Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

For the Greater Good
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12045		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Susan [ Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:17 am ]
Post subject:  For the Greater Good
I was wondering what you forumers would be willing to do for the greater good of society. I personally would be willing to torture and kill a man if it somehow made life for others better. I would do this knowing full well that it may destroy me as a person but as long as it enriched others lives I would do it anyways. Discuss.
Author:  Didymus [ Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:47 am ]
Post subject: 
There have been a few famous historical people who thought exactly the same way you do, Susan.

Image

Image

Image(lol, not so historical).

The problem with such a vague understanding of "the greater good" is that it's far too often left open to each person's individual interpretation. I personally am convinced that if people want to make the world a better place, they really can only start with themselves, and work on themselves, realizing that others may observe and be inspired. But if we think that we can somehow make others better (i.e., thinking that we can control circumstances in such a way to make them do what we think is right), then we only succeed in destroying ourselves.
Author:  sci-fi greg [ Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:07 am ]
Post subject: 
But the funny thing is, the greater good is different from every standpoint.

In every war, every side thinks they are fighting for "The Greater Good." But there are apparently several greater goods, because they're definitely not fighting for the same thing.

It kind of reminds me of the movie 300. Or rather, the historical time 300 is based on. From the movie's standpoint the Spartans were the good guys, and they were the ones fighting for freedom and "The Greater Good" but the Persians probably thought the same thing. Xerxes was similar to Leonidas, the movie just made Xerxes out the be a power hungry jerk who cares about no one and Leonidas to be a hero who wants nothing but to protect his people. They are both human, and they both have different traits.

Sorry if I got a little off topic, I was just saying, sometimes it's easy to be confused about what the the greater good is.

Also, didy, sorry if this is ignorant, who is the second guy?
Author:  Susan [ Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:09 am ]
Post subject: 
I don't think 'for the greater good' means we are making people 'better' in my eyes, or for that fact, making the world better. The problem with those famous people is the fact that they twisted there view of the greater good into the view of what is better and desirable for themselves. I'm looking at it from a view set back from my own personal beliefs and feelings on the matter. I'm looking at it as if the greater good were all humans as a race and the planet as a whole. Those leaders did it to better themselves and change the world more then support it. They changed it to there liking of what they believed is 'the greater good', however, change does not happen because you want it, it just happens when it likes, thus I'm looking at it based on the idea that 'the greater good' is the need to survive as a race.

Ok, that all didnt come out right, but I cant think of how to explain it better as its 2 am. But I would like to say one more thing, though I dont believe anything Hitler did was beneficial in anyway, I still recognize that he was one of the worlds greatest leaders.
Author:  KartoonKween'D [ Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:24 am ]
Post subject: 
Dude. Wasn't this one of the morals of the last Harry Potter book? The ends do not justify the means.

For the greater good, I'd be willing to give to charity, be nice to people when I don't feel like it, visit 4chan less, ect.
Author:  Didymus [ Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:32 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Also, didy, sorry if this is ignorant, who is the second guy?

Alberto. No, actually, that was Josef Stalin (oddly enough, one of Hitler's greatest adversaries).

Kartoon Kween has a point: if in the process of fighting evil you embrace evil practices, then you run the risk of becoming the evil you seek to destroy. That is one of the reasons why, even though a president or other leader might have our own safety as a major concern, this in and of itself does not convey the right to commit atrocities against other nations or peoples. While I am all for our military and police doing everything possible to protect us citizens, I am opposed to things like torture and use of excessive force, imprisonment without trial, unprovoked invasions, etc. Why? Because it is paramount that, in fighting back against those who seek to destroy us, that we do not become like them, embracing their evil practices.
Author:  furrykef [ Sun Aug 05, 2007 8:54 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
There have been a few famous historical people who thought exactly the same way you do, Susan.

Image


Godwin's Law. You lose. ;)

- Kef
Author:  PianoManGidley [ Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
Kef: Isn't there also some rule somewhere saying that dismissing any reference to Hitler/Nazism as Godwin's Law is a losing strategy as well? Ah, well...in the end, it was Hitler who lost. And I just lost the game...

Let me ask you, Susan: It is debatably understandable how in certain extreme instances, killing a specific individual is the most desirable option for protecting the world at large (though of course, the death penalty in and of itself is a different can of worms, with its own thread already)....but you also mention torture. Can you provide me with a single instance in which the torture of another life would benefit our planet as a whole?

Also, as others here have already implied, let me ask this, getting straight to the point: What is "good"? How do you define "good"? How do you determine what is "good" and what isn't? What standards do you look to, and who determined those standards? Does the source have any potential for bias whatsoever, including the bias of one's own cultural upbringing? How do we even know that what we do here, in our own cultures, is good, when it is seen as bad by other cultures? What makes them wrong and us right?
Author:  furrykef [ Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
PianoManGidley wrote:
Kef: Isn't there also some rule somewhere saying that dismissing any reference to Hitler/Nazism as Godwin's Law is a losing strategy as well?


Possibly, but Didymus once did it to me, so of course I couldn't miss a chance to go "right back at'cha!". :mrgreen:

*steps out of the thread for now to avoid derailment*

- Kef
Author:  HHFOV [ Sun Aug 05, 2007 2:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
PMG,

As C.S. Lewis describes (paraphrased): The same basic morals flow through every civilization, to some extent. It is, for instance, never honorable to steal that which is not yours, or kill merely for personal gain or gratification.

I don't think that the cultural bias that you're describing is as large as you think. Sure, people have kept to different sides of the road while driving, but with major moral concepts such as these, they are all nearly identical.

[/didymus wannabe]
Author:  Susan [ Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ok, having thought about what Ive posted I have come up with a way to define 'The Greater Good'. Note that for this definition I am not looking at any cultural aspects or influences nor am I looking at my ow personal beliefs and practices.

The Greater Good - All living things desire to survive and thrive.

Based on this definition it can be said that what many 'evil' people consider for the greater good is in fact so. However, when they think they are helping there race survive they may actually be hurting it. This is so because for all things to survive they must be in harmony with all other living things. This is seen in the wild as invading species wipe out all other species. If the invading species does eventually wipe out all others then it will have nothing to use in its own survival anymore and will, in time, die out.

We humans are doing the same thing, we are killing everything off but us slowly and in time we will have nothing to support our own survival. We will die off, and we all know for a fact, that us dieing off is not for the greater good. Ergo we can assume that a valid, universal meaning of 'the greater good' is the acting on the need to live in unison with the planet.

So, I would be willing to go to lengths of torturing and/or killing a man for the greater good. I would not stop here however, if need be, I would be the one to kill half the human race to allow us to survive. I as an individual do not matter, nor does anyone else matter as an individual. Nor do we matter as a collective organization as we would still do things based on our desires. What matters is the idea of life as a human, not the idea of a life as an individual.

So, PianoManGidley, to answer your question of a case were torturing some one would be better for the greater good I say this. In any case were torture of a man leads to information to the killing of another/many for the greater good as stated above or the stopping of the killing of another/many for the greater good.
Author:  Duecex2 [ Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:57 am ]
Post subject: 
THE GREATER GOOD. THE GREATER GOOD. [/hot fuzz]
Author:  Inverse Tiger [ Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
Duecex2 wrote:
THE GREATER GOOD. THE GREATER GOOD. [/hot fuzz]

I missed this thread when it was hap'nin back then, and skimming down this way, I was like "Oh man, I'm totally gonna screencap some Hot Fuzz and po--- :O :( awww...."
Author:  Ju Ju Master [ Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
Duecex2 wrote:
THE GREATER GOOD. THE GREATER GOOD. [/hot fuzz]


Duece, please don't bump a thread if you don;'t have anything to really add to the conversation.
Author:  Wesstarrunner [ Thu Sep 06, 2007 1:16 am ]
Post subject: 
OOOH! I'M GOING TO ADD TO THE CONVERSATION!!!!


So: I would never be willing to torture or kill another human being for any reason. Either the Greater Good or otherwise.

And, Mr.Susan, you definition of the Greater Good is also flawed.I think the Greater good is partly: "Liberty as long as you do not hurt others." As long as liberty is held as high as possible without infringing on other's liberty I think the Greater Good is being partly fulfilled. The other part is not to harm or kill other humans no matter what they do to you. If everyone did that the Greater Good is being fulfilled.

The Greater Good= Liberty and Pacifism for me.

That's where my argument boils down: There is no Greater Good except God in my opinion, but he is another form of it. There are only similar "goods" as defined by each human being. It may look like, at times, there is a Greater Good, but in fact there is only billions of ideas of good, as many as there is people.
Author:  StrongRad [ Thu Sep 06, 2007 2:08 am ]
Post subject: 
I'm scared to think about what I'd be capable of doing for "the greater good".

Of course, I'd have to be totally sure that it truly was for "the greater good".
Author:  Wesstarrunner [ Thu Sep 06, 2007 2:51 am ]
Post subject: 
But there is none.
There is only, as I stated before, a goodness defined by each individual. There is nothing you can do for the greater good. One person knows it's in the greater good not to dam a river because of the diverse wildlife but another knows it is for the greater good to dam it so the population of humans can grow, it will boost the economy, and it will provide energy.

Who is right?
Author:  StrongRad [ Thu Sep 06, 2007 3:09 am ]
Post subject: 
Wesstarrunner wrote:
But there is none.
There is only, as I stated before, a goodness defined by each individual. There is nothing you can do for the greater good. One person knows it's in the greater good not to dam a river because of the diverse wildlife but another knows it is for the greater good to dam it so the population of humans can grow, it will boost the economy, and it will provide energy.

Who is right?

Say there's a mad man bent on world domination. He is willing to do anything and everything to eliminate races that he views as inferior, parasitic, even, from this planet. His goal is total domination by his race and only his master race.
Are you saying that it can be argued that this hypothetical madman shouldn't be stopped?

Wes, not everything is relative. There are some (albeit very few) absolutes with regard to "the greater good of humanity". I'd say anything that would prevent the end of humanity would be examples of those absolutes.
Author:  Wesstarrunner [ Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:21 am ]
Post subject: 
That's your (and mine, and relatively most people on this planet's) viewpoint. I see no reason not to stop him as long as violence isn't resorted to.
Author:  StrongRad [ Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:37 am ]
Post subject: 
Wesstarrunner wrote:
That's your (and mine, and relatively most people on this planet's) viewpoint. I see no reason not to stop him as long as violence isn't resorted to.

If violence is what it takes, violence is what I'd give. :mrgreen:
Author:  Wesstarrunner [ Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:41 am ]
Post subject: 
I wouldn't. It's against my religion. :mrgreen:
Author:  StrongRad [ Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:43 am ]
Post subject: 
Wesstarrunner wrote:
I wouldn't. It's against my religion. :mrgreen:

Not mine, apparently.

It wasn't against Alvin York's, anyway.
Alvin York was a pacifist and also one of the greatest soldiers to ever serve in the army, at the same time.
Author:  Wesstarrunner [ Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:43 am ]
Post subject: 
Jesus said to turn the other cheek and that guy seems like a hypocrite.
EDIT:Typos fix'd.
Author:  StrongRad [ Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:47 am ]
Post subject: 
Wesstarrunner wrote:
Jesus said to turn the other cheek and that guy seems like a hypocrite.
EDIT:Typos fix'd.

Not really. Killing to prevent more killing was not hypocritical in the least.

You 3 guys in a machine gun nest. Said nest would have taken 20-30 lives.
Net loss of life is 17-27 lower than it was before.

Same thing with the atomic bombs. We killed a LOT of people with those things. However, a lot more Japanese and allies would have died had we invaded. I'm thinking the Japanese losses alone would have been greater than the number that died with the bombs.
Author:  furrykef [ Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:49 am ]
Post subject: 
Terrorist: With this super nuclear missile, I can blow up the world! So... gimme a quintillion dollars!
Diplomat: Uh... there is no such amount of money.
Terrorist: Oh, well, blow up the world it is, then.
Diplomat: We can stop him if we sneak up from behind and shoot him. It's our only chance!
Wesstarrunner: Sorry, my religion says I can't resort to violence.
Diplomat: Oh, well, all right then.

*** BOOM ***
Author:  Didymus [ Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:15 am ]
Post subject: 
To kill one person to protect the lives of millions is fairly clearly the better way. But that's a pretty clearly defined scenario, whereas the phrase "the greater good" is too ambiguous. For one person, the "greater good" may mean "getting rid of all the people who are not just like me," whereas for another it might be "making sure everyone has a kitty."
Author:  Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:55 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
To kill one person to protect the lives of millions is fairly clearly the better way. But that's a pretty clearly defined scenario, whereas the phrase "the greater good" is too ambiguous. For one person, the "greater good" may mean "getting rid of all the people who are not just like me," whereas for another it might be "making sure everyone has a kitty."
WE'RE GETTING FREE KITTIES?!?!?!
Author:  StrongRad [ Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:12 am ]
Post subject: 
Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest wrote:
Didymus wrote:
To kill one person to protect the lives of millions is fairly clearly the better way. But that's a pretty clearly defined scenario, whereas the phrase "the greater good" is too ambiguous. For one person, the "greater good" may mean "getting rid of all the people who are not just like me," whereas for another it might be "making sure everyone has a kitty."
WE'RE GETTING FREE KITTIES?!?!?!

No. You can't eat them.

Seriously, though.
In his first post, Susan (writing that felt weird, even if it is correct) asked what we'd do for "the greater good of society". It seems that he is defining "greater good" as what is best for society. That's why my "kill one evil man to save a million innocent ones" would apply.

Truthfully, as long as what you were doing was leaving society better off than if you didn't do it (or did the opposite), you are working for the greater good.
Author:  Wesstarrunner [ Sat Sep 08, 2007 2:16 am ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
Terrorist: With this super nuclear missile, I can blow up the world! So... gimme a quintillion dollars!
Diplomat: Uh... there is no such amount of money.
Terrorist: Oh, well, blow up the world it is, then.
Diplomat: We can stop him if we sneak up from behind and shoot him. It's our only chance!
Wesstarrunner: Sorry, my religion says I can't resort to violence.
Diplomat: Oh, well, all right then.

*** BOOM ***

Jesus wouldn't have shot the dude no matter what they did to him or anyone. He said to turn the other cheek. That scenario is very unlikely anyhow.

StrongRad wrote:
Truthfully, as long as what you were doing was leaving society better off than if you didn't do it (or did the opposite), you are working for the greater good.

Who defines better off? If I made the official religion of the world the religion I believe in I would think the world would be better off, but I don't. These things are nearly wholly subjective.
Author:  StrongRad [ Sat Sep 08, 2007 2:19 am ]
Post subject: 
Wesstarrunner wrote:
Who defines better off? If I made the official religion of the world the religion I believe in I would think the world would be better off, but I don't. These things are nearly wholly subjective.

Yes, nearly...
I think issues like basic human rights and the survival of humanity would be things that anyone that matters would agree would leave humanity "better off".
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/