Evil can be Good, Good can be evil

The Law of Unintended Consequences: Actions taken with the best intentions can, and often do, lead to unforeseen and harmful outcomes. For example, a government program designed to help the poor might inadvertently create dependency, stifle economic growth, or disrupt local markets. The intent was good, but the result is negative.

Often, great good arises out of response to great evil. Catastrophic events, injustice, or suffering can act as powerful motivators for people to unite, innovate, or demand positive change. The experience of evil can lead to resilience, empathy, and a stronger commitment to justice.

Facing and overcoming evil (whether internal or external) can strengthen an individual's or a society's virtues. Courage, resilience, compassion, and justice are often forged in the crucible of adversity.

>>24522214 (OP)

>>24522214 (OP)
This board will die if ChatGPT is not completely banned. What is this slop?

>>24522309
Better than 99% of writers

>>24522214 (OP)

>>24522311
doesn't say much.

>>24522214 (OP)
How can something be both itself and its opposite at the same time?

>>24522619
you are too retarded to understand

>>24522621
Sure, evade the question and ignore the criticism.
>evil can be good
should be
>evil becomes good
or
>evil can become good
because evil being good is a clear logical contradiction.

Also all your examples are pretty ignorant. A government doesn't help the poor because they want to do a good action, they help the poor because in a democracy populism is the easiest way to win. They know it can cause a deficit and make the people even more poor, they are not stupid, they have studied politics all their life, and after all making more people poor helps them in winning by populism, since they are making the people depend on them.
I do agree that some times evil inspires good and viceversa, though, but it can also lead to itself (Evil leading to evil or good leading to good). For example, a bullied kid turning into a mass shooter is an example of evil that doesn't become a good. So saying as a rule that evil always leads to good or is evil can be illogical.
Of course, the first question should be what is good and what is evil.

>>24522675
your IQ is below 70

>>24522675

>>24522683
>>24522688
At least I'm giving logical answers. (You) believe that evil is "suffering" and that doing something with a good intention (Even if it's something completely evil) is good.

>>24522214 (OP)
>Evil can be Good, Good can be evil
>A thing can be its opposite
Breaks the law of noncontradiction. Stopped reading there.

>>24522773
Another retard, you do read but you are blind to the truth

>>24522214 (OP)

>>24522214 (OP)
Isn't it intent that defines good and evil? Their outcomes don't change the deliberate action taken by its committers.

>>24522865
Wrong

>>24522889
That's all you have to say? Wrong and retard to any reply? I guess that's what I'd expect from an AIslop thread.

>>24522895
retard

>>24522865
>Isn't it intent that defines good and evil?
Not OP here.
What if someone commits an evil act with good intention?
For example: What if someone commits murder (to a loan sharker old woman who has a little sister and lives in 19th century Russia) thinking I am doing a good to the world? Is that a good act just because of the intention?

>>24522925
Good question, let the retard answer

>>24522934
Which one? Because I (The anon who made the question) am one of those

>>24522925
Funny example since I'm currently reading C&P. But I still do believe intent is discreet and its outcomes can not change its nature. If you've bought some Swiss cheese for your friend as a gift and it turns out he has an allergy to it, it's still a good act you did.
Practically speaking, these instances are usually passed off as mistakes, lapses of judgements and very rarely as evil.

As for your example, murder is obviously evil and for one to not realize that, or to step over it with an eccentric ideology, is either a madman or simply a fool. He may have committed evil, but it was still with a good intent, thus I'd classify it as a mistake again and not just evil.

>>24522977
murdering a rapist is evil or no?

>>24522981
Depends on the intent.

>>24522985
answer the question retard

>>24522214 (OP)

>>24522988
Very well, I'll humor you. I suppose this is your attempt at presenting a moral dilemma, where the action itself is evil, its outcomes eventually lead to greater good, by committing the said evil on another evil entity. While logically this is "Good", committing evil to get rid of one evil is only natural, in fact some would even argue it's necessary. This reminds me of Churchill's quote; "Truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."

But this black-and-white system doesn't account for many variables, including the awareness of the action taker, his intent, and even the overall nature of Good and Evil. If we take intent as the main point of judgement, committing evil for the sake of destroying another evil is still evil. However intent is the slave to one's justice, for as long he believes he's doing good the value of his intent means very little. And one's justice is almost all the time subjective, or at least a little biased, because for someone to get rid of evil, he has to declare it first, through his limited understanding, social biases and his personal reasons he reaches a seemingly solid foundation for what's evil but it's ultimately arbitrary and subjective.

Now to get to the nature of Good and Evil, and if we follow on the logical example earlier "Getting rid of one evil by committing evil is good." it's a very arbitrary statement as well, despite its logical foundations. Where does the evil end? Are you not now another evil in someone else's mind after committing evil yourself? And by that logic, should you not perish yourself to end your evil? The cycle of evil and good never ends. For every evil you commit, regardless of intent, you are declared evil by someone else. Murdering a mafia boss would certainly grant you the label of evil by his mother who doesn't know any better.

Thus to answer your question we have to consider several angles here. Is it for the greater good? Possibly, we don't know the rapist's intent or his justice. Is murdering (evil) the rapist (evil) a good act? As demonstrated earlier, because of the inherently subjective nature of evil it's not a clear cut answer, but I'll try to simplify to the best of my abilities.
Logically speaking, yes, but only if you murder yourself afterwards. By doing so, you have reached the logical conclusion of your foundation; you must commit evil to end another evil, and thus after murdering the rapist you are now yourself evil, and you must end the evil you just committed, by your own hands.
But practically speaking and taking evil's nature into account, no. For the simple reason that your justice, that is your intent and your definition of good and evil, are ultimately subjective and prone to biases, not absolute. The weight of murder outweighs any possible justification you have, AKA your Justice.

TLDR: Yes.

>>24523026
>>24523026
>committing evil for the sake of destroying another evil is still evil.

I don't agree with that, God annihilated the whole planet in the story of noah and it turned out to be Good at the end

>>24523026
Committing evil for the greater good with the intention of doing good is Good

>>24523037
>I don't agree with that because [stuff that never happened]
K cool.

>>24523041
Under what premise? Are you arguing your intent justifies your action, and subsequently the validation of what you call Evil and Good?

>>24523049
you are wrong, Committing evil (killing a rapist) for the greater good (of humanity) with the intention of doing good (preventing harm) is Good

you are manlet with lower iq than donkey

>>24522214 (OP)

>>24523056
Again only true if you kill yourself afterwards as a repent for the evil you just committed.
>manlet
6"1, good looking, I absolutely mog you lil bro.
>low iq
Don't wanna hear this from a Jewish golem.

>>24523147
>Again only true if you kill yourself afterwards as a repent for the evil you just committed.

you are fucking retarded, why would you kill yourself afterwards, that's so retarded take

Spamming Jesus pics doesn't automatically your thread le based

but yeah good can't exist without evil this is theology 101 and is supposed to be the most evident proof of divinely gifted free will

>>24523164

>>24523151
First let's obtain the premises that your statement is declaring; "Committing evil (killing a rapist)".
This indicates that:
A. This rapist is evil.
B. Murder is evil.
C. Evil must be eradicated.

You take it upon yourself to eradicate this evil (C) by committing murder which is evil (B).
Since you are now evil, it follows from (A) that you must end your evil (C).

Do I need to dumb it down more? I know christcucks are slow but this is becoming rather embarrassing.

>>24523197
A. This rapist is evil.
Give me a break

>>24523206
UGH shut up wouldn't you! Killing anyone I think is evil is good! What?! I never said he's evil! Only he's... ARGHHHHH GIVE ME A BREAK!!

>>24523212
that's how i imagine you

Jeet slide thread.

>>24522214 (OP)

>>24522214 (OP)

>>24522675
OP BTFO
>>24522683
>>24522688
low it seething imbeciles

>>24522214 (OP)
>For example, a government program designed to help the poor might inadvertently create dependency, stifle economic growth, or disrupt local markets. The intent was good, but the result is negative.
The intent was to buy voters and entrap them.

stop bumping ai slop threads.