Is Good Stronger Than Evil?

[Alias]

Is Good Stronger Than Evil?

Yes. By their very nature. Good is not about power; it is about compassion. Evil is all about power.

Good is more prevalent than evil, and thus,

By what metrics?

if real synonyms, good is much stronger than evil.

Prevalence is not synonymous with strength: there are more ants than elephants in the world, but elephants knock over more trees.

Case closed.

There is no 'case'.

[Pattern-chaser]

I can say that I will always desire the good over the evil, even if you do not want to recognize that as an objective statement.

I recognise it as ... confused. That which is 'good' is that which is desirable. So you desire what is desirable over what is not desirable.

[Pattern-chaser]

Is Good Stronger Than Evil?

Yes. By their very nature. Good is not about power; it is about compassion. Evil is all about power.

Good = desirable; evil = undesirable. Value judgements, not power.

[Greatest I am]

Is Good Stronger Than Evil?

Yes. By their very nature. Good is not about power; it is about compassion. Evil is all about power.

Good is more prevalent than evil, and thus,

By what metrics?

if real synonyms, good is much stronger than evil.

Prevalence is not synonymous with strength: there are more ants than elephants in the world, but elephants knock over more trees.

Case closed.

There is no 'case'.

In an esoteric ecumenist sense, you fail due to analogical thinking, and that is why you see no case, while speaking to it.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I can say that I will always desire the good over the evil, even if you do not want to recognize that as an objective statement.

I recognise it as ... confused. That which is 'good' is that which is desirable. So you desire what is desirable over what is not desirable.

Why would I desire what is not desirable over the desirable?

I can only think of one possible sane instance, but will see what you have.

Regards
DL

[Pattern-chaser]

I can say that I will always desire the good over the evil, even if you do not want to recognize that as an objective statement.

I recognise it as ... confused. That which is 'good' is that which is desirable. So you desire what is desirable over what is not desirable.

Why would I desire what is not desirable over the desirable?

You wouldn't. My post was intended to suggest that you were doing nothing more than stating the obvious. You desire what is desirable. I think maybe we could've guessed that, all on our own.

[Greatest I am]

I can say that I will always desire the good over the evil, even if you do not want to recognize that as an objective statement.

I recognise it as ... confused. That which is 'good' is that which is desirable. So you desire what is desirable over what is not desirable.

Why would I desire what is not desirable over the desirable?

Words are clearer than emojis.

Regards
DL


You wouldn't. My post was intended to suggest that you were doing nothing more than stating the obvious. You desire what is desirable. I think maybe we could've guessed that, all on our own.

[Sy Borg]

Evil is vastly stronger. Almost all of the universe that is not the Earth would kill us. In fact, most of the Earth would kill us.

Almost all of nature needs to either consume or out-compete other organisms to survive. Agonising death happens millions of times every day.

Every single national, state and corporate leader achieved that position via ruthlessness, cunning, trickery, use of loopholes, cronyism and, often, corruption, lying, bullying and intimidation can be added to the Executive Sins List.

Finally, humans have a negativity bias precisely because there is no potential benefit in life that is as good as death is bad.

Still, if we do not mythologise evil, then we see it for what it is - potentially more local entropy than we can handle comfortably. Entropy itself, of course, is essential for life, so "evil" is a local imbalance, something to avoid, if possible.

[Pattern-chaser]

Evil is vastly stronger. Almost all of the universe that is not the Earth would kill us. In fact, most of the Earth would kill us.

Almost all of nature needs to either consume or out-compete other organisms to survive. Agonising death happens millions of times every day...

...and yet that is not 'evil', as most people would understand the word. It is undesirable, especially if you're the one doing the dying, but it isn't the work of Satan. It's simply a thing we see as negative or undesirable. Just as 'good' is something we judge to be positive or desirable.

[Pattern-chaser]

Finally, humans have a negativity bias precisely because there is no potential benefit in life that is as good as death is bad.

Sorry, I missed this. Life itself is the "potential benefit" you can't find, I think?

[Sy Borg]

Finally, humans have a negativity bias precisely because there is no potential benefit in life that is as good as death is bad.

Sorry, I missed this. Life itself is the "potential benefit" you can't find, I think?

How much do people appreciate being alive, as opposed to simply being alive and making sure they get done all the things required to maintain stability?

When you die, you don't live again. If you live, you can always die at any time. Hence life's negativity bias.

Is life good as such? One only stays alive by denying life to others. That looks like a neutral to me, with the interests of living things amounting to nature developing by eating itself. It's a harsh way to grow, but nature certainly has profoundly developed enormously via these brutal means.

Camus noted the dark irony of humans longing for meaning in a world/universe that has no care for such meaning. Camus has three solutions:

1. to commit suicide, which he rejects because death is no more meaningful of life. I reject it in most situations on the grounds that it causes unnecessary suffering to others.

2. to embrace a faith or ideology, which Camus saw as philosophical suicide, relinquishing one's reason.

3. to revolt against the absurdity by embracing life anyway - to imagine Sisyphus as happy. I love the idea of seeing Sisyphus as happy as he plods onwards.

Again I fancy Sisyphus returning toward his rock, and the sorrow was in the beginning. When the images of earth cling too tightly to memory, when the call of happiness becomes too insistent, it happens that melancholy arises in man’s heart: this is the rock’s victory, this is the rock itself. The boundless grief is too heavy to bear…But crushing truths perish from being acknowledged.

I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one’s burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

[value]

Evil is vastly stronger. Almost all of the universe that is not the Earth would kill us. In fact, most of the Earth would kill us.

As a servant of good, one can find the best in having had the ability to become the best.

If what you are saying is true then why do humans exist today with their as it appears to be astonishing intellectual potential and capacities?

I would say that humans should find motivation to put use of their potential - to 'turn it up a notch' - and to do what it takes to survive and to go beyond survival (which would be an inquiry for philosophy to fulfil).

Almost all of nature needs to either consume or out-compete other organisms to survive. Agonising death happens millions of times every day.

Every single national, state and corporate leader achieved that position via ruthlessness, cunning, trickery, use of loopholes, cronyism and, often, corruption, lying, bullying and intimidation can be added to the Executive Sins List.

Finally, humans have a negativity bias precisely because there is no potential benefit in life that is as good as death is bad.

Still, if we do not mythologise evil, then we see it for what it is - potentially more local entropy than we can handle comfortably. Entropy itself, of course, is essential for life, so "evil" is a local imbalance, something to avoid, if possible.

Reflection on cruelty in nature isn't a basis for reason in my opinion. Reason is to be found in reasoning and within reason there is no place for evil, so that would make it simple in my opinion. There is just good and one is to use one's capacities to serve that good in the best way possible. What remains is gratitude for one's ability to have had that potential. Evil is to be prevented not for the sake of evil but for the sake of good.

[Pattern-chaser]

Evil is vastly stronger. Almost all of the universe that is not the Earth would kill us. In fact, most of the Earth would kill us.

As a servant of good, one can find the best in having had the ability to become the best.

[...]

Reason is to be found in reasoning and within reason there is no place for evil, so that would make it simple in my opinion. There is just good and one is to use one's capacities to serve that good in the best way possible. [...] Evil is to be prevented not for the sake of evil but for the sake of good.

I don't think evil is "vastly stronger", nor do I identify with being a "servant" of good. Evil is only what we consider undesirable, just as good is what we consider desirable. So it is reasonable that most/all creatures would seek out what is desirable, and seek to avoid that which is not. But there is not a thing, whether we call it "good"/"evil" or apply some other label, that can have strength, or that we can serve.

I also cannot see a clear connection between reason and 'evil'. Reason surely confirms that there are aspects of the universe that we find undesirable ("evil"), but equally, reason does not lead us to conclude that there is "no place for evil". Nor, as far as I can see, is there any compunction for us to behave in the 'service' of 'good'.

Both of you seem to write as though there are things — maybe sentient things? — called "good" and "evil" that have actual existence in the universe, but I can't see it. Just as the universe does not contain numbers — or indeed any similar, human-created, quality — it does not contain good or evil.

I think we are confused by the existence of things of which we do, or do not, approve. We don't seem to realise that our value judgements — this is good; that is evil — have no authority, and maybe no significance or relevance either. It is a colossal conceit that we are even tempted to think in such ways, I believe.

It is as if we believe the old Christian myth-understanding, that God created the entire universe for us, and for our benefit! If that was so, it would justify our wish to judge God's creation as desirable or not, although even then, I feel we would be insulting God by having the temerity to do so. My personal feeling is that God is ... disappointed in our attitudes, and our inability to accept what is without inventing angels and devils (good and evil) to justify our wishful thinking.

[Sy Borg]

Evil is vastly stronger. Almost all of the universe that is not the Earth would kill us. In fact, most of the Earth would kill us.

I don't think evil is "vastly stronger" ... Evil is only what we consider undesirable, just as good is what we consider desirable.

Well, almost all of the universe and considerable part of Earth - including some parts inhabited by humans - would quickly kill us, and is thus "undesirable".

QED

[Tegularius]

No! Which means the reverse is true.