3 ms·

Just a thought experiment: What if we define The Good as unity, and evil as the ratio of The Good to relative attainment of the The Good. We might then define

Just a thought experiment: What if we define The Good as unity, and evil as the ratio of The Good to relative attainment of the The Good. We might then define compounded evil as a ratio of The Good to the multiplication of the denominators of each ratio-evil consider on its own. So an act of torture might be (/ 1 ½) and three acts of torture would be (/ 1 ⅛).

lisper 12y ago
(/ 1 ½) == 2, and (/ 1 ⅛) == 8, so you're just mapping n onto 2^n. How is that supposed to change anything? You still have a total order and no upper or lower bound, which is all that matters.
- michaelsbradley 12y ago
  The multiples of ½ were arbitrary, just an illustration re: denominators. Also, your points above are well taken; I was simply trying to come at the matter (and my previous points) with a bit more precision than I had previously, but I cut my elaborations short as I needed to run out the door. So with my idea above, you would basically have two notions for assigning magnitude to evil. Absolute evil would be defined as the complete absence of good in a person or other locus of circumstances and acts. So the greatest real evil would a fixed value, "zero good", and "negative amounts of good" would be a void construct. The other notion of evil, "evil considered", would be a metaphor for understanding how evil gets compounded according to our usual perception that some lives and acts are more evil than others. It's basically a "score" which doesn't correspond directly to any substance.
  - lisper 12y ago
    > Absolute evil would be defined as the complete absence of good in a person or other locus of circumstances and acts. But evil is more than the mere absence of good. There are affirmative evil acts (rape, murder, torture) so you can always become more evil by performing more evil acts.

3 ms·

Just a thought experiment: What if we define The Good as unity, and evil as the ratio of The Good to relative attainment of the The Good. We might then define

by michaelsbradley 12y ago

lisper 12y ago
(/ 1 ½) == 2, and (/ 1 ⅛) == 8, so you're just mapping n onto 2^n. How is that supposed to change anything? You still have a total order and no upper or lower bound, which is all that matters.
- michaelsbradley 12y ago
  The multiples of ½ were arbitrary, just an illustration re: denominators. Also, your points above are well taken; I was simply trying to come at the matter (and my previous points) with a bit more precision than I had previously, but I cut my elaborations short as I needed to run out the door. So with my idea above, you would basically have two notions for assigning magnitude to evil. Absolute evil would be defined as the complete absence of good in a person or other locus of circumstances and acts. So the greatest real evil would a fixed value, "zero good", and "negative amounts of good" would be a void construct. The other notion of evil, "evil considered", would be a metaphor for understanding how evil gets compounded according to our usual perception that some lives and acts are more evil than others. It's basically a "score" which doesn't correspond directly to any substance.
  - lisper 12y ago
    > Absolute evil would be defined as the complete absence of good in a person or other locus of circumstances and acts. But evil is more than the mere absence of good. There are affirmative evil acts (rape, murder, torture) so you can always become more evil by performing more evil acts.