Doing unto others.

Should we treat people as they have done, or the opposite to how they have done? If you treat the evil with good, they will learn how to be good. If you treat the good with evil, they will be confirmed in their ways. Everything backwards. :slight_smile:

Sure beats trying to do the same to people, doesn’t it?
(Although it might end up discouraging the good person and encouraging the evil person.)

And all this because there is no turning around of evil for good.

That’s a hard one.

So hard that it doesn’t make sense to me . . . at least not yet, anyways.

It seems inapplicable to the proverb: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” One way to interpret it: “Treat others appropriately to the treatment you would receive should you have their circumstances.”

If someone is evil, then I wouldn’t want to be evil back, since that’s not necessarily the response I would expect, were I evil. Evil, in my sense here, counterproductive to a noble cause. However, if I was uncontrollably and unfairly violent, I might have to expect that others are violent with me in order to regain control.

Anyhow, I’m a bit glazed from work so I might be missing other relevant important concepts.

Sounds like the thinking of those who promoted the Spanish Inquisition to save the Catholic Church.

W.W.Z.D. - What Would Zarathustra Do?
Of course, not many have the exalted right to behave like Zarathustra - ‘Are you such a man as ought to escape a yoke? There are many who threw off their final worth when they threw off their bondage.’ - Of the Way of the Creator

Well, let’s remember that not everyone has their yoke taken willingly.

Do you think the Roman Church was justified at the beginning of the Inquisition in it’s retribution against heretics who, only thought of violence against the Catholic regime? I mean you wouldn’t imprison and torture someone for thinking, not actually harming anybody, sitting on their couch, would you?

I mean that’s all just turned around, right?

Besides, one doesn’t calm others by force but by reason, right?

might makes right…

-Imp

I live by the extended golden rule.

“Do as you would be done by, and do as you were done by.”

In other words, be nice to people, unless they’ve been unpleasant to you, in which case you be unpleasant back.

Well, just as long as might allows me to end up righted…

“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”

If everyone does what you say, the balance of evil over good in the world will only stay constant or increase.
For a better world there must be a limit placed on vengeance.

Ya, but if your a good person youll never be mean to someone, then no one will be mean to you(hopefully). Plus

“In a world where everyone is blind, The man with one eye is god”

If someone treads my face into the mud, don’t expect me to help him carry his shopping home the following day. If bad is rewarded by good, it won’t get rectified.

Nope. Evil people do it becuase it makes them feel good. They have bad wiring. There insecure people who need to make others feel worse so they feel better. If your nice to them it wont make them feel good, they havnt learned to accept kindness, they will just put up a wall. People are afriad of what they cant understand.

just as long as you have the might to make it so…

-Imp

As I’ve read, we must repay good and evil, but why precisely to those who’ve done us good or evil? :wink:

Nope. Good people do it becuase it makes them feel good. They have bad/good? wiring. There are insecure people who need to make others feel better so they feel better. If you’re truely nice to them it will make them feel good, they have learned to accept kindness, they will just break down a wall. People are intregued by what they don’t understand.

(Trying to put both sides in context.) :slight_smile:

I’m quite frightened that I would be categorized with the instigators of the Spanish Inquisition. Especially to see it snowball that I have to justify their conduct. On the contrary, the Spanish Inquisition is a prime example of my sense of the word evil. It’s one of the earliest things I can remember being furious about.

The “heretics” attributed to think only of violence against the Catholic Regime were a wild exaggeration on the part of the Inquisitioners. For god’s sake it was mostly women tending to wounds with their (often skillful) herbal knowledge (early pharmaceuticals), then deemed as witches to be burned alive . . . and accomplished. (Irrelevant trivia here: Did you know “wicked” was never rooted from the concept of evil, but originated from the word “wise” as in “wic”?). The Inquisition came on so fast, they barely had time to figure out whom began it, why, and whom they should detest. They mostly hid away into covens for near futile survival.

Another thing I’m familiar with is the George Orwell’s 1984 concept of “thought-crime,” its ridiculous notions, and how close it unfortunately gets to the modern-day powerful regime. The hatred toward the Free Speach amendment, all another thing I’d consider evil.

I think the part of my values that often puts people off is that I condone violence. I usually have some fair agreement in my values until I get to that point. A number of times I’ve had that value connected with Nazism, Inquisition, even rape. All the sorts of things I most detest. The things I condone violence against. To work to justify that support towards violence, I may really have to write an excessive paper. I plead guilty that I’m no follower of Ghandi. Ghandi certainly accomplished some important goals. But I think we’re in for a very sorry surprise if we all begin believing that unconditional peace will set us free and protect us from all. Even if the unrealistic idea was realized and the whole world was finally at peace, perhaps something foreign would learn to take advantage of this. Likewise, (different example altogether) the sorry surprise for a teenager that wants to “chill with her friends” and offer excessive tolerance, to find some “not-so-chill” parties with reprocussions. I also condone civil disobedience as a way to “right wrongs.” I just don’t think it’ll work for everything.

I condone violence, but I don’t condone empiricism motivated by greed, fascism, personal vendettas, and technology toward global domination eclipsing socialism, or escalating crime for the sake of quick gratification . . . like we sort of have today. These are the sorts of things that I think civil disobedience will fail against- that we need to accept the not so happy methods in order to accomplish our goals. Hence the use of the word “Guerrilla”

To put it into quicker perspective, I believe that my values are very similar to yours. I just have controversial methods as to how they can be accomplished . . . like most people.

It seems most people condone violence. Maybe they just don’t like to hear it said that way. But if people didn’t condone violence, their countries wouldn’t have enough support to go to war. Like the war in Iraq if you’re an American. If Americans generally didn’t condone violence, would it be practical for the presidency to intervene in Iraq?