Philosophical Question?

[Baitman]

But how do you know that the bad man is bad and the good man is good?  Maybe the good man is the bad man but made it look as if the other guy was the bad man so you would go kill him while the presumed good man made some nice profits.  Not talking about WWII here.  Just saying, how do you know the good man is good?  Is it because you may look like him, you are more familiar with him and his ways, or just based on the news?

Yes depends on how you look at a situation who is who.

Maybe the good man is the bad man but made it look as if the other guy was the bad man so you would go kill him while the presumed good man made some nice profits. 

You aren't bringing up the fact about Grampa Bush selling to the Germans in WWII are you

[Sloehand]

For myself on this question, and most others like it, I simplify the reasoning process by asking two questions.

What was the actual intention of the Good Man, as best as can be determined by 'me'?

Could his 'action' to fulfill his intention be considered appropriate under the circumstances (especially to him, given what he could reasonably have known at the time), or was it arbitrarily and/or negligently and/or irresponsibly determined and excecuted?

If is intention was correct, honorable and 'right' by the judging standards, but he irresponsibly did not look at all possible options or take proper precautions, or otherwise manage his actions then, given a disasterous outcome, he could be considered just as evil as the Bad Man.  i.e. a loose cannon.

But if judged his intention was correct and proper (to stop the bad man) under the circumstances, and also judged that he made every reasonable (subjective yes, but something the judging party must decide) effort to find the 'best' solution before acting, and executed that action to the best of his ability, then he cannot be considered equal to the Bad Man at all.  

And like everything else in the universe except gravity, this is not an absolute process.  But it is the best one going for me.  

[Sloehand]

And in case anyone was wondering, this is how I judge people to somehow injure me.  Was it really their intention to do so and/or were they acting reasonably (in a way that I might act under the same circumstances).

People impact other people unintentionally everyday, without malice, but rightfully in pursuit of their own happiness or necessity.  Unless they intend harm, or act very negligently/irresponsibly, I usually cannot condemn them as evil or bad.  However, it doesn't mean that I don't, if needs must be met, defend or protect myself from them.

[dedalos]

You aren't bringing up the fact about Grampa Bush selling to the Germans in WWII are you

Hehe, nop, just the fact that everyone is fighting the bad man.  It is all a matter of perspective.  Last I checked, no one went to war against the "good" man, so how does the good man going to fight the bad man knows that he is the good man?  Could he possibly be wrong?  It cant be that they are all good.  That would be insane.  Good man fighting good man?  Now, could bad man fight bad man?

And why isn't the leader good man and bad man ever in front?  Why do they always lead from far away?  Wait a minute . . . . Something is not right here    Could it be?  Nahhhhh, the good man would never lie to get you to give your life.  That would make him the bad man.

I am so confused 

[Zazen13]

There's some very interesting and thought provoking replies here, but some are making this question far more complicated than it really is. You must assume the "good" and "bad" is the purely objective version, how a benevolent and omniscient Deity would consider them. Not many sane people would consider themselves bad and no mortal being is pure good. So, individual self-perception is really of no consequence for the purpose of this question. The presumption of extreme polar opposites allows for a more meaningful answer not confused with subjective judgements of motives and perspective.

[Anaxogoras]

Jesus will be very sad to hear that he was in fact evil...

Bingo.  I am not a Christian.

[Baitman]

No army in the world ever went to War to fight the good guys. They (doesn't matter which side) always were the good (or right) fighting the bad (or evil). 

[whiteman]

Yes. i use to not but had enough bozos come flying through large fields with all the ack up kill me while landing, everyone is fair game now. dead stick, out of gas and landing I'll kill you.

[Bronk]

To me, evil is precisely the notion that good is the sacrifice of oneself for another. 

Yup it's all about whats good for you. 

[dedalos]

There's some very interesting and thought provoking replies here, but some are making this question far more complicated than it really is. You must assume the "good" and "bad" is the purely objective version, how a benevolent and omniscient Deity would consider them. Not many sane people would consider themselves bad and no mortal being is pure good. So, individual self-perception is really of no consequence for the purpose of this question. The presumption of extreme polar opposites allows for a more meaningful answer not confused with subjective judgements of motives and perspective.

I confused am no more 

[dedalos]

No army in the world ever went to War to fight the good guys. They (doesn't matter which side) always were the good (or right) fighting the bad (or evil). 

  exactly.  Both sides fight for what they know is right or belongs to them.  The winner gets to be the good guy.

[Zazen13]

No army in the world ever went to War to fight the good guys. They (doesn't matter which side) always were the good (or right) fighting the bad (or evil). 

Actually, most wars thoughout history were fought for two reasons, neither of which require a noble moral imperative.

Power and Self-Preservation.

[yanksfan]

I'll bite...Because I can't resist this sort of thing..It's a sickness.

This is actually a fundamental question in hostage situations (or hunting terrorists). The bad man is the unknown chaotic destructive principle. The good man is the controlable known force. The bad man is worse. The reasoning is the bad man's potential to kill is theoretically infinite. By killing the bad man, even if some others die in the process, you are reducing the potential for lost life to the theoretical minimum. If you fail to even attempt to kill the bad man for fear of killing others you actually guarantee maximum lives lost theoretically to infinity. So, any attempt to kill the bad man, in terms of pure logic, assuming it's ultimately successful, is worth almost any number of lives...

 Obviously, humans are not ruled purely by logic, emotions hold sway. So, in reality, the logically correct sacrifice won't always be made as the price seems too high or casualties mount in the attempt to the point where they are deemed unsustainable and the good man fails to defeat the bad man. But, once the decision is made to sacrifice a finite amount of life to prevent the possibly infinite loss of life, it has to be ultimately successful no matter the cost in escalating fashion. If not ultimately successful, the good man has, in effect,  become an unwitting instrument of the bad man by indirectly contributing to his continued potential threat of theoretically infinite life taking.

What he said

[pluck]

hmm, what if the bad man wins.....

then the good man, may end up killing many more trying to catch the bad man....and in the end, when the history books are written, the bad man becomes the good man.

so it is possible for the good man to become the bad man, the worse man.....or was it that way from the beginning, only mislabled?

[Zazen13]

exactly.  Both sides fight for what they know is right or belongs to them.  The winner gets to be the good guy.

The study of military history will show this is often not the case. States go to war for other reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with any subjective concept of relative good or bad (power, resources, self-preservation, political ideology, ethnicity, religion. etc.). It is the task of the political leadership to imbue its populace and fighting forces with a moral "cause" for which to fight that may have nothing or very little to do with the real reason for war. This is the essence of propaganda. It's really quite fascinating to study this aspect of military history. The lengths political states go through to attempt to fabricate some kind of "good" vs. "evil" justification meant to serve as a catalyst to motivate its population and fighting men is amazing.

There are many countries that go to war for other reasons, but fail to create a moral imperative that its populace can truly believe in, the outcome is almost always defeat. It is almost impossible to successfully wage a protracted war without a collective sense of moral justification. But, a collective moral impetus is never a prerequisite to go to war and can even be established or reinforced after the fact by the political leadership. This is the reason countries on the brink of defeat vigorously destroy information and victorious countries seek to uncover and document atrocities for public consumption, for the denial of and quest for a retroactive moral imperative for war.