- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
We will not go into details here about what is meant by “evil” and what is meant by”good”. I personally like the principle of separation by wording:
“the end justifies the means” or
“the end justifies the means.”
Evil defeats good?�
Such a position can only take place if we consider relatively short-term processes. That is, do not analyze long periods, but focus on the “here and now”.
In accordance with the above principle, “evil” does not stand on ceremony with the choice of methods to achieve the goal, using, as it seems to him, the most effective, giving a visible obvious result. Accordingly, in a short period of time, the “victory” of “evil” can indeed be achieved.
However, acting within the framework of God's permission, and even more so for them, “evil” is limited to the extent of its understanding of what is happening, which closes for it the possibility of an adequate forecast of the development of events, reaction to its actions. As opposed to” good”, which works within the framework of God's favor, contributing to his actions and plans.
Therefore, in the long run, “good” always wins.
With one condition: never give up and fight to the end.
For example, all other things being equal (!!) in a tough competition, the one who has fewer moral restrictions is more likely to win. – It just has more tools and features.
At the same time, I would not unequivocally define those who have fewer moral restrictions as “evil”. And even more so those who have more of them, like “good”.
The world is not black and white.
Vasily Grossman has something else in “Life and Fate”. “Good” is worth ” Evil.” The antithesis is not ” Good.” Kindness.
It seems to me that – yes, a thin film of civilization; “subtle,” but somehow there's more kindness in the world than before. Well, no less)
The mechanism of the ” victory of evil “is well described mathematically in game theory as the” prisoner's dilemma“: under certain (often encountered) conditions, a betrayal that is completely rational for each of the participants is irrational for them as a whole. The same problems arise with the environment, and in marketing wars, and the arms race, in the zas..elevators with entrances, etc.�
(This seems like a paradox, but if you think about it, it's quite clear: the optimum for a subsystem coincides with the optimum for a system only if this subsystem is its bottleneck. For example, if there is a production problem, then the main priority is to provide repairmen and technologists with everything they need: even top managers make them coffee and order pizza. The rest of the time, such requirements from the same employees look inadequate.)
On the other hand, evil cannot be completely defeated simply because you can only be a parasite if you have a host. It's like bandits exiled to a desert island, sooner or later they will have to work, and not extort decent (from the word “order”) people – simply because of the lack of the latter.
Yes, the disease is running: in large cities, you can often see how ” parasite sits on parasite and drives the parasite.” If you find yourself in such an environment, you may get the impression that everything is evil and there is nothing else in life. But if you look at a simple grain grower, baker, ambulance surgeon, animal breeder or teacher-there are a lot of good people who create good things with their own hands, and do not take it away from others.
Can evil be defeated? The game theory link above gives two solutions:
Accounting for everyone's reputation and access to it for everyone. Requires significant resources. Not applicable in anonymous situations, but you can spend even more resources and monitor everyone (elevator cameras). In other words, this solution is a police state. Plus, it will take a lot of competing law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on each other. China, by the way, has followed this path.
Culture (from the word “cult”). A strong social rejection of parasitism/selfishness, and the exclusion of the very consideration of destructive options as acceptable in principle (i.e., in fact, a return to ideology/religion).
At the same time, it is necessary to exclude the parasitism of ideologues themselves, which requires competition of constructive ideologies and transparency, i.e. the cult of truth and cooperation.
Good is first and foremost cooperation based on trust. Evil is not capable of such cooperation. Alliances between scoundrels are always temporary and fickle. Making meanness to others, scoundrels always expect the same attitude to themselves. Therefore, in the long run, Good always wins over Evil. And History is full of examples of this.
Relations between people can also be extended to relations between States. So, in the late 30s, the forces of Evil in the form of Germany, Italy, Japan, the USSR and some other countries united to unleash a world war against the forces of Good – democratic countries.
So what happened? After temporary victories, Germany attacked its ally, the USSR. After the setbacks, Germany captured its other ally, Italy.
While the democracies in the form of Great Britain and the United States stood to the end and did not leave their allies in the lurch even after their occupation by Germany.
As a result, the forces of Good won.
Another example: after World War II and the Communist victory in China, these countries became allies. There was a song: Russian and Chinese-brothers forever. But within a few years, the “brothers” became sworn enemies and started a war with each other for the Damansky Island.
And now, Putin and Chinese leader Xi “fraternize” with each other, but keep a fig in their pocket.
The democratic West, on the other hand, always keeps a united front. It is impossible to imagine Britain attacking France, or Spain attacking Portugal. This is the strength of the West. This is the power of Good.
See how many questions are formulated on the topic of evil and good!
Let's first define the concepts of what is evil and what is good. I would define these concepts as follows: evil created the sword, and good created the shield. In the social sense, good creates good for the majority, and evil arranges good for the minority. Now let's talk about who will win against whom.
the majority of good people are kind. But they are scattered. And the evil ones are a minority, but they are organized and united. Therefore, evil is stronger until good is united. Who can unite good people? Leader. But who gets to be the leader? Unfortunately, more often, self-serving (evil) people
Good cannot overcome evil. Evil is united, but good is divided. There are many good people, but they are each on their own. And the evil ones are less, but they unite.
And … look at the stars and make up stories. Which ones, for example?
Marty, I used to lie in this room every day and look out the window and think: “There is only one story. The oldest in the world.”
“Light against Darkness”
But we're certainly not in Alaska… But it seems to me that the darkness has not taken a weak piece from the light…
Yes… You're right about that. But you know, you're looking at the sky the wrong way…
What do you mean?
Once there was only Darkness in the world… And, for me, the Light wins.
This is a deep, well-established misconception based on a lack of understanding of the very concept of “good”. It is believed that good has no means in the fight against evil, so it can not oppose anything to it, and therefore, win.
The first and main mistake is that there is no struggle, but only the opposition of one concept to another, including all that it represents. Then the whole question comes down to choosing one or the other. It is difficult to understand, but there is neither good nor evil, there is only an idea of it and an attitude towards it. Only a person divides what is happening in the world into good and evil (for him). The whole world simply lives and reacts appropriately (in the most rational way) to changes.
The second is that there is only one law of life and development – love. Any war is a struggle for destruction and it cannot last forever. But this is not the case. We see the unity and struggle of opposites, but this is not a war. These are the conditions for development and perfection. The rotting arm is cut off, the cancer is removed. A person sees evil in what is a threat to him. This does not mean humbly accepting and “turning the other cheek”. But the strongest wins, and the strongest is always the personification of the good as a sign and opportunity for progress, which is often seen only after a while and then far from fully.
And who, in fact, said that evil wins? If we consider a sufficiently long period and a sufficiently large group of people, then the good undoubtedly wins. Today, people live longer, get sick less, and know more than they did 100 years ago. Of course, even today there are many situations when evil wins. But “in the world” this is not the case at all.
The question already contains the statement that evil is stronger and a hint that everyone agrees with this. Not all. In general, Good and Evil are a black-and-white world when there are no halftones. To think in these categories is to build a brick wall around yourself, with evil to the left and right, and good to the front and back. Objectively, there is more so-called evil in the world. The image of good is weak, far from human. Evil is more understandable, mundane. Therefore, people are willing to take the model of evil behavior, although of course everything is more difficult to remind.
If we consider universal evil and good, then evil (darkness) wins, because the universe will eventually cool down and become completely lifeless. Since we are products of the cosmos, we are programmed as well. Everything has an end, so evil wins
Evil always wins over good, because evil is the former good, which perfectly understands all its past background. As the saying goes; in the beginning was good… But there were views and disagreements.
It depends solely on our free choice. Evil was born in the world from our misuse of our God-given freedom.
muz. Mikael Tariverdiev
sl. Vadim Korostylev
There was a wizard angry on the train,
I walked slowly along,
I walked without worrying at all,
That there's dust and dirt all around.
On bad deeds clever –
Six hurt the kids,
Six set mousetraps,
To catch six mice,
None of them tore up the textbook,
Those that “Magic Ed.” published,
And, of course, the evil wizard
I didn't miss the train station.
And, of course, the evil wizard
I didn't miss the train station.
Dobry took the same route,
I went to the train in a hurry,
I stayed for a minute,
To remove both dust and dirt.
He couldn't accept the fact,
That six mice will die,
I stayed late to do something
Calm the kids down,
And textbooks, regretting,
Those that “Magic Ed.” published,
He collected them all and put them together,
But I missed my train.
He collected them all and put them together,
But I missed my train.
This is not my idea. A long time ago, as a child in the program “Alarm Clock” responded with this song from the movie “The Deer King”
Evil has won, is winning, and will continue to win over good.�
The Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians did not say in vain that our world is evil, and Satan is its prince. We live in a world that is not good. This will continue as long as people depend on nature in the broadest sense of the word.�
Despite our progress, we are still mortal. We face famine, disease, epidemics, violence and tyranny. In this sense, we are not much different from animals. We are in the same trouble as they are. To save ourselves and our loved ones, we regularly go over to the side of evil, just like animals. For many people, as for animals, good is an unacceptable luxury.�
The conditions of our existence regularly force us to choose between being good and disappearing, or being evil and surviving. With rare exceptions, a person chooses the latter. At the same time, as Immanuel Kant believed, all rational beings have a desire to be kind. From Kant's point of view, the admiration that comes over a person when he is confronted with an example of a moral act tells us that if we are freed from the need to survive, we will become angels.�
Referring to Kant's optimism, we can say that good will overcome evil at the moment when man becomes immortal and independent of nature. Perhaps, in the distant future, when we, armed with science, transform our planet into a huge garden, like the Garden of Eden, and we will wander through it-immortal, young and naked, like Adam and Eve before the fall-then there will be no evil left. At least there would be no reason for him to do so. On the other hand, according to the biblical parable, even in Eden there was a tempting serpent.
I hope it will finally win. And then you know, I'm tired of rushing from side to side, trying to guess the winner. By the way, winners are not judged. Who won – that and “good”. In our country, only the “good” ones have always won and are still winning.
If this is a philosopher, then penguins are migratory birds. First, animals don't think in terms of good and evil.
Secondly, what is the connection with eternal life, a deliberate delusion, and the possibility of the victory of good?
Third, how can a person, an integral part of nature, stop depending on nature?
There is a clear devaluation of the author's education and basic common sense.
Regarding this question, I will answer with the help of the above game theory and the excellent work of the guys at the link. There are delightful conclusions: http://ncase.me/trust/
If there's one big takeaway
from all of game theory, it's this:
What the game is, defines what the players do.
Our problem today isn't just that people are losing trust,
it's that our environment acts against the evolution of trust.
That may seem cynical or naive — that we're “merely” products of our environment — but as game theory reminds us, we are each others' environment.In the short run, the game defines the players. But in the long run, it's us players who define the game.
So, do what you can do, to create the conditions necessary to evolve trust. Build relationships. Find win-wins. Communicate clearly. Maybe then, we can stop firing at each other, get out of our own trenches, cross No Man's Land to come together and all learn to live and let live.
Everything is logical in general. It seems like there's not even anything to argue with the author about. The question is different: did he want to reveal the truth to all the near-minded?.. And then we all live in this world, and it seems like not in the “courses” where we live and how we live…
if we define “good and evil “as the attitude of a Person (society) to death, then” good ” is the survival of society, and evil is its death. Morality in this case is a record of actions in which “evil” actions lead to the death of society, and “good” actions lead to the survival (of society). That is why morality is so important for society, but it can be adjusted with development. By the way, this is why animals have no morals, since the death or survival of animal species (they have no societies) is regulated by Darwinian selection.
Evil does not win and does not lose, because in objective reality such concepts as Good and Evil do not exist. These are ethical categories invented by mankind to give meaning to chains of events and determine their attitude to these events. For example, conditional liberal feminist transgender John-Gillian from Los Angeles considers conditional Putin to be the embodiment of evil on Earth, the greatest bloody dictator, etc. And conditional student Veniamin from the Vologda youth cell of United Russia considers the same conditional Putin to be a harbinger of a shining future and a holy God-Emperor. And they will treat the same successes and defeats of Putin and his team on the world stage as a victory of Good and Evil with diametrically opposite conditions.