: The Dark is wrong because their justification is faulty,
: just as the Light's is, because neither of them knows
: the complete truth, and neither can be objective
: because in the end it just comes down to "us vs
: them," and of course everyone is always going to
: choose "us" over "them" if that's
: all it amounts to.
How is the Dark's (and for that matter, the Light's) justification faulty? Because they don't know "the complete truth"? Are you implying that for justification to be sound, you have to know "the complete truth"? Nobody could ever be justified if that were the case. We finite mortals cannot know the complete truth, yet we can be good or evil depending on our actions and intentions. Somehow whatever theory we go with can't stray far from that.
Surely acting without justification is one way of being evil. But not the only way.
: But they're not evil, because it's not like they came
: here from another world with the sole purpose of
: destroying our entire existance "just
: because". They're trying to undo the harm that
: was done unto them, so their motive is right, and
: based on the information they have, they are
: justified. But they can't be objective, and neither
: can the Light.
I think this excludes the possibility that they could be evil, but still have reasons for their actions (not "just because"). I'm trying to think of more examples of characters that are evil and yet acted for reasons, under some kind of justification: the Sheriff of Nottingham? Lady Macbeth? What made these characters evil was not that they lacked justification.
Actually, it's quite a fascinating question what makes somebody evil or good. I don't think it has to be the same in every case. A great deal of literature is devoted to that task--to figuring out what good and evil are.
Here's another consideration: just because a wrong has been done to you, that does not mean that you are justified in righting the wrong. It may be that whoever wronged you deserves to be punished, yet it is not YOU that has the right to punish them. An example? The fact that we don't consider vigilante justice appropriate in this society. Someone that mugs you deserves to be punished, yet it's not you that has the right to punish them, but the state.
: I put a gun to your head and say "Kill that random
: pregnant mother or I'll blow your brains out!"
: Are you saying it's OK to kill her just to save your
: own life? If you refuse, and die for it, the harm
: stops at you; if you kill the pregnant woman, then you
: are doing more harm in response to someone else's harm
: toward you, so the net result is even more harm, and
: therefore the action is wrong.
It depends what you mean by OK. It's not OK in that psychologically it wouldn't be an easy or comfortable or... right-feeling thing to do. But what's the alternative? Were I on a jury, I would not condemn someone that killed the innocent in that situation. It is not in any sense a choice by the person compelled to do the killing, as much as if someone took control of my limbs.
Consider it this way--is the guy holding the gun doing something to me, or to the woman? Your answer to the example seems to suggest that I would be bringing her in to the situation by doing as I'm told to do. But in fact, the guy with the gun has already included her. Does she have the right to expect me to die instead of her?
