Is Mario Evil? - The science of Good-versus-Evil

Coming from a few of my favorite YouTube channels, VSauce, is the video "Is Mario Evil?"
It explores the idea that the fantasy character Mario is actually in fact, evil. With this they explore the idea of what truly is evil.

I find this video very fascinating on many different levels.
Video
Feel free to give you thoughts, and if you have material to share on the subject, feel free.

Both videos are really great stuff, and illustrate the ideas of moral relativism and bias really well. Thanks!

How about this one, I dont think its been posted here before. I reckon it demonstrated how easily one can be entrained into believing a particular point of view to the point they do not question that original decision anymore.

Language Warning; a couple of swear words and bad jokes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Gz_iTuRMM

I cannot help but throw it out there lilke I always do, but I still reckon good and evil are not a set. I think the counter to good is bad, and the counter to evil is compassion.... with good and bad being subjective viewpoints, and compassion and evil being objective biological realities of intention at decrease or increase suffering.

So I use the definition for evil to basically be the knowledge of somones suffering and the desire to increase that suffering..... and so even evil can be good - from the point of view of the psychopath.... therefore I think mixing good and evil as a balanced polarity is incorrect.

Adder wrote: Language Warning; a couple of swear words and bad jokes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Gz_iTuRMM

Interesting but totally unconvincing :lol: for instance the idea Daniel learning karate after losing a fight to black belt Johnny is like returning with a gun misses the point that in that scenario, Johnny was "already packing" first time out. Whilst Johnny isn't a totally irredeemable character, he clearly antagonises and victimises the socially inferior Daniel throughout. What's a bully if not a scared, weak person exerting their superior social status to make themselves feel better at another's expense?

Fun concept though. I'm reminded of a quote by Tom Hiddleston, aka Loki in the Marvel films:

"Every villain is a hero in his own mind"

tzb wrote: I'm reminded of a quote by Tom Hiddleston, aka Loki in the Marvel films:

"Every villain is a hero in his own mind"

This is what makes it tough to call anyone truly "evil." Very, very rarely is the person who other's deem evil setting out to be such as they see it.

A great example of this is the Netflix series Daredevil. In it you get to see Daredevil struggle with towing the line between hero and villain and we see Kingpin justify his "evil" actions with seemingly good intentions only to later see what he's become.

Also, the quote from The Dark Knight. "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

the zimbardo prison experiment was done to explore the topic of personality and the milgrim experiment to explore the effects of authority, and i dont think the mario video did justice to either of them

both experiments are relevant to the topic of evil but neither were done to address the concept directly, nor do they in any way suggest that evil is relative

no one says that it was ok that the guards in the experiment turned into tyrants and no one says that it is ok for people to deliver what they think is a fatal shock to someone for an incorrect answer to a math problem

that these things could become OK would demonstrate the relativity of evil

what i got from the mario video, and what was made especially clear in the karate kid video, is that people can be very clever in their methods of twisting things around to distort the truth of an event

and that this distortion is, if anything, a part of the evil itself, rather than evidence that there is no evil involved

if there is a genuinely useful and important message in the idea of the relativity of evil, it is, imo, that we are all much more capable of evil than we want to admit

that evil is something we all may contribute to, simply because we are lazy, or afraid, or angry, or because circumstances have put us in an oppositional relationship to others and we do not know how to navigate this without crossing the line

but this does not make evil less evil
if anything, it makes us less good, less righteous than we assume ourselves to be, and it highlights the importance of self monitoring, of self honesty, and of being open to value of others, even AND ESPECIALLY others we do not like, or who we consider "enemies"

a serious discussion on the idea of evil must acknowledge things like internment camps, rape, especially continued and systematic rape, people who take pleasure in acts of torture and mutilation, the calculated efforts to inflict the severest forms of injury and degradation onto others as possible, and the pursuit of personal aims at the expense of the lives and health of others, with full awareness but no concern of the misery caused

if you do not approach this level of the topic then you are not approaching the topic at all

http://endgenocide.org/learn/past-genocides/

https://www.distractify.com/21-examples-of-pure-unmitigated-evil-1197890041.html


this is from stanford university

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/


this is prof jordan peterson, he teaches at university of toronto


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM25byj81Jc


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zooE5GE81TU

Adder wrote: I cannot help but throw it out there lilke I always do, but I still reckon good and evil are not a set. I think the counter to good is bad, and the counter to evil is compassion.... with good and bad being subjective viewpoints, and compassion and evil being objective biological realities of intention at decrease or increase suffering.

For me, the word evil seems out of place even here. It seems more like good and bad, compassion and cruelty. Evil just has these connotations of complete irredeemability.

CryojenX wrote:

Adder wrote: I cannot help but throw it out there lilke I always do, but I still reckon good and evil are not a set. I think the counter to good is bad, and the counter to evil is compassion.... with good and bad being subjective viewpoints, and compassion and evil being objective biological realities of intention at decrease or increase suffering.

For me, the word evil seems out of place even here. It seems more like good and bad, compassion and cruelty. Evil just has these connotations of complete irredeemability.

I totally agree with this; the words good and evil are inaccurate in most cases. It likely has been popularized by fiction.

Hey everyone,

Wrongdoings or evil actions are often masked by good intentions, or even that good intentions, when acted upon, may have unforeseen bad consequences. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is good. But Everyone has his or her own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil.

I define a 'good person' as somebody who is fully conscious of their own limitations. They know their strengths, but they also know their 'shadow' - they know their weaknesses. In other words, they understand that there is no good without bad. Good and evil are really one, but we have broken them up in our consciousness. We polarize them. Inside each of us, there is the seed of both good and evil. It's a constant struggle as to which one will win. And one cannot exist without the other.

He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it. The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the only good that comes from violence is only temporary and the evil inflicted by violence is permanent.

People who claim that they're 'evil' are usually no worse than the rest of us. It's people who claim that they're good, or any way better than the rest of us, that you have to be wary of. Nobody thinks that they're evil or bad, they think that they're doing the right thing.

That being said 'good' is approved and 'Evil' is denounced. Yet i like to think of Evil as 'vice' and good as 'virtue'. We all become trapped in vice and its our job to discover our own inner virtue.




Peace & Blessings
Love & Light

Ariane wrote: People who claim that they're 'evil' are usually no worse than the rest of us. It's people who claim that they're good, or any way better than the rest of us, that you have to be wary of. Nobody thinks that they're evil or bad, they think that they're doing the right thing.

Exactly the reason I do not trust anyone who believes themselves to be righteous, the ones who don't recognize that they're just as messed up as the rest of us. The persons who know they don't always get it right, and can't, yet still try to be good, that's pretty much the best any of us will ever get I think.

CryojenX wrote:

Ariane wrote: People who claim that they're 'evil' are usually no worse than the rest of us. It's people who claim that they're good, or any way better than the rest of us, that you have to be wary of. Nobody thinks that they're evil or bad, they think that they're doing the right thing.

Exactly the reason I do not trust anyone who believes themselves to be righteous, the ones who don't recognize that they're just as messed up as the rest of us. The persons who know they don't always get it right, and can't, yet still try to be good, that's pretty much the best any of us will ever get I think.

I read an account of a man's meeting with an aged Orthodox monk, who said something along the lines of "there is no greater sinner than myself."

This is an important theory to understanding the ego. Many people claim to be nice, but only a handful of those nice people are what they claim to be. The same goes with evil or bad people, only a handful of them really are. Those who aren't as nice as they say they are, or as bad as they say they are, are people who have either fallen victim to the ego, or exaggerate, whether it be for self benefit or or to out oneself down (in the substance of saying they are bad).
The closest anyone could get to truly being good, as CyrojenX said, is to accept that you try to do good, but sometimes do evil in the midst of it.
This is why ego is a tricky thing; because there are so many loopholes and many other complexities involved.

i dont think we are talking about the same things - when i use the word EVIL i am thinking of the murder of entire cultures and communities ect
im talking about using rape and mutilation as tactics to demean and victimize a populace

i refer to companies using cartoon characters to market addictive and deadly products to children because their internal research indicates that the adult customers they have will all be dead soon and no rational adult will just start using their product , meanwhile blatantly and consistently lying to everyone about the nature of what they sell

im pointing out the existence of people who kidnap, rape, torture and murder children because it pleases them to do so

or a mother who locks her own children in the car and then drives it into a lake and later smiles at the idea that she has fooled the world

i agree that the word EVIL is misused often

i dont expect everyone to reach the same conclusion as i do, but when this topic comes up i am going to insist that it not ignore these things

i believe that it is trendy but shallow to say "oh theres no evil; its just an illusion of ego so people can feel righteous" and then go on and ignore the points i bring up

perhaps it is an illusion of ego so that one may feel righteous to assume oneself wise enough to say that evil is just an illusion of ego

ego can cut every direction here

maybe the word EVIL is outdated, perhaps we need a more modern vocabulary to address these issues

but these are the events and personalities and movements which hold up underscrutiny as being worthy of the label EVIL and therefore it is imo inappropriate to dismiss the label without addressing the issue

what are these things, if not evil? does the word not apply? does the concept have no merit even in this context? with what should it be replaced?

OB1Shinobi wrote: i believe that it is trendy but shallow to say "oh theres no evil; its just an illusion of ego so people can feel righteous" and then go on and ignore the points i bring up

I am not saying there is no such thing as Evil; Evil is a very real thing. The ego illusion involved is that the person doing the evil may not always consider it Evil. To me, real evil, true evil as heard growing up, is to do wrong things and be fully aware that they are wrong. Otherwise its not truly evil, its just ignorance; oblivious to the true nature of what you are doing.

I am not saying that unknowingly doing wrong when good was intended is acceptable, but it is far from abnormal. Everyone at some point or another has done wrong when they mean to do good, and that is normal.

The whole lesson of all of this is to be aware of the fact good intentions can lead to wrongdoing, trying to free oneself of ignorance. But at the same time, learning forgiveness for occasional ignorance.

if a villain believes himself justified does this mean he is not evil, or that his actions are not evil?

what about people who gradually work themselves into a viewpoint that promotes the doing of evil and convince themselves they are righteous?

if we exterminate the entire race and culture of the jawas
because they are sub human and a menace
and because we have been appointed by god
by his intent of our manifest destiny
to claim this desert in his honor
does that really make us holy knights on a virtuous errand?
because we have convinced ourselves that we are good in spite of what we do?

or are we evil because we do an evil thing, even if we rationalize it and justify it, the thing itself is evil and cannot be justified?

or is this a situation that needs language more sophisticated than merely "good" and "evil"?

OB1Shinobi wrote: if a villain believes himself justified does this mean he is not evil, or that his actions are not evil?

Yea that is why I use the biological measure of it specific to action against another living thing/s. Hence my earlier post.... pain and suffering are tangible things, so I don't see how they can be subjective in this context. At worst evil ranges from being a little bit... to a huge amount - but it is either evil or it is not, but since only Sith deal in absolutes (LOL :silly: ) it ideally then becomes about the measure of it, rather then whether its good or bad and for whom.

Knowingly increasing the suffering of anyone against their wishes, at any level, IMO removes the relevance of how good it might be for the person doing it... because they are no longer limiting their experience within themselves - therefore we [strike]must[/strike] probably should incorporate the other creatures involvement implicitly into the analysis.

I'll try and explain it another way.... so if then its good for the inflictor but bad for the receiver - there is simply no reason anymore to limit any one persons view as being representative of the both - either good because the inflictor thinks so or bad because the victim thinks so.

So then how do we assess the action? Two options come to mind;
a. Social/cultural values. I think as Jedi we'd refer to something pretty much like the Universal Charter of Human Rights - and in those circumstances the inflictor has no right to exert evil onto the victim - and therefore in real terms the act is evil.
or
b. Biological terms. The victim is suffering temporary or permanent deliberate suffering as a result of and with the knowledge of the inflictor - and therefore in real terms the act is evil.

I view them both as valid, because I think they are related, being of the same 'spirit'.... but (b) is easier to work with in reality as its not easy and sometimes impossible to make some cultural assessment of someones values to the extent to understand complex actions/rituals which might fall into this topic, so...

TLDR, are you trying to hurt someone in some way if yes then stop.... sort of thing.

This though presumes the definition of evil is something like the knowledge of someones level of suffering and the actions to increase or create suffering. If we change the definition then its usability changes too, and we go back to square one in working out a functional definition....

... that is IF we have a definition of evil!! As if we decide to no have a definition of evil or choose one which cannot actually be used - then it remains a nebulous concept to be thrown around with no real use beyond another tool to shape unstructured communication - which is not the end of the world either, but its often means things take a lot longer to sort themselves out ie destructive transformation v constructive transformation... as the only constant is change.
:lol: :pinch:

Adder wrote: Yea that is why I use the biological measure of it specific to action against another living thing/s.

Knowingly increasing the suffering of anyone against their wishes, at any level, IMO removes the relevance of how good it might be for the person doing it...

So then how do we assess the action? Two options come to mind;
a. Social/cultural values. I think as Jedi we'd refer to something pretty much like the Universal Charter of Human Rights - and in those circumstances the inflictor has no right to exert evil onto the victim - and therefore in real terms the act is evil.
or
b. Biological terms. The victim is suffering temporary or permanent deliberate suffering as a result of and with the knowledge of the inflictor - and therefore in real terms the act is evil.

I view them both as valid, ... but (b) is easier to work with in reality as its not easy and sometimes impossible to make some cultural assessment of someones values to the extent to understand complex actions/rituals which might fall into this topic, so...

TLDR, are you trying to hurt someone in some way if yes then stop.... sort of thing.

This though presumes the definition of evil is something like the knowledge of someones level of suffering and the actions to increase or create suffering. If we change the definition then its usability changes too, and we go back to square one in working out a functional definition....

... that is IF we have a definition of evil!! As if we decide to no have a definition of evil or choose one which cannot actually be used - then it remains a nebulous concept to be thrown around with no real use beyond another tool to shape unstructured communication - which is not the end of the world either, but its often means things take a lot longer to sort themselves out ie destructive transformation v constructive transformation... as the only constant is change.
:lol: :pinch:

--i edited just a little bit of your OP for clarity of what i am responding to - i hope this is ok --

i like the biological measure because once you can concretely identify a topic to its biological ramifications you can then speak of it in a way which is equally relevant to all people at all times, and is not so open to argument - "biology is not an opinion", basically

so i agree

you can even begin to discuss is in terms of evolution of the species, potentially, which i do feel is relevant, because there is a definite link between biological evolution and the development of culture

and some form of the idea of evil has been around for a LONG time - if not purely dualistic morality then at least in the sense of "hey, this is the ideal way for a person to be, and these are things which prevent one from reaching the ideal or which designate one as not having reached it"

and i think THAT way of seeing it has merit and offers value and has been useful to us

the one question which comes to my mind, in response to your definition

what of the instances in which the increasing of someone elses suffering can be justified by non selfish reasons?

like if a crazy gunman starts shooting people and i shoot him - i have increased his suffering, knowingly and deliberately, but most would consider this justifiable

so my question then is: is this act of mine justifiable, and if so, how does this affect the definition?
have i committed evil? or because of the presented context, is my action in fact good (or if not GOOD per se, then at least NOT EVIL?)

OB1Shinobi wrote: what of the instances in which the increasing of someone elses suffering can be justified by non selfish reasons?

like if a crazy gunman starts shooting people and i shoot him - i have increased his suffering, knowingly and deliberately, but most would consider this justifiable

Action, intention, circumstance.... would feed into determining how I'd define it, but is it justifiable? Yea I think so, its a form of self defense acting to support 'innocents' - the concept of innocent and guilt being about what the players intentions and actions are. The crazy gunman is clearly operating with a different intention then you would be in this purely hypothetical unrelated to current world events and no way an endorsement of getting involved in fighting crime response
:whistle:

OB1Shinobi wrote: so my question then is: is this act of mine justifiable, and if so, how does this affect the definition? have i committed evil? or because of the presented context, is my action in fact good (or if not GOOD per se, then at least NOT EVIL?)

Is it 'evil' to be to be evil against evil, or is it 'just', or perhaps 'good'.... these are all other ways to look at it. see once it's being expressed outwardly it stops being a personal issue and becomes a group issue. The context changes and more conditions are required to contextualize the increased complexity - not a lot though, but a little.

Putting it another way, is it evil in simple terms to shoot dead a crazed gunman slaughtering innocents seems like a loaded question. It doesn't feel like evil because our subconscious can handle the value of the other participants, yet the question is being framed squarely as a personal assessment in terms of an individual intention to action workflow - which to me is confusing different things.

I think it's [strike]wrong[/strike] potentially inaccurate/confusing to view it in terms of justice because that is a more complex circumstance, and its [strike]wrong[/strike] potentially inaccurate/confusing to view it in terms of good because that is a simplistic purely subjective assessment/condition. Compassionate and evil then are other terms we can assess the situation, but being closer might not mean it is the best or even appropriate terms to consider the example.

Is it evil.... it would depend on how you acted, as I'm inferring that your intention is strictly to stop the crazy gunman as fast as possible from the shooting spree.

So your question goes to the SW fiction as well in some capacity which also appeals to some real Jedi, with all that concept of least harm and negotiating or disarming before resorting to other measure...

...and I'd say the use of force is always an extension of intention (even if the person does not admit it, they are responsible for their actions). How to shape intention into action in these circumstances IMO falls into determining accurately the necessity of action, ensuring that the correct threat is distinguished from innocents, and that the response is 'proportional'.
The last one has some wiggly room, but in my personal opinion a Jedi would focus on least harm required to do the job - as being proportional.

TLDR; your not trying to increase the suffering, your trying to stop them from committing more serious crime. The intention is just different and therefore falls outside of the definition. Your action appears technically within the definition, but without the matched intention I'd say it therefore is not evil.

Rather than debating the existence of "EVIL" or "GOOD", I think the point of focus could be the relativity of the concepts. Mario is relatively good compared to the evil King Koopa, but only when considered in relation to each other. As a "kidnapper", King Koopa is less evil than say, a murderer. Mario, as a plumber smashing bricks, is less good than say, a doctor. All relatively speaking. In reality, neither is "good" or "evil" until compared to something else by a person who, being a person, will automatically apply some sort of judgement. Call a person whatever you like, but you're just putting a subjective label on them. Calling peanut butter "jelly" doesn't make it any more or less peanut buttery.

We can all call things "good" or "evil", but it is fair to say that these are constructs of human language and thinking, and therefore only exist in relation to our experiences. Our experiences will inform our own ideas of "good" and "evil", and no two people will ever completely agree.

To put it more simply, "good" and "evil" do not exist to a rock. A rock just "is". We just "are" as well, but unlike rocks, we like to categorize everything and over analyze our existence.

Senan wrote: ... unlike rocks, we like to categorize everything and over analyze our existence.

This is due to humans being the masters of recognizing patterns. Much of the things we do or have are the result of humans amazing ability to find patterns. But this is both a gift and a curse.

As you have pointed out, humans over categorize and give labels to people because they see a pattern in behavior (often leading to stereotypes). The hard part is trying to break this habit, and rather than judge people, learn to be nice to everyone.