: (Actually, this paragraph is mainly in response to
: Welly's statement above, but I'm putting it here
: because it looks neater.) Here is where we begin to
: move into a double standard. We call Hitler evil
: because he sought to destroy those who he
: (incorrectly) saw as evil. At the same time, we claim
: that the destruction of evil is in itself good. But
: this relies entirely on the assumption that we are
: right in our assertations of what constitutes evil and
: who fits with these definitions. If these assertations
: are incorrect (as seems likely, given that there are
: about as many definitions of "evil" are
: there are people to vioce these definitions), then, by
: our own argument, that would make us evil ourselves.
Do we have a moral paradox here or what folks?
: And what reasoning do you have to support that idea? An
: idea which, most notably, fails to accept the possible
: merits of the utilitarian sacrifice of the few for the
: good of the many? Surely, on occasion, ruthless
: actions may be necessary for the greater good in the
: long term, which would certainly seem to suggest that
: motives are important. Just look at Alric: most of us
: would agree that he is a good person, yet I think we
: would all agree that sending the Legion to their
: deaths at Rhi'anon was, in itself, an immoral action-
: but one for which Alric can be forgiven due to his
: high motives and the fact that he was acting for the
: greater good.
Which idea? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" or something Welly said?
I just brought that up to see what it would stir up, as I don't really agree with it.
I agree, solely of itself, sending 2200 men to be slaughtered isn't very nice...but it was to ensure the victory of the Light, and thus save the whole rest of the world. It becomes an overall morally neutral leaning on good act in my book.
Seraph
