Oops, sorry about the previous (blank) post. My bad.
: I don't see how you can be evil and nonharmful to the
: overall whole.
Okay, here's one of the most common criticisms of Utilitarianism: Say you have a group of sadistic guards torturing a prisoner. If their total pleasure outweighs his pain, does that make their action good?
: Destroying everything and everyone in their path is
: almost always considered evil.
I thought you were the one who was saying just a little while ago that it was good to destroy that which is evil? Surely if everything in your path is evil, that would mean it would be good to destroy it?
: It's not a key for any lock. They would be evil based on
: their actions no matter what their intentions.
So, by your evil-is-based-on-actions-rather-than-intentions theory, you would be evil if you were to (say) slip on a banana skin causing you to fly head-first into a button that, when pressed, would cause multiple nukes to be launched at strategic targets across the world. You wouldn't have meant to cause worldwide nuclear war, and you'd probably be extremely sorry that you had, but, by that theory, you would still be irredeemably evil. Right?
Okay, I know it's a very exrememe and rather silly example, but the point behind it stands: you can't call someone evil for an action or result that they never intended.
: I'm going to ignore the philosophic arguements of
: Forrest's myth, because (no insult I hope) its not
: true. It's a beautiful idea in theory, but I'm going
: by Bungie first.
And exactly how do you "know" that Bungie didn't intend for the Dark (or at least some elements of it) to be morally ambiguous?
: Methinks we should
: A) Get back to the One Dream and Ultimate Truth question
: B) Rename the Subject
: C) Ignore this.
Boo!
More philosophy!
Martel.
