Good Does More Harm Than Evil

M

munk

Joined
Mar 22, 2002
Messages
15,742
Most of the harm in the world is done by good men and women who think they are doing good.

This is my contribution to the recent gush of moral question philosophy threads. I hope it does no harm. Physicians have it right; "Do no harm"

Good people pass laws that hurt us. Since a loaded gun in a car means you could shoot someone if you suddenly became a murderous mad man, it is illegal in California to have a loaded gun in your car. So Carjacking flourished in Calfornia. The good people obeying the good law were unarmed. No one could stop the car jackings, and as a rite of passage for gangland America, it swept the nation for a time as the 'in' way to become a felon. Good people obeyed the law, while gangbangers and murderous mad men did not. Good people look at this situation, and declare we need even more laws, that we did not go far enough in our goodness. If we go far enough in our goodness, bad things will stop or at least be restrained.

Good people upon identifying a bad person, often behave very badly. They often behave about as badly, if not worse, than the behavior that labled the man as bad in the first place.

Good men and women in the OJ trial decided Detective Furhman had lied about using the N word. He said he'd never used it. Since he lied about using the N word, OJ was innocent of slaughtering a waiter and his wife at his estate.

There is a saying that all Evil needs to win is for Good men and women to do nothing. That's not quite right, is it? Evil really flourishes, I mean it gets a high five, a kick start, a goal right through the posts when good men and women decide to do something good, and that thing is dead wrong. They almost never see it is dead wrong because the goal was so good, don't you see? Since the goal was good, they are good.


munk
 
I'm not sure. I know a lot of individuals who knew damned well that they were doing something wrong when they were doing wrong things. That's why they're at where they're at, and why I know them. On average they are not good people.

If your theory is correct, what is the solution?
 
Well, for one thing, it is not a theory that our attempts to do good, at 'solutions' if you will, do harm. It is an observation, and one I think most of us will agree with.

The 'theory' in my thread, is whether or not our good attempts indeed do more harm than those individuals actually dedicated to evil, those in the place you mention who are there because of their actions.

It does not follow either that there is a solution to my observation. There might be. Would stopping to think before we act be considered a solution? I think so.

munk
 
Two cliches for you today

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Between the will to do good and the act falls the shadow.


Sorry, typo corrected now
 
"Between the will to do good and the act does the shadow." -Grob

Is this the right quote, Grob? I'm thinking about it. There's something there to really think about.



munk
 
That's a good one, Eric. Yes, even those actions we agree are good are often punished or ridiculed by singling out the one who did them.

A whistle blower is hated and fought every step of the way, until awareness is reached regarding the matter addressed. If agreement is reached and reform, change, the whistle blower is a hero. He gets a movie and we knew 'all along' he was right.

munk
 
Whether they're "good" people doing them or not, I'd agree that many (most?) of the atrocities in history were by religious people trying to do the "right thing" by their faith. On the Christian side we've got Crusades, witch burnings, the Inquisition, and all the holy wars between Protestants and Catholics. On the Islamic side we've got, well, you know. Read the paper. Hindus and Sikhs haven't had too shabby a record either.

It seems to me that any ideology, in infancy and adolescence, tends towards trying to convert people to its own faith ... besotted by the beauty of the bit of truth it contains. And by violent means, if other means won't do the job. Think of the French Revolution, for instance.

With luck, patience, and hard work, some maturity's gained - and people start to see that while there are threats out there, diversity isn't in and of itself a threat. And the violence can scale down.

But yeah, lots of evil done by good people, with good intentions. My ethics prof once said that the foundation of Christian ethics had to be grace ... the perspective that even when we screw up (and we will), an act done with loving intent can be used by God for good.
 
I agree, Munk. Lots of good deeds end up punishing those they were meant to protect. Good and Evil cannot be as concrete as we would like for them to be. Our causal little minds would like for the world to be black and white and not shades of gray. Cause and Effect shape our lives more than the morality of the issues. As those in the psychology field know, we're ALL a little bit crazy. It's just the most of us fall under the "normal" part of the curve. If you fall statistically outside of said curve...yep, you're loony;)
Good and Evil are a vicious cycle feeding upon each other. Evil must be to show us what Good truly is. Those of us spoiled by American standards of living get a real shock to the system when we visit other less "developed" countries for a period of time. What we gripe and moan about that is good about our country is non-existant or even opposite and opressive in another. Evil requires the ultra Good to survive and even thrive. The trusting, the weak, the Good abiders of law become the prey of Evil men.
IMHO this is where faith and "just desserts" comes into play. Personally, I have a hard time believing that a Great Being would take the time and effort to make something as quirky and complex as the Human only to send it to an eternity of damnation due to acting quirky and weird for 70 or 80 years. However, I could see how the idea, especially back in the very barbaric days, would be an attractive one. "That dirty so and so has everything and spits upon my poor family...well, he'll get what's comin'!"
I guess it really does boil down to statistics and intentions. Statistically, the broader your intentions for Good, the more people you are going to hurt by no malicious intentional action. If I make my wife a peanutbutter sandwhich for lunch, my actions are well-meaning and she is happy. If i make a peanutbutter sandwhich for everyone in America's wife and 3% of them have a peanut allergy...well it was still well-meaning action but we have an awful lot of deathly sick (or worse) women.

Jake
 
I don't think religion is the sole source of mistaken good actions, Tom. You could make a pretty good argument it is the major one, or one of them.
Ghengis Kahn (sic) was not religiously inspired, was he, as he razed your village to the ground? Was Hitler a religious man? Idi Amin? The killers in Cambodia after the Vietnam war were not religious.

munk


As an aside, I'd like to offer the turkey in my yard as a allegory: He's in a smaller section of my property, a yard fenced in by chain link fence. It's about 4 feet tall or whatever height is common with the smaller of this style of fence. The turkey keeps walking back and forth, trying to find a way out. He wants to go with the other turkeys, long since nestled on the slope behind the house. He's getting excited trying to get out. He moves faster and faster. But he keeps going back and forth, running about 10 yards in either direction, losing hope of a exit there, and turning back. He just gobbled his frustration. There is a open gate about 20 yards from him, but it's closer to the house and that makes him nervous, so he hasn't gone over to look. Of course, nothing has changed in my yard in his lifetime, so it might be good if he'd remembered where the gates were in the first place.

And of course, he could always just fly over the fence. Turkeys dont like to fly much.

So back and forth he goes. He's been doing this at least 20 minutes. The two solutions are untried; the courage to go through the gate, or the effort to fly over. He's decided to keep going back and forth.
 
I think dumb does more harm than evil is more accurate. JMHO. Your california legislation is a good example of this.
 
Just remember, against a backdrop of an unimaginable universe with all its secrets and unknown science, an earth we scarecly understand, bodies and minds we do not know, that we will always be 'dumb'. At least for a long long time.




munk
 
munk said:
Just remember, against a backdrop of an unimaginable universe with all its secrets and unknown science, an earth we scarecly understand, bodies and minds we do not know, that we will always be 'dumb'. At least for a long long time.




munk
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. When they were hounding Coppernicus they thought they were doing right. Thought they had it figured out. Evil, or dumb?
 
[Hate Language Deleted.]

You're right about the inquisitions and witch burnings.
You can add Copemicus/Gailio and evolution to that list.
Usefull idiots with good intentions causes the loss of the Veitnam war and the subsequent massicare in Cambodia.
The same bunch of well meaning usefull idiots are going to lose the war in Iraq and could end the world as we know it.
In the 70's in America the usefull idiots "For left wing Communism/socialism/environmentalism "believed in a new Global ice age caused by pollution.
Here we are only an eyeblink in time away and the same bunch of hippies believe in manmade Global warming without one ounce of proof.
This is the most successful con game and power grab I've seen in a long time.
Have you ever wondered WHY the left refuse to privatize our school system?
One of the only monopolys left in America?
Because they don't want people who can think or use logic.
To FEEL and have good intentions is enough.
Emotions can be manipulated,facts can't.
Good intentions without results are worthless.
It's easy to believe.
It's lazy and destructive to allow emotion to outweigh logic.
America is in trouble.

Liberal logic
Violence is bad,ban guns.

Conservtive logic.
Violent people are bad.
Allow people the tools needed to protect themselfs.

Liberal logic.
Poverty is bad.
Steal money from the rich and give to the poor.
Money belongs to government and buracrats decide how much you keep.

Conservitive logic.
Poverty is bad.
Allow the free market system to enable motivated people to start their own business and make thier own money.
Money is the property of the person who earned it.

Speaking of religion.
The new religion is owned by the very people who proclaim to hate religion.
Environmentalism.
Faith,belief in anything without proof is dangerous.
 
Liberal logic
Violence is bad,ban guns.

Conservtive logic.
Violent people are bad.
Allow people the tools needed to protect themselfs. (but just in case, add Homeland Security and strip away some more rights...) ;)

As for good and bad, I cannot really add anything than saying 'good observation'. I agree.

Keno
 
You guys have more energy than me right now.

I'm too tired to contribute, or discuss, or persuade.

But then again, there is this big boat getting built, and the Old man building it says anyone can have a seat, when the day comes.

I'll be in my seat. Hope some (all!) of you come along too.

This time its not to be water though.

Tom
 
I like the way you put it, Tom. I hope to see you there, too.

Jake
 
(but just in case, add Homeland Security and strip away some more rights...)
- Richard Allen


You got it right. I don't like anyone using protection to justify removing even more of our liberty. We must remember that being completely safe means being alone in a locked cell.



munk
 
Oh, as an aside, often when I talk to Thomas Linton, I'm aware of the fact that his understanding and comprehension of facts is significantly greater than my own, and many of the premises I live by are in actuality incomplete and not as firmly based as I assume on a daily basis. There are persons whom Thomas meets that probably make him feel the same way. I'm not one of them, but statistictly they must exist.

course, this is why wise men humble themselves and understand how litttle they actually know.

It's a good universal too; this should humble every individual, regardless of the current 'level' of their understanding.

This post is a statement of 'fact'. It's not really even a compliment to Mr Linton, though of course it could be.




munk
 
Ok, here's my spin on this.*Normal* people makes laws based on their experience and on how they think, not like how a criminal thinks.

An example of this since I'm not very eloquent:

*Normal* people lock their cars and homes in the belief that they are safeguarding their belongings from being stolen because they can't get in the house or car without the keys.
They are shocked to find that a simple bump key(link1 link2) or brick will allow entry to a *standard* criminal very easily. Now it's already illegal for someone to enter and steal your belongings so why pass stronger laws? Obviously the crooks didn't care that it was illegal in the first place, why would they care about new LAWS?

The problem with lawmakers and the general public passing silly laws based on gut reaction is they don't really think like a criminal(and it is different) and use their own responses as a guide.

Hopefully, I've at least made sense.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top