• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    910 months ago

    I disagree with that interpretation. Evil shouldn’t be going out of your way to cause harm, it should be willingly causing harm to get your way. The harm is the method, not the goal.

    Like, a good person driving down the road will swerve and crash their car to avoid hitting a dog. A neutral person would stop the car and see if they can move the dog, or at least drive around it. An evil person wouldn’t even slow down. Why should they have to be a minute late because some idiot dog decided to stand in the wrong place?

    Meanwhile, if the evil person swerved and crashed their car to hit a dog who wasn’t even on the road, their car would be wrecked and their journey would be totally ruined. They’d be just as foolish as the good person. If you’re going to have your actions bound by the same restrictive moral guidelines as good people in a new coat of paint, you might as well be good.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      110 months ago

      You’ve got some fair points, and in agree with you - I was just still waking up when I wrote my original comment and misrepresented what I meant a bit. Will edit and update my comment later.