Why is it that I want to undo some of the evil I have done in the past, yet
still remain proud of some more recent evils?

47 responses total.

That's easy. You're proud of recent evils because you can admire your own
cleverness, skill, ability to avoid detection, power over others, ability to
lie without others knowing, and everything else that made you commit the evil
in the first place. As for past evils, you can see how you've messed up other
people's lives, messed up your own life, lost friends, lost trust, and, in
general, added a load to your pile of karma. In other words, with past evils,
you begin to see the consequences. With present evils, you haven't seen the
consequences yet..

Some of the "recent" evils aren't all that recent, really.  It's almost as
if I'm attempting fot balance with just a slice of evil to tip the scale.

What do you mean by "evil"?
I really have no clear sense of it.

That's because evil is a conept that is too hard to confine to a definition
since everyone has their own take on it - same with good, neutral, order, and
chaos.  I guess in my case I mean "negative" actions, thus adding to the "bad"
karma pile rather than the "good" karma pile.

Try this for a general definition of evil: Whatever causes harm to an innocent
other, done intentionally and with knowledge of the likelihood of harm. I'd
be inclined to say "harm to another conscious being," but that would lead off
into another discussion. 

So stealing medicine to care for your sick child because you can't afford it,
and your child will die before you *can* afford it, is evil, because you're
harming the owner of the medicine.
  
But not stealing medicine to care for your sick child, given the context
above, is evil, because you're harming your child.

Sorry, John, that definition doesn't work for me.

Which is why each person must form their own definition.  Theire is a social
aspect to the definition of order/chaos/good/neutrality/evil, but even that
changes depending on where you are.  All people make their own
order/chaos/good/evil/neutrality - it is only when you are evil by your own
definition that you are truly evil.

Brighn, you give a good example of the situational ethics juggling act, but
I would make a distinction there, between *evil* and breaking a law.  If we
hold individual lives to be sacred, or at least very important, then we might
be able to say that the owner of the medicine, if he/she willfully withholds
it (refuses a payment agreement or price break, is unwilling to even consider
acts of charity, etc.), is committing evil.  I don't know if I'd call it evil,
if the parent is caught in a bind between legality and care of the child, and
hesitates until life is lost. 
The situation of those who refuse medical intervention for their kids because
of religious beliefs is even tougher-Their religion says it would be wrong,
even evil, to tamper with "god's will" in accepting medicine.  But the kid
may not be old enough to make such a choice.  Can we impose our own values-
that killing a child through "neglect" is evil?  Whose values are more valid?
Bjorn, the categories you mention are useful for gaming, but in real life it's
not so black and white- You can't *have* order without chaos--which order?
There's no one total picture or pattern.  And more, order-form- without
chaos-motion/change/force- will not support life.  On the other hand, chaos
without order will not support life.  Even "anarchists" form groups,
organizations, use the rules of grammar to write treatises...There *is* no
neutrality, just balance or apathy <g>. And this current definition points
out that we cannot so neatly box up and lable good and evil.

Point well taken, and one I've always accepted without always knowing *that*
I accepted it.  The Yin/Yang symbol is an excellent example of your point.
I guess I was talking about society's order, but even that is subject to
change depending on where you stand.  Earlier this day, I reflected upon the
thought "Could I commit an evil action which would ultimately be for the
'good' of the world?"  My point is more that defining an exact position of
a being's forces is difficult if not impossible.  Gaming isn't so black and
white either . . . but that discussion is for another conference.

BTW Kami, what you talk about as Balance is how gaming takes Neutrality.

Secondly, I think AD&D's Nine Alignment system does an accurate representation
of how *most* of the people in the world act, even if TSR does contradict its
own statements from the paragraph descriptions in their description of the
Nine Alignment party and why it isn't a good idea to play an evil character,
or the evil characters working with good and neutral aren't playing their
alignments well.  Heck, in AD&D, evil is defined as selfishness about
advancement in the world.  I think that it may suit an evil person's interests
to help a good and neutral aligned party, because the evil character is having
FUN.  Money isn't the only motivation there is, but I am once again digressing
too far.

        I don't think people really are "good" or "evil" except in relation
to a certain belief-system.  To use the gross and obvious example, to a Hitler
youth, someone who was fighting against the Nazis might be seen as betraying
both the race and the promise of the Thousand Year Reich - easily as we might
see someone selling American defence secrets as "evil" by betraying their
people and the security of the American state.

Jazz, I would tend to agree with you, but don't forget that this argument is
still pretty active among philosophers.

     Good and evil are alway known to a true heart. It is never the 'Gods'
that make wo/men do what their needs must.

Once again, I rely on gaming to use distinction here, o well.  I guess I can't
avoid it since most people in the world actually do act according to the
*paragraph* of description under each of AD&D's 9 alignments.  The denial that
a being's actions can be good are evil is an admission of one's True
Neutrality.

        Rock on, I get to be a druid now.

        The AD&D definition of good and evil has to do with the authors'
(primarly Gygax during his college days) personal senses of morality.  It's
based on a two-axis sliding scale.  Anything can be mapped to a scale like
that, unless there's a third variable.

        This is really frightening me.  Theology is one thing, AD&D is another.
It's really really really sick to combine the two.

Would you call it sick if the idea came from any other source?

re: #13- Um, Brandon, that's a platitude.  In the context of this discussion
I'm not sure it says anything; yes, within one's own culture/religion, in most
cases a virtuous and honourable person will know what is right or wrong most
of the time, will seek the greatest good most of the time.  But I think we
are talking, at least in part, about whether one's "heart" will give
information which is useable in all contexts, for all people--I don't think
we are agreed, overall, about whether there is a universal evil, and maybe
not even about a universal good, although that *seems* easier.

I would agree that the gods do not *make* us do stuff- although they might
set us up on occasion...<g>

        Re #16:  

        I suppose I should clarify, since the statement (which was more of an
emotional one than a logical one) has caused so much controversy.  Cant'
unspeak a comment in cyberspace, or ON cyberspace.org.

        To some degree, a morality system adapted from fiction causes less
concern than a morality system adapted from role-playing, because fewer people
are likely to become wrapped up in a single work of fiction than years of
role-playing, though fiction can influence someone greatly (I'd like to credit
Neal Stephenson for really opening my eyes to the nature of words, for one,
and I can see an author's ideas about morality having a similar effect).  I've
known too many people who believed themselves to be vampires or red dragons,
based on their AD&D experiences ... it's almost as if there are people out
there who have trouble seperating guided fantasy from reality.  So I'm really
very wary of any ideas that come out of RPGing.

(I'd love to get a Neal Stephenson discussion started up in the
Books conf, since he's written my two favorite novels of the last
five years.)

Sadly, jazz, I've known *plenty* of people who got wrapped up in
novels and lost track of reality.  Ask Marion Zimmer Bradley how
many "fans" have asked her how they can join the Guardians...
(That is Bradley, right?  Someone correct me if I've gotten my
fantasy authors mixed up again...)

And most of the RPGers I've known had no trouble distinguishing
reality from their role-playing.  When people do role-play, many
of them do it intensely, *while they're doing it*.  I can see
how that would come across as a "lack of reality".  (And the ones
who did have trouble staying in reality, had trouble looong before
they started up with RPG's.)

        I don't think I've seen anyone get so wrapped up in a novel that
they've lost the distinction between fantasy and reality, but then most of
my knowledge of that subset comes from gamers, not con-dom.  Maybe it's
intellectualism, but someone who was inspired by _Finnegan's Wake_, or _The
Stranger_, or a work of literature intdended as a carrier of the author's
beliefs, is less a cause for concern than someone being inspired by a game.
Almost all gamers are able to draw that distinction, but those who don't ...

Exactly. "Almost all gamers are able to draw that distinction"
You're probably right that gamers are more likely than avid readers to lose
their grip on reality in the way you describe. But if you met someone whose
outlook on life had been strongly affected by reading _The Stranger_, say,
I doubt you'd assume that they were 'sick' or had lost their grip. Unless I'm
misunderstanding you - and correct me if I am - this seems to be sort of a
double standard.

        In a way, but there's nothing inherently wrong with having different
standards for different situations - the problem is having, say, a standard
for men and a standard for women in areas where the genders should be treated
equally.  It doesn't hold, even for genders or races, in other situations -
clearly you'd want more urinals in the men's room than in the women's.  

        The only err I can see in the above argument is you're assuming that
I generally make assumptions based on insufficient evidence;  I'm not going
to pass judgement on a person's sanity based on how much they read, or what,
I'm just stating that I've seen more gamers lose it than avid readers.

Weeeeeell, let's see- I can think of two religions which are not just inspired
by but begun from SF authors' work- not sure how much of Christian Science
(?) came directly from the writing of L.Ron Hubbard.  I know that the Church
of All Worlds took a lot of their notions of flexible family structures, among
other things, from Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land".  Thing is, while
I don't know much about Scientology (there- right name.  Not the same thing?),
I have seen the CoaW do really good work on being supportive of pagan
families, helping people learn to live their beliefs, etc.  so their fantasy
origin hasn't kept some portion of the members, at least, from having a strong
reality base.

The "guardians" is Mercedes Lackey, I think.  But MZB has plenty to complain
of if it bothers her; I know folks who base so much of their paganism on the
Darkover books that they wear blue stones around their necks (flourite, I
think) and believe themselves to be dependent on them like "matrix" stones.
<sigh>

#22> but you HAVE passed judgment. the mature thing to do is to apologize.
true, you can't unspeak something, but you can overtly indicate that you
didn't intend harm, rather than simply trying to gloss over it

        Practice as I say, not as I do? :)

        Well, there's nothing wrong with hypocrisy in a certain sense, either,
though it has a blackened name.  Encouraging a higher moral or ethical
standard than you can keep isn't necessarily wrong, and it certainly isn't
the sin that it's been made out to be.

        The CoS is a fairly scary beast.  You are aware that it charges for
religious instruction, fights those who try to reveal it's holy texts, and
actively tries to keep it's members from seeing any contradictory information,
up to and including creating their own web browser which blocks out any pages
making reference to popular dissenters, forbidden words, and forbidden
concepts.

I have heard that the Church of Scientology can be pretty wiggy, I hadn't
heard the specifics that you discribe.  Wonder how successful they are at
retaining members beyond one generation?  

        I'm not sure of that.  But they're fairly good at recruiting and
consolidating power in the here-and-now.  A list of the top level members
reads like a who's-who of Hollywood and the media.

Okay, here's something new I've been pondering: When I went to school in
Malaysia I never felt that any of the people at the school were my "friends"
with the exceptions of the Ebinger and Stewart kids who were too young to be
corrupted by the school.  Anyway, I had told my so-called friends that they
were akin to marrionettes with an ominous scissors near the strings, which
in themselves were rotting.  I stated also that the strings would be cut when
my time in that school was over.

However, during this time, one of my aquaintences who was nearer to a friend
than anyone else there, had broken the shackles of implanted thought.  His
name is Samuel Anderson, and he had an extreme interest in Celtic Mythology.
He had also considered converting from Fundamental Christianity to
Catholicism, but I thought that if he were so feed up, he may as well quit
Christianity all together and pursue the Celtic religion.  In any case,
stepping out of that school's influence of negative karma is a step in the
right direction.  Sadly, after receiving a call from a definite non-friend
who I am not sure how she got my number, I had my mom screen my calls from
then on, as she had rather hastily told the girl that I was home.  Well, it
turned out that right before I actually was going to go back to the United
States, Sam called my apartment - I had mom tell him I was already gone.  I
feel bad about this now, but my conversation with the girl who had most likely
literally has fundamental Christianity beaten into her had so infuriated me
that I wanted nothing to do with that school.  I feel even worse since Sam
and I did exchange gifts for the December holiday, but now, I don't think
there is anything I can do to rectify the situation.

And?  What's your question here?

Bjorn- if your friend is interested in Celtic myth, it might make sense for
him to look into Celtic Christianity, which was not identical to Catholicism
but is more like it than like fundamentalism; the Celtic people were able to
adopt Christianity without much distress because they were able to see
parallels and apply their own approach to developing a relationship with new
gods such that, as best I can see, Celtic Christianity is more Celtic than
typically Christian.  See books by Caitlin Matthews and, I think, Moyra
Caldecott.

My question, of course, would have ben if there were a way to know a method
by which to make the situation "right"?

While I was in M'sia, I had actually pondered having my mother tell him that
my physical existance had come to an end, but obviously, I decided against
that.

I don't really have anyway to contact this friend: he was a junior I was a
senior, and it's been about 4 years.  Then again, if, for some odd reason,
he is still in Malaysia HE may find a way to contact me as I am sending a
letter to the owner of a gaming store in Malaysia in an attempt to get back
in contact with some of my international gaming friends.

        Hello, kami ... I really didn't mean to placate anyone. My philosophy
is based on the ancient teachings of Zen and colored by the Shinto schools
of kendo, that is, they rest heavily on the eight steps .."Always think
honestly' ... 'correct action' ... etc. 
        Ultimetly, there is 'good' and 'evil' in the world, but it is
perpertrated by wo/men. The Gods (that is a race name, not a proper noun) are,
by the very nature of *what* they are, are beyond the mortal concept of said
'good and evil'.
        However, you might be right about the Gods setting us up from time to
time. 
        'See with the eyes, all there is to be seen, preceive with the 'true'
heart all that is not seen with the eyes.'
        The 'true' heart knows truth, from where this wisdom is gleaned is of
little concern, fools speake as wisely as kings, so why not gaming-books vice
any of the other 'older' books of power. Each to their destiny.

O that's right . . . the discussion of the existance of good or evil did come
up in this particular item.

Brandon, it's so hard to find anything interesting to say, when I just agree
with your comments. <sigh>

A new question:
If I perform an action which in and of itself is bad, but my rational for
performing the action is either unclear or good, does that result in bad
karma, or is there a whole 'nother pool of "questionable" karma?

I don't believe there's such a thing as an act which is inherently bad.

I do think some acts are inherently bad, and I also think that if the Universe
is a fair place (no evidence of that so far) that your reasons, truly
believed, won't excuse evil acts, but may mitigate the karma accrual a little.
I hope so, because while I think some things are well and truly bad, I also
don't believe it's possible to never, ever commit a harmful act.

        I think the universe is a fair place, but on a scale so large that
it's incomprehensible (and largely irrelevant) to us.  How fair is the
fairness of the ant colony to the ant that's trod upon?

For an act to be inherently bad, IMHO, it would have to be the case that:
(a) under no conditions would a moral and just person be placed in a position
to commit the act 
-- OR --
(b) there are no good results that could come from it
  
Let's take two obvious examples, murder and rape.
Murder falls under (a) so many times it isn't funny. Self-defense. Protection
of others. Involuntary service in wartime. 
(hmmmm... rephrase of (a): under no conditions would a moral and just person
be FORCED to commit the act in order to prevent a worse situation)
Rape doesn't fall under (a), at least, not in any immediately obvious
econtexts, but it *does* fall under (b). Good things CAN come from rape. It's
unusual, and the harm usually grossly outweighs the benefits, but there *are*
exceptions.

This is all just my opinion, of course.

I very seriouslt disagree that id something good comes of it, it wasn't an
evil act.  I also disagree that if it may sometimes be necessary even for good
people to do it, it isn't evil.

But there are magnitudes of evil ... what Jeffrey Dahmer did is pure evil,
even if some people, in some circumstances might be forced to kill to defend
themselves or to eat human flesh to survive.  Even if some good (a new law,
a new group of activists, something...) were to come out of his acts.

I balance that view (that there is pure ad definable evil) with the view that
sometimes minor evils are necessary to prevent major evils.  (The murder of
a Hitleresque dictator to save millions of innocent lives, for instance.)
When we choose those lesser of two evils, I believe we still accumulate Karmic
debt -- but less so than if we stood idly by and let the greater evil happen
or if we committed the same acts out of malevolence.

I also believe that genuine insanity probably plays a role in the karmic
equation...since there are some cases where the brain is so corrupted that
the "person" the consciousness really doesn't have control.  Fortunately,
karma isn't tallied by people -- it's a natural force like rain or gravity.
In that sense it's more just because there are no emotions to be weighed.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss