The · Revels · of · the · Dead

It's all in how you define your terms, no? As in JCSuperstar, "Is truth unchanging law?" Is evil a static definition, or mutable?

Discuss. ;-)

Absolutely, everything is context. However, a situation being engineered by those with power to impose a lessening of service/lifestyle/opportunity for those without similar power pretty much always means evil in my understanding. I'm a big fan of both equality and reciprocity, and if this Op-Ed is on the money, this is anything but.

Larry and Sergey probably have a different dfinition of evil. Not that I agree with it, just that in the history of business practices in the country, greed+power tops "not being evil" 9.99999999...times out of 10. Ah, capitalism.

It's really a matter of presuming to think that what others call evil is precisely the same as what I call evil. It usually isn't, in my experience.

Sadly, "evil" has plenty of forms and guises it can take. I haven't thought about this enough, but I'll say it anyway to see how it floats: Maybe evil is the prioritization of the self over others, though sometimes there has to be necessary evil.

Uh oh, now you've turned into Macchiavelli! lol Lots of philosophers and theologicans could argue your last statement.

I do agree that evil is inherently self-oriented, the elevation of ME over all other considerations. That's actually probably closer to my definition, because it includes those evil cancers (et al.), active human choices, AND behaviors that start out as "stupid" and end in "evil" (drunken vehicular homicide comes to mind).

Srsly--turning to YA fiction now, where all problems are solved in less than 300 pages.

The simplest definition I've found is "morally objectionable behavior."

I find it morally objectionable to give people or institutions more of a voice and more advantages solely based on how much money they have. The Internet may possibily be the most important mass communication medium in history. To allow websites to be blocked or put on the "slow lane" out of economic interest seems evil to me.

~R

See...right there we have a problem, because I don't agree with that definition. That's just 'badness'. To me, calling a behavior "evil" puts it into the realm (pun intended) of something heinous and irreparable and beyond the pale.

In any case, we have to define "morally objectionable"--does that mean being gay or aligning with Westboro Baptist? Plus, I consider disease to be a major evil presence, but it's hardly "morally objectionable."

This is some very heavy shit for a Tuesday morning. I'm going to go catalog some young adult novels about vampires for awhile. :-D

Can we agree that the idea of good and evil are moral constructs of the sentient human brain? There is no such thing as good or evil in the natural world. A sea gull doesn't eat a baby sea turtle hurrying towards the sea because it's evil - it does so because it's hungry. I'd also say disease is not good or evil. It simply is. Only mankind, which can construct a moral code of how to live, can discern good and evil. Thus, this conversation is entirely subjective. What's evil to one person is not evil to another, since evil is based on each person's personal subjective moral code (your gay example).

What I'm trying to convince you, I suppose, is that Google's actions constitute evil by the average person's definition in our particular culture. We have to create a basis for what that "evil" is or Google's "Don't be evil" code means nothing. If Google itself recognizes a commonly accepted moral code, was its latest action evil? I would say yes. It's creating a system for the haves and have nots - a system where Google in its infancy may not have succeeded. That's gotta be evil by their own code, don't you think?

~R

Yes, I agree: evil is subjective. Very much so. It's a matter of finding common ground as a society and then negotiating the parts we don't agree with.

...and I don't think we can agree about Google being evil. Google is doing something people like you (and me, and Drew, et al.) rather vehemently despise, but that doesn't necessarily make them evil any more than pulling out in front of me and doing 15 mph under the speed limit is evil.

I think my whole point is that Google management never defined "evil" in their point of view, and it's a rather facile statement. I've always thought that. IMO, "evil" should really be reserved for truly horrible things--genocide, etc.--not this sort of thing.

The big picture...is what @vex said: the world runs on money (power), not goodness. Why yes, as a matter of fact, I am a cynic. In my little corner of the world, I try to beat back the creeping evil, but I will never be able to 'cure' it across the universe. It's like kudzu. And this last bit is what makes it so very easy to give up and give in, which I think is what we all think Larry and Sergey have done. No?

K, I'm leaving the country for a funeral so you'll have to debate the issue while I face it head-on. Death=The Great Evil.

I am in no way defending google, however they are not the only company trying to defeat net neutrality. The days of internet where every entity on it is treated equally are numbered. The world runs on profit and the current business model of the internet doesn't maximize profit to the exclusion of anything else. Morality, equality, fairness, they all pale in comparison to profit.

Someone is eventually going to kill net neutrality to make a few more bucks for their shareholders and there's nothing we're going to be able to do about it.

*sigh*... this makes me sad. Well... I'm putting my money back into microsfot.

So I did a little more research. If you want to read the proposal yourself it is here: http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/vzw-google-net.pdf. However there are two real contentious issues:

1st the management of broadband data over wireless networks; which verizon and Google apparently agreeing that it should be left to the company to do so however they see fit: BUT They need to be transparent about how they do it. For example if they block bit torrent over wireless, they need to be forthcoming to customers that they are.

That being said: the future of the internet is in wireless broadband 4G and so forth. Which has much greater capabilities then 3G (about 10 X)

2nd is that this also takes most of the power away from the FCC and puts it into the hands of a 3rd party for enforcement. Again I am not entirely sure how I feel about that, especially with how strongly the FCC does feel about net neutrality these days.

The rest is fairly contiguous with net neutrality.

Also the "Additional Online services" thing could become iffy depending on where the technology goes. But thats neither here nor now.

Considering the abuses of corporate entities elsewhere, I'll proudly wear my Scarlet 'S' and push for government oversight over private oversight; at least we can vote the bastards out.

"Don't be evil" is no aegis.

Although I am partial and very fond of Google, in part for there motto of "Don't Be Evil".... I'll totally agree to that.

...unless the FCC steps in. That's why we need government to protect us from companies, whose only motivation is profit.

~R