YOU have the power to eradicate evil in the world. How would you accomplish this?

by jam 84 Replies latest jw friends

  • exwhyzee
    exwhyzee

    I’d probably change something about time because it seems to me time and the lack of it causes fear which manifests itself in troublesome ways in other areas of life. The fear of time running out before you have what you need for your old age or before you have gotten to do what you want to do in your life, or have what you need, can cause people to become desperate.

    Greed = I’m going to get all I can while I still have the chance. I’m not going to share what’s mine in case I’m not able to replace it before it’s too late. I don't care who I have to cheat, trample over or outsmart to do it.

    Theft/ Murder / dishonesty= I’m going to take what I need because I don’t have time to wait until I can get it for myself and I don’t care what I have to do to get it.

    Fear= What if I’m not able to get what I need to live before I’m too old to get it for myself? What if time runs out before I am able to do what it is I love in life? What if I’m not able to find someone to love before I’m too old? What if I don’t have a baby before it’s too late?

    Power = I’m going to get control of everyone and everything so that I’m sure to have what I need and get what I want before I’m too old and weak or before someone more powerful takes what I have. I'm going to make it difficult for anyone else to have what they need so that what I have stays of value.

    To eradicate evil in the world, I’d have to either grant people unlimited lifespans or cause them to somehow not understand the concept of time as it relates to their own limited lifetime much like the animal kingdom who are programmed to preserve their own lives but aren’t aware of their own mortality and are not concerned about the passage of time. They live from day to day or even moment to moment.

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard
    I’d probably change something about time because it seems to me time and the lack of it causes fear which manifests itself in troublesome ways in other areas of life. The fear of time running out before you have what you need for your old age or before you have gotten to do what you want to do in your life, or have what you need, can cause people to become desperate.
    Greed = I’m going to get all I can while I still have the chance. I’m not going to share what’s mine in case I’m not able to replace it before it’s too late. I don't care who I have to cheat, trample over or outsmart to do it.
    Theft/ Murder / dishonesty= I’m going to take what I need because I don’t have time to wait until I can get it for myself and I don’t care what I have to do to get it.
    Fear= What if I’m not able to get what I need to live before I’m too old to get it for myself? What if time runs out before I am able to do what it is I love in life? What if I’m not able to find someone to love before I’m too old? What if I don’t have a baby before it’s too late?
    Power = I’m going to get control of everyone and everything so that I’m sure to have what I need and get what I want before I’m too old and weak or before someone more powerful takes what I have. I'm going to make it difficult for anyone else to have what they need so that what I have stays of value.
    To eradicate evil in the world, I’d have to either grant people unlimited lifespans or cause them to somehow not understand the concept of time as it relates to their own limited lifetime much like the animal kingdom who are programmed to preserve their own lives but aren’t aware of their own mortality and are not concerned about the passage of time. They live from day to day or even moment to moment.

    By taking away the time, or even the ability to feel/perceive time, in order to try to stem the evil things you list above, what goods - possibly overriding goods - are you eliminating? And is this not evil too? For example, simple charity given to help someone's current situation in hopes of a better future would be eliminated. After all, nobody would care about the future.

    You are possibly doing more harm than good, and the evils you remove from the world could be replaced with greater evils.

    I do not think you can eradicate evil from the world this way (or any way).

    MMM

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    Armageddon won't even do the trick!

  • jam
    jam

    Speaking of psychopaths: Maybe someone can answer

    my question.

    When I was in high school A friend aunt worked in A mental

    institution. One evening she was attacked by one of the patient

    and killed. The question, what happen to the patient, they are

    in A mental institution (the killer was order there because of her

    violent nature). Where criminal charges brought against the person,

    the court knew she was insane , where she sent to prison?

    As I said I was young when this happen, allways wonder what

    is the law for such A case.

  • exwhyzee
    exwhyzee
    By taking away the time, or even the ability to feel/perceive time, in order to try to stem the evil things you list above, what goods - possibly overriding goods - are you eliminating?

    Did I say anything about taking away time? How cuold there be any order without time? I said I'd change our perception of time as it relates to our own mortality much like it is in the animal kingdon. Animals go about their daily lives doing what they do and they are "programmed" to preserve their own lives yet they don't have a concept of how much time they have left in life and are therefore under no pressure to accomplish, to produce, to accumulate wealth etc as we humans are because we know we only have so much time to get things done before we are too old to care for ourselves anymore.

    And is this not evil too? For example, simple charity given to help someone's current situation in hopes of a better future would be eliminated. After all, nobody would care about the future.

    With evil eliminated, there would likely be no need for charity nor the need for a "beter" future because the present was free of evil. People would still care about the future but they wouldn't fear it.

    You are possibly doing more harm than good, and the evils you remove from the world could be replaced with greater evils. I do not think you can eradicate evil from the world this way (or any way)

    Ok so lets leave everything as it is for fear we may add more evils by removing existing evils. Why try to improve anything or even bother having this discussion if that's the case?

    If I paint my house it might make my neighbors house look even shabbier and make him feel bad and that wouldn't be very nice of me so I think I'll leave it as it is and never paint it in case it causes some other problem.

  • TheClarinetist
    TheClarinetist

    If I had that amount of power, I would offer universal health care, legalize drugs and prostitution, make sure everyone has access to adequate food, lodging, and education. That would eliminate almost all "evil" in the word. Legalization of drugs and prostitution would destroy the drug and sex trades. Adequate food, lodging, health care, and education would drastically decrease crimes related to poverty. You could also remove the profit motive for white collar crimes by going to a completely socialist system, but the risks of that solution would be greatly outweighed by the benefits.

    People generally turn to crime for profit or necessity. If you eliminate the motive, you eliminate the crime.

  • Berengaria
    Berengaria

    what is evil?

  • ZeusRocks
    ZeusRocks

    Just raise the empathy component in everyone.

    Wholeheartedly agree. If everyone had a high level of empathy for others, they wouldn't be able to bring themselves to inflict harm on anyone.

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    BTS - Supposition one: "Less good" is evil.

    Using a little socratic reasoning, let's take an example of someone who strives to the "maximum good" her whole life. Would she be free from evil?

    What if just one of her actions, intended for good, actually does harm to the intended target. She was working for maximum good but it did not have the intended effect. (Example, Walden, Chapter 1-E, paragraphs 18 and 19)

    Or let's say, she does not strive for good at all; a lifetime example of minimum good. Are her actions evil? She may, for instance, take her porridge in her room and avoid people in principle. Is she the premier example of evil in our world?

    Rather, I suggest that evil requires deliberate action, not inaction or an absence of good.

    Let's take, for example, a hungry German woman during WW II, who reports fugitive Jews staying at her neighbours. She does it to eat, but deep down she knows that her passing on this information will do harm. It required action on her part, and it resulted in a great evil.

    How about the soldier who shepherds those fugitives to the gas chambers? He is good at home to his wife and children; fairly high on the good scale, but he also conducts an action that leads to a great evil.

    From this I conclude that evil is more than an absence of good. It requires deliberate action.

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    jam, the violently mentally ill would remain incarcerated in the mental institution. Probably with more medication, more supervision, and more restraint. Probably for the rest of their natural lives.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit