Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Very often it is observed that evil wins with speed. But in the long run, good wins, but this happens only after a considerable time. Therefore, sometimes there is an illusion that evil almost always wins. Because it won quickly, then everyone forgot about this matter, and only after many years did the good triumph. But few people remember this case anymore.
THE MIX of good and evil in real life is approximately 50: 50 .
Evil – an error of behavior or thinking – due to Ignorance or Misunderstanding or Inability.
In science, evil/mistakes do not dominate.
There is more evil in business and politics.
“evil” and “good” are just our attitude to this or that phenomenon. a label, so to speak.
of course, usually in the mind of each individual person, it is HIS understanding of the problem that is on the side of “good”. and “evil” is others, it's enemies, it's all wrong.
therefore, there is more “good”. I rarely meet people who – no matter what-would say about themselves “I am on the side of evil”:))))
As far as I know people, good is good because it mostly wins, and evil is evil because it mostly loses. If a certain method of action ceases to bring success, it will quickly be renamed from good to evil. This is the way people do it – we call the way of doing things that leads to success good. And the one that leads to defeat is bad.
Of course, there are also religious norms of good and evil. But in this sense, the question is trivial. Good from God. And God always wins.
An interesting approach, why immediately fight? That's what interested me. The fact is that what is closer to a person, then he chooses. The good will triumph one way or another. I've been in a lot of situations in my life, but one thing is certain. Absolutely everyone, and even notorious scoundrels, lean on the side of good and life.. Admitting their failure. Evil, or rather what is accepted as evil, is just a counterbalance to the truth, here on earth. But the answer is clear: good will always be a priority.
Good and evil can be interpreted in different ways – from the position of support from an altruist, or from the position of benefit for an egoist. A kind person can say that people do each other less good than they need to. And that good does not always win when it should win, or even fails. But an evil person can also say that people do him less good than he needs, and that he forcibly appropriates less good than he needs. And that the good does not always win for him when it should win, or even fails-if he considers himself good, which happens to many evil people. Or that evil doesn't always win when it should, or even fails if it considers itself evil with dark honesty.
But the lack of good is not the defeat of good. The defeat of good would be the absolute impossibility of doing good. As long as the opportunity to do good remains, even if only a small one, there is no such thing as good.
Can the good not only not be defeated, but also win so much that only or almost only good remains?
In a person as an individual, this is possible. Depends on what it supports in itself.
In a clash between two individuals, one of whom is good, the other is evil, or small groups, this is also possible. It depends not only on how good each good person is and how evil each evil person is, but also on what fighting means the parties use in the clash and what their skill is.
And in a community of people, especially a large one, this is impossible. People who are somewhat inclined to altruism, to good, are statistically less than people who are somewhat inclined to selfishness, to evil. In a community, evil is always greater in quantity, but this does not mean that it is stronger. In the community, neither side can win definitively. Therefore, in a community, a person can only choose a side. Choose not because there is hope for the final victory of this side, but because this side is such-good or evil. Choose not to win on this side and with this side, but to live on this side and with this side.
My subjective opinion is that there is a balance in the world. If, for example, there was a preponderance of good in the world, then people would not be willing to strive for development. Since it is evil that generates the spirit of excitement and competition. It is these factors that drive progress. But many will say: “then if there was a preponderance of evil, then we would be much better now as a civilization .” This is not true , the preponderance of evil would bring excessive risk. Because not one project could not be realized because of the meanness of another . Following these arguments, we can say that the ratio of good and evil is almost identical with each other.
In your subjective opinion, is it mostly good or evil that wins?
This can be compared to the change of night and day, where night is the victory of evil symbolically, but the coming of morning is the becoming and victory of good. Although of course it is very difficult to outline the boundaries, the day / night mode and the statutes of all this, and in each case it happens differently, it is like a metaphor. Sometimes the night wins, that is, there is a victory of evil over everything, but then there is a certain enlightenment in the people, reformation, enlightenment and evil recedes, then again and again..And so, in my opinion, it will be until the coming of the Kingdom of God, which will come and establish the final victory of righteousness and good over evil. Before his arrival, the darkest possible night is expected. This is what Christianity and Its revelations teach.
Brodsky has a saying where he says that he believes that there is only one law in the world-it is the multiplication of evil and that everything is decaying and degrading, but among this evil there are examples of decency and nobility. It's like the stars in the night-a symbol that evil doesn't win over everyone..
In my subjective opinion, but quite popular among society, the concept of “good” and “evil” are two categories, the original purpose of which is to simplify the assessment of an act, event, or person as a whole. There are obvious errors in this estimation system:
Not everyone knows exactly what good and evil really are. No one ever prescribed them, no one took something for an ideal of good or evil. Would it be good to kill a terrorist? In general, yes, but murder is usually defined as evil. There are no criteria as such, and perhaps the people who created them try to categorize works of art, but everyone does it completely differently. And from here comes the second error.
Everyone will have their own concept of good and evil. For some, good is the establishment of general order throughout the world, and for others, the absence of wars. Evil can also be different, I don't think you should even give examples.
Why am I doing this? I am trying to bring up the idea that the categorization of the category “good-evil” is like an attempt to explain to a person the norms of morality, etiquette and behavior at a primitive level. But the reality is that there is neither good nor evil. Accordingly, there is no winner.
At this level of civilization, Development is already clearly winning, and it is based on the concept of Rights and Freedoms for each individual.
Anything that is based on such Basic, inalienable Human Rights is good, anything that is contrary to human rights is evil.
The victory of one over the other is dictated by the social mood of a particular society. This category is not always one person, but a single generally accepted opinion. An example is the media. As one authoritative person or group of people wants, so white immediately becomes black. This is the easiest thing to do with the proven truthfulness of the media. We learn from the media that the world is not safe, etc., which makes us wary and suspicious. Our way of life changes to the expectation of bad, conflict. Such a time was in the dashing nineties.�
The categories of “good” and “evil” are derived for a certain control of society. The action of one of the terms is effective when the subject being processed is not aware of what is happening. Simply put, for the uninformed due to the unavailability of information or not wanting to understand (I'm like everyone else).
My opinion: human stupidity wins.