hero act is nothing more than that, an act. To me Griffith is like the anti-Christ. He appears as a beacon of light and hope, everyone loves him now. However, I think he's deceiving them, and will eventually lead them all into darkness. However, only time will tell. Who knows what Miura has planned. We'll just have to wait and see.

[Rolos]

Well, as interesting and informative as the previous thread which treated this issue was, it was choke-full of argumentative fallacies (they are not the same as logical fallacies).
The main problem was that everyone was defending their own argument on a different...mmm....level. I think that's the word.

Lets focus on one first. I'll start the line of reasoning and everyone who feels like it can continue it or point out any mistakes.

Human nature.
What is the final goal of humans? Happiness.
But happiness is not a concrete thing we can simply acquire, its a state.
So, whatever makes us more "perfectly" happy is good.
Whatever makes us unhappy is evil.
Since we are more than animals (due to our ability to produce abstractions and generalizations that go beyond our five senses), happiness is beyond the mere satisfaction of our sensual desires. Pleasure =/= happiness. (sensibilities fulfilled =/= happiness)
Joy is not happiness either. You can be having one hell of a time, laughing your ass off, and still be miserable. So joy =/= happiness. (intellectual fulfillment =/= happiness).
I think it's fair to conclude that happiness requires the fulfillment of both the intellectual and sensual capabilities of humans.
If something impedes their fulfillment, it's evil.
There are actions that, by themselves, do that, such as suicide and self-mutilation. Thus, it is fair to conclude that there are actions that are, by themselves, evil to all humans.

I understand where you're coming from, Rolos, but I think you're making some massive overgeneralizations that the argument won't really support. For example, a person can deliberately make a choice that he (or she) knows will make him miserable, in order that someone else be happy, because that person's happiness is more important than his own. Or again, just because something destroys my happiness, does not necessarily make it evil, and I think most people are capable of recognizing this. When's the last time you heard someone call cancer, for example, "evil?" Terrible, horrible, a tradgedy, all of these and more, but not evil. Basically I would say that your definitions of good and evil are not sufficient. The fact that something makes me (or someone) happy, or grants said individual happiness is not enough, in-and-of-itself to make that something morally good; obviously it is enough to make it "good" in the sense of "beneficial." It's entirely possible for such a thing to be morally neutral. Likewise, the fact that something makes a person miserable is not enough (even to the person in question, usually) to name that thing "evil."

Good, you pinpointed every problem with that definition. So, how would you define evil, taking into account all those facts?
Since you are defending the existence of an objective evil, that should be the first step, right?

[hbi2k]

Guys, guys. No need to make this any more complicated than it is.

What is evil?

Raping Casca is evil.

Griffith raped Casca.

Therefore Griffith is evil.

Quote Socrates all day long, you'll never convince me otherwise. (-:

[Istvan]

Guys, guys. No need to make this any more complicated than it is.

What is evil?

Raping Casca is evil.

Griffith raped Casca.

Therefore Griffith is evil.

Quote Socrates all day long, you'll never convince me otherwise. (-:

Good, because I won't try. I basically agree with you on this one.

[War Machine]

My beef, then, was about his inferences on evil outside of literature and philosophy (where it doesn't fucking exist!). On the world of Berserk, yeah there is; I mean, there's even one being with the word "evil" in his name.

I really want to retake this topic, but I've been swamped with homework lately, maybe I'll write something later in the weekend.