Bad guy wants to destroy the universe so it can be remade without evil or war and what he does in this universe wont...

If he wants to make a new universe, he can wait until we're all done with this one. How about we turn him to stone with a 100 trillion year timer on it, then he can do whatever he wants.

Autocorrecting my tags was extremely painful

>Veeky Forums cannot refute on why this is bad

A lot of loyalty for a bunch of neckbeards

It basically comes down to selfish reasons, and figuring the guy will just cock it up anyway.

>Is forcing a subjective judgement on other people without due authority or consultation.
>May fuck up and destroy the universe or make it worse
Two great reasons from the thread.

Two great reasons in less then 14 posts, no less

Maybe they're thinking why would someone would bother asking a man such an easily asnwered question.

Ends don't justify means, user. Didn't your parents teach you anything?

JUST LET ME DO WHAT I NEED TO DO AND ALL THE BAD THINGS I DID WOULD HAVE HAPPENED

EVERYONE WINS IN THE END DONT YOU SEE

20 MINUTES

Because people who break rules are scum, people who abandon their friends are worse than scum

...

OP's premise runs on the same logic that your pic did and probably has just as much knowledge about what the actual results would be. So on the one hand, better universe tomorrow and on the other hand, Total annihilation.

I have my reservations about such a plan.

the problem with that is that we'd all still die, but it would just be another version of us in this new world. I don't want me and everyone else to die, so I'll just stop this plan.

>muh grey morals no such thing as good and evil
You are all pussy ass limp dicks cowards

That's how the "sealed evil" became a problem in the first place. Someone fucked up when setting the timer.

>links to clear cut denouncement of the action as evil
>OH WOW GRAY-AND-GRAY MORALITY ALSO DICKS

Ok, it's evil. Better?
also (You).

>Is it evil?
Clearly.
See: every obvious reason in this thread.

Better question: Is it a necessary evil?
Is it worth it if it can end evil and war?

Surely Evil will always pop up sooner or later.

Wars kill a lot of people, but this action would kill literally everybody.

If you torture 100 innocent children in order to save 1 million lives, is it considered an evil act?

No, it's not a necessary evil, and evil and war may be bad, but they won't destroy everyone and everything we love like this guy's plan, even if he could guarantee that it will work the way he says it will.

Even supposing he can somehow prove it will work, if he can't get the assent of every thinking being in the universe before killing them, then it's still wrong, and his only option is I certainly don't want to die just so there can exist a better version of me living a happier life. I mean, great for him, but I'll still be dead along with everyone I know and love. Fuck that.

I'll just quote somebody from back during the Guantanamo Bay scandal:
"I'm sure you could concoct some elaborate scenario where you just HAD to expose yourself to a classroom full of children or a bomb would go off and kill people, but if you keep pushing that story at every opportunity, really pushing it, I'm gonna start to suspect that it's not really about saving lives at all."

This hinges on several different problems:
>What does 'destroying the universe' entail? Utter annihilation to the point where there would be no way of seriously suggesting someone from the old world lives as they did before?
If so, yes. Simply moving everyone around without altering their minds while the landscape changed to become more amiable probably gets a pass.
>Without evil or war: How the hell is this accomplished? Is it actually removing evil and war in such a way that everyone not only agrees, but does so voluntarily, or is it just making things look hunky dory through mind control so the bad guy can feel good about himself, or, better yet, doesn't actually fix jack shit because the bad guy is imperfect/a fucking moron/insane?
If it's not the first option, yes, that's evil.
Protip: It's not going to be the first option.
Repeat ad infinitum.

>bad guy wants to go back in time to change some horrific past event, but he's killing and maiming everyone in the way of his development of the time machine. The suffering he's causing won't matter, since he'll literally rewind time and make space-hitler die before he starts his final solution.
Is it evil?

Why exactly are they different from a program? Unless you assume existence of souls there's nothing else.

To stay away form the path of evil is simple. Do nothing. Inaction can never be evil.

>Is it evil?
Depends on the metric you're using to define that term.

It is obviously not 'objectively' evil, however.

Dude, the ends cannot be used to justify the means. If the means are evil, the act is evil, no matter what happens in the end.

According to one specific conception of good and evil, obviously not the consequentialist one the person you're responding to believes in.

Evil is still Evil.

This isn't fucking rocket science. Why the fuck are there so many people going "If I do this horrible ungodly act to prevent other ungodly acts then did I really do said ungodly act?" Yes, you fucking did. You tortured those 100 children, you burned down that poor village, you did whatever. Nothing bout the future is going to change that.

Only if you think the consequences aren't important.

Because we are supposed to live with them, then creating things like "empathy", "friendship" that are essential for a society to work correctly.
Except maybe for a bunch of crazy, nobody really considers programs as living creatures. Much less living creatures as simple programs.

And if he fails, what then? It wasn't evil after all, just misguided?

Destroying lives and harming people for your selfish greed is evil. That you MIGHT undo these things is irrelevant - you're obviously capable of doing the same goddamn horrible shit to people even if you do succeed at making it all unhappen.

THAT'S what makes you an evil sonofabitch and why the ends never justify the means. You're always capable and willing to use the same ends.

Nigga, the consequences don't change what you did. You don't just delete the last 4o hours of your life after you do something horrible. That's not how it fucking works.

Was it necessary? Maybe. Was it still evil? Absolutely.

He's evil until he succeeds.

But why doean't he try time travel instead.

>evil is one specific, objective thing
Nah, evil is a term we use to identify preferences. What makes things good or evil is dependent upon the means by which those terms are defined. Sometimes it's a deontological ethics where the action itself is good or bad regardless of intent, character, or consequence. Other times, like with virtue ethics, the intent and character of the person acting is what matters. Then there's the most common ethic, consequentialism, and utilitarianism specifically, where what matters is the consequence, and only whether good is maximized, setting aside the issue of suffering. There's variations on all these, including the negative utilitarians, who believe in minimizing evil above maximizing good, or the absolute autonomists, who believe that rebellion against hierarchy, including your own moral code, is necessary and good, as it shows you are in control of yourself.

Point is, there is no "right answer" to this question, or any moral question. There are a multitude of equally valid, equally arbitrary answers.

Is evil necessarily bad?

The whole universe is just a perfect simulation of itself. If you erase people then there is no one to classify things as "evil" - and without actual consciousness "evil" has no meaning.

If you destroy the universe you also destroy all meanings of judging things as "good" or "evil" or "neutral". It's just literally nothing.

Not to mention he isn't killing anybody. If he destroys the universe together with time from their perspective nothing exactly changes (hue)

Things get complicated when you add time travel. All the evil acts done literally will not happen (under some explanation of closed time-like curves, if thre many-worlds interpretation is true, then it's back to OP's post).

You don't delete the last 4 hours in your life, but you do in everyone else's lives.

Consequentialism is bullshit though. It can be used to justify anything, even the most monstrous evils.

No, no, no. You get to GO back. You aren't exactly reversing time. You are just loading up a different save file. Everything you've done still happened. It just hasn't happened in the timeline you're in now. By that logic, the past you isn't exactly Evil. So no one can call the cops, is what I'm saying. But your actions in the future aren't erased. They're still there.

Maybe, but there are things that are objectively bad. Well, one thing comes to mind: initiating aggression.

Pretty much per definition, yes.

Ah, now it becomes more difficult to judge because supposedly no one would know that shit went down except you and you don't thinkwhat you're doing is Evil.

Without an outside perspective, you can justify pretty much everything this way. But that'd kinda ruin the hypothetical part.

So, what you're saying is.. so long as I kill everyone quickly then morality doesn't have time to catch me and put me in evil jail?

What if you don't go back, as in hop into a portal to the past, but literally rewind time making it go backwards, undoing every event one by one? Think Nox from Wakfu actually succeeding.

>Consequentialism is bullshit though
According to your subjective value structure, sure. It is not actually inferior in any objective way to any other scheme of right and wrong.
>Maybe, but there are things that are objectively bad
No other way to put this than that you're simply wrong. Evil is a subjective term.

Depends. Are those 1,000,000 people actually saved or are they going to die soon regardless.

Morality can't be faster than light.

that dog was a cunt, give me better dog you ass

CRASHING THIS PLANE OF EXISTENCE

this is what you were waiting for right?

Well then, explain initiating aggression in a light that will make it not bad.

Yeah, if he opposes what I'm doing he's obviously the badguy because I am a hero of justice

>According to your subjective value structure, sure. It is not actually inferior in any objective way to any other scheme of right and wrong.

Smells like sophistry to me. If you can poke holes in the philosophy and show that it breaks down under scrutiny and becomes self-contradictory, it's bullshit. And consequentialism is passe in modern philosophy for good reason.

You idiot. You're one of the programs. Let's just kill you.

New but similar scenario.
>You can split timelines and take different actions in each.
>After a while you can keep one timeline and delete the other.
If I murder literally everyone in the deleted timeline, but there's no evidence I did anything, is it an evil act?

but will it be better? can you prove it empirically to the current timeline and persuade them they should lay down their existence for the refresh?

if no then evil for unethical duress

if he succeeds he was still evil, but right

Hey guys if I killed a guy in a gas station rest stop but they never caught me, is it still murder?

Your scenario assumes that the other timeline is simply nonexistent after the fact instead of running parallel with the current one

Yes, the ethical thing would be to destroy all of existence and make it impossible for anything to come about again.
>not being an antifrustrationist

>tfw your universe is terrible because everyone kept trying to mitigate evil and created a backlog of monstrosities that all somehow happened to come out of their various containment apparati around the same time as each other

Ultimatums are such a LAZY approach. There's always a third way.

everyone dies eventually, so you really haven't done anything of note at all that won't be extinguished within a generation

Yes, in this case waiting until the heat death of the universe, or near enough, means he can destroy this one without killing anyone.

>everyone dies eventually

So it's okay if I kill you today to take your stuff, then?

"The end justifies the mean" is a flawed principle. There are always better means to achieve your end and you're not choosing them for whatever reason.
Bad guy is either too lazy to bring some actual good into the world (and looking for an easy way out instead), too stubborn and self-centered to see other options and acknowledge good people's ability to change the world, or looking for an excuse to destroy the universe.

>Evil is a subjective term.
You are wrong too.
Evil, like all moral principles and categories, are NORMATIVE, not subjective. It's established by a social consensus and arbitration, and it's identified and punished or avoided because it had some form of highly disruptive or destructive impact on the survivability of the particular social group.

Ethics come in many flavors, but morality itself is a FUNCTIONAL device, existing to facilitate cooperation as an absolutely INTERGRAL evolutionary tool of our survival, and it's always established and facilitated on SOCIAL levels, through normative institutions.
So it's not subjective, even if it isn't objective either.

Consequentialism is still the most important and influential ethical intuition in the world, especially the western one. Saying it's a "passe" in modern philosophy is laughably wrong, especially considering growing influences of neo-marxist philosophy and utilitarianism (both are actually connected to each other) across mainstream public and academia alike.

Evil prevails when good men do nothing.

Inaction when you can do something and claim that good is worth anything is itself evil.

>neo-marxist philosophy and utilitarianism

More garbage.

Damn, sorry for the name tag. Please pretend that did not happen...

At the end of the day he'll know what he did.

Aggression itself may be considered an axiomatic good. There are a billion ways that it can be considered good by virtue of its impact, and many belief systems that hold aggressive conduct in high moral regard.

I'm not a consequentialist, so I don't feel compelled to defend it, but the fact is that regardless its seeming integrity, there is a point at which it can be accepted for what it is, flaws and all, at which point there is no way to mount a critique.

>evil is normative
No, it /can be/ normative. Evil is defined by individuals, and sometimes those individuals shift the burden of that definition towards theoretical objects like "society", but ultimately it will come back to the axioms of a mind who has that preference.

It may be garbage, but it is here to stay for a while and there is not much we can do about it. I'm merely pointing out that consequentialism still features a major role in conteporary philosophy as well as general public moral intuitions.

>waiting
4u

You could turn it the other way around:
Good prevails when evil men do nothing.
Inaction is inherently neither good nor evil.

It's also okay if I disagree with your homocide on a personal whim and decide to kill you in self-defence

All actions are equally invalid, it doesn't matter which one you choose and you cannot refrain from choosing, so just make a choice and live with it.

But then he can't exist outside the universe to make a new one
If he can, so can others whose plans he fucked up by unmaking the universe.

Good can also prevail in the face of evil and vice versa, what are you trying to get at?

Yes. You inflict suffering on one group to inflict your plans upon another.

>No, it /can be/ normative.
No, evil is a moral category. All moral categories are by definitions normative. They also do manifest themselves on phenomenological level, and as such are part of subjective experience set, but that is really only a secondary problem.
Morality exists and evolved as a social behavior regulation tool. That is it's only real raison d'être, it's only function. The fact that sometimes, the concepts start as subjective feelings that only over time get institutionalized is largely irrelevant: we only speak of morality, and morality only trully exists as a relevant concept exclusively in juxtaposition to society, only through it's normative function. As long as judgement remains subjective, it's not a moral judgement, it's a mere state of preference.
The moment said preference becomes a normative and starts systematically affecting group dynamics, ONLY THEN we can speak about morality, or ethics. Individual perspective does not actually play any real relevance in this regard.
And evil is a moral category. So it has to be a normative category too. Some people might treat it as subjective, and we might tolerate that due to charity principle, but technically speaking they are using the term wrong.

Logan's problem was that he had his priorities are fucked up.
He was given a warning years in advance, yet he barely had a standing army by the time you rebelled.
And the Russian gypsies? Why the fuck did he not approach their leader, who believes in magic and tales of heroes, and just say,

"Yo, so a seer revealed to me a being made of fear itself is preparing to attack us, join me or not, but you should probably start fortifying."

that's a semantic argument for the neutrality of occurence, but I was arguing that a moral imperative to do good implies that taking no preventative or obstructive action in the face of evil when an opportunity is available or might be made available constitutes the inactor tacitly approving of the evil event rather than claiming to be a neutral party

BUT

such a person is only committing evil inaction if he explicitly upholds good as imperative rather than merely something one agrees with to be approved of by one's peers

that is, if you are or claim to be a good person you must act against evil when you may put a force against it or else you are not a good person

claiming neutrality is a slippery position because at some point you will be forced to stand to one side or another out of sheer self-interest, so in the end of all things, the judgement of an action can be reduced to the good/evil binary and the appearance of a neutral position only waived as a superpositional state that has yet to collapse into a moral resolution

>bio-neuro-evolutionary shit
Yeah, no, that's all post-facto fixation on worthless bullshit.

We start at the mind and the mind builds everything out from itself.

>Yeah, no, that's all post-facto fixation on worthless bullshit.
Yeah, empiric reality and it's recognition is such an awful thing to recognize. I mean, it's not like our cognition and our existence are directly tied to it. Let's ignore the absolute majority of our existing knowledge of the world that surrounds us because GO SOLIPSISM, IT MAKES ME FEEL IMPORTANT.

No, kid. You are merely a coward and don't like to face the reality that that reality transcends you, not vice versa. Losing the feeling of your own uniqueness does kinda hurt.

>neutrality is a wave function of the good/evil binary and no true third state exists objectively
>everything is black and white and claiming the grey position is actually just most probably cleverly disguised evil
that's some next level shit

>materialism
Nah, see, if you're actually shilling this mechanistic ridiculous bullshit, then you can stop talking about any of this because you're a p-zombie.

What we know to be true is cogito ergo sum, that's it. Reality is just window dressing designed to distort and distract you from the truth.

Goes in tow with this retarded "let's break everything and start over" argument.

He's committing murder, and assuming that his ideal world is somehow better than a world built up by millions of other people who came before him, and probably know better than him despite what his mom said about him when he graduated high school. Utopia doesn't exist, and the very idea of it is a lazy facade to cover up the flaws of humanity. So yes it is evil since it will accomplish nothing that will truly benefit anyone other than himself. He just wants his world his way. He wants to control everything to fit his ideals, and destroy everything that is contrary to them like a... murdering totalitarian dictator perhaps? That logic is how democracies decay. It's no longer for the people,is for one guy promising that his vision is better for the people

>a train is hurtling down the tracks towards three rail workers trapped on the line
>you can throw a switch and save them
>but then two teenagers in a yugo stalled on a rail crossing will be killed
>what do you do?

in your case flipping the switch is evil because it kills people
not flipping the switch is also evil because you're allowing people to die by inaction

Clearly the answer is multi-track drifting!

Doesn't matter if its evil. You expect people to just lay down and and say
>yeah just go ahead and destroy me along with everything I know and love. I totally trust that your intentions are good.

The cost is too high, and the good isn't guaranteed at the end.