Wikipedia talk:Beyond Good and Evil/Evil

No, I don't want this to be adopted, and yes, I am making a WP:POINT (which is allowed in discussion, of course). But I mean really, its not given to any person or institution to opt out of morality. It just isn't. We are all moral players in the world whether we want to be or not. Herostratus 00:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Even Worse than WP:NOT EVIL
I am going to stick with the point I made in Wikipedia Talk:NOT evil, which I was opposed to as well, and say that this is an NPOV violation. Any policy accepting that there is or is not an objective definition of good and evil is an NPOV violation, and any policy endorsing one over the other is even more an NPOV violation. Furthermore, unlike NE, which at least accepts that it is overridden by other policies, this policy says that there is no reason to follow any other policy, essesntially endorsing vandalism, and even libel, in the name of evil. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. --Samael775 22:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And Besides... the logic is wrong
"But, absent any moral sense, and all things being equal, doing evil is more likely to provide benefit, whether material or emotional, which is why evil exists."

Isn't particularly true. Doing 'evil' in the sense you are talking about usually provides benefit to an individual at the cost of detriment to the group (though not always, some evil just provides detriment to another or a group). Since you are talking about making this a policy on a group project which benefits and detriments from the same entity, (i.e. the accuracey and usefulness of the information provided), your logic is false. Because often times, by doing this 'evil' you are talking about, you are actually speaking of benefiting the group, which means you are actually suggesting we do good. Which in and of itself is a pretty meaningless thing to say. It doesn't tell us how we are to go about making things good. Or even what good is. And so now we are in a posistion where we must define evil and good and what they mean, and if they are contextual including if their meanings vary from person to person. Which means, we are back to where we began, for what difference does it make if we are calling something evil when the meaning behind it is synonymous with good? You also say the reasons stated is why evil exists, I won't go into that one, but lets just say your conclusion lacks sufficient evidence. Does the inspiration for this have anything to do with Google's slogan of "Don't be evil?"...


 * You're correct. In fact, doing evil often doesn't, in fact, provide benefit even to the individual, at least in the long run. I might in a theoretical zero-sum game, but in real life people one interacts with have outside information: your reputation. Once you get a reputation as evildoer, your freedom to do more evil becomes constrained. Also, yes, evil exists not mainly because of any rational material benefit it provides but for other more complicated reasons. It's attractive in and of itself, for one thing. It's fun, or can be. Anyway, yes, there is that logical weakness at the crux of the article. I saw it, but then again, the article was just written out of frustration at being unable to get WP:NOT EVIL accepted. The way I figure, either WP:NOT EVIL or WP:EVIL, it's got to be one or the other... Herostratus 02:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If Wikipedia isn't evil/good - then it might be mere self-expression. Art you might say... --Knucmo2 20:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)