Hi Khanivore. You are new, and also you are welcome to post anything here.
One thing you’ll find is that people will engage with and appreciate/criticize your posts. I don’t want to alienate you by criticizing too harshly or too soon, because I think this community has a lot to offer for everyone, and I’m interested to see what you’ll make of it. However, you may find this site more interesting if you get some engagement, so I’m offering that.
One thing that seems evil is the starvation, neglect, abuse, torture, murder, and conscription into armies of children. One thing that seems good is the self-actualization of children. I am a teacher of children, and I have tried for ten years to help them self-actualize.
I don’t think that evil perpetrated on children is necessary for the good of children.
One thing you can do is argue with me and make a genuine attempt to persuade. Another is to steelman the counterargument. What’s the strongest argument you can make that evil isn’t necessary for good to exist? Can you convince yourself of the contrary, just for the sake of your own edification.
There are other things you can do, but those are a couple suggestions that you might find valuable.
Let me try to reply here step by step. It was a cached thought in a sense of what I think you are saying, which is why I added it to my own shortform—I thought, as an idea, as it’s hard for me to keep track of my ideas. What I meant was evil as an ideology, or as an entity in a way. We would have no idea what good was if there was no opposite end of the spectrum. Evil exists, and in that sense it helps to understand “what is good” ? Maybe I am not wording it correctly. If there were only good, how would you even know what was “good” or “evil” ? Do you get what I am trying to say? And as unfortunate as some things like war can be, they do a lot of the time lead to progress. One of the hardest parts about war or evil is also trying to tread the boundaries of ethics. The US for instance kills innocent people all the time in the name of the greater good. Kids die, innocent people die, and we write it off as ” for the greater good” . But rationally evil—like taking a life, even if for a just cause , allows for good. The taking of any life is evil in a sense, but has allowed for good historically as weird as that sounds. It’s the whole notion of war. Furthermore, I see AI being discussed here often and rationally if you’re going to create a true AI, evil and good will come up often, and how would you even begin to develop true AI without explaining the spectrum of good and evil? They exist only because of one another. I am actually pretty certain my original post was me paraphrasing something I was listening to of Lex Fridman or Eric Weinstein. Pain causes revolutions! Evil has lead to good in many roundabout ways. I will find the whole part if I can.… If it was up to me “evil” would not exist at all, but it does exist, and it exists only because we have a spectrum. YING and YANG. Maybe this is why some people find it hard to believe in GOD, because its like why does evil exist at all? You can only appreciate the good because of the evil.
There are a few clearly true statements that get compressed in your original statement, which can then be used to suggest wrong statements. This is an equivocation.
One question is “does our experience of evil or suffering inform our moral judgments?”
Another is “have people fought against evil and won?”
A third is “can a lesser wrong be acceptable in pursuit of a greater good?”
A fourth is something like “will our total human experience of evil and suffering prove so useful in aligning superintelligent AI that it is a net positive?”
A fifth is “does even the most extreme, straightforward examples of evil and suffering have any side benefits, despite being heavily net negative?”
Again, it’s fine to babble, but the culture here is that you need to clarify what question your asking. Then argue it persuasively to the best of your ability. Or try arguing the opposite, just to get clarity. Precision is a virtue.
I can’t spend time to reply any more to introduce you to the site’s culture. But I think you might benefit from a philosophy class.
Hi Khanivore. You are new, and also you are welcome to post anything here.
One thing you’ll find is that people will engage with and appreciate/criticize your posts. I don’t want to alienate you by criticizing too harshly or too soon, because I think this community has a lot to offer for everyone, and I’m interested to see what you’ll make of it. However, you may find this site more interesting if you get some engagement, so I’m offering that.
Your post is a good example of cached thoughts.
One thing that seems evil is the starvation, neglect, abuse, torture, murder, and conscription into armies of children. One thing that seems good is the self-actualization of children. I am a teacher of children, and I have tried for ten years to help them self-actualize.
I don’t think that evil perpetrated on children is necessary for the good of children.
One thing you can do is argue with me and make a genuine attempt to persuade. Another is to steelman the counterargument. What’s the strongest argument you can make that evil isn’t necessary for good to exist? Can you convince yourself of the contrary, just for the sake of your own edification.
There are other things you can do, but those are a couple suggestions that you might find valuable.
Let me try to reply here step by step. It was a cached thought in a sense of what I think you are saying, which is why I added it to my own shortform—I thought, as an idea, as it’s hard for me to keep track of my ideas. What I meant was evil as an ideology, or as an entity in a way. We would have no idea what good was if there was no opposite end of the spectrum. Evil exists, and in that sense it helps to understand “what is good” ? Maybe I am not wording it correctly. If there were only good, how would you even know what was “good” or “evil” ? Do you get what I am trying to say? And as unfortunate as some things like war can be, they do a lot of the time lead to progress. One of the hardest parts about war or evil is also trying to tread the boundaries of ethics. The US for instance kills innocent people all the time in the name of the greater good. Kids die, innocent people die, and we write it off as ” for the greater good” . But rationally evil—like taking a life, even if for a just cause , allows for good. The taking of any life is evil in a sense, but has allowed for good historically as weird as that sounds. It’s the whole notion of war. Furthermore, I see AI being discussed here often and rationally if you’re going to create a true AI, evil and good will come up often, and how would you even begin to develop true AI without explaining the spectrum of good and evil? They exist only because of one another. I am actually pretty certain my original post was me paraphrasing something I was listening to of Lex Fridman or Eric Weinstein. Pain causes revolutions! Evil has lead to good in many roundabout ways. I will find the whole part if I can.… If it was up to me “evil” would not exist at all, but it does exist, and it exists only because we have a spectrum. YING and YANG. Maybe this is why some people find it hard to believe in GOD, because its like why does evil exist at all? You can only appreciate the good because of the evil.
There are a few clearly true statements that get compressed in your original statement, which can then be used to suggest wrong statements. This is an equivocation.
One question is “does our experience of evil or suffering inform our moral judgments?”
Another is “have people fought against evil and won?”
A third is “can a lesser wrong be acceptable in pursuit of a greater good?”
A fourth is something like “will our total human experience of evil and suffering prove so useful in aligning superintelligent AI that it is a net positive?”
A fifth is “does even the most extreme, straightforward examples of evil and suffering have any side benefits, despite being heavily net negative?”
Again, it’s fine to babble, but the culture here is that you need to clarify what question your asking. Then argue it persuasively to the best of your ability. Or try arguing the opposite, just to get clarity. Precision is a virtue.
I can’t spend time to reply any more to introduce you to the site’s culture. But I think you might benefit from a philosophy class.