Good and Evil

Edric O · July 20, 2001

Mahdi, I found the topic with our old argument! It's called "Next Dune Game Houses/Story" and I bumped it in the Dune 2000 forum.

Mahdi · July 20, 2001

Thanks Edric, I think I said most of what I wanted to say in it, and don't feel like typing it all over again:)

However, I'll make a quick post:

The big question you are all facing is "Does the end justify the means".

That is a personal, and societal question. The answer changes from culture to culture, with a bit of variation between each person.

But in the end, the question of whether Paul's Jihad which saved humanity was good or evil is the same question of whether or not you would lie to someone to prevent them from being hurt, it is only a matter of scale. In western culture, scale is all important, although it shouldn't be. If you are truly ethical, scale should mean nothing. For example, let's try this scenario: First, since most of us are from democratic countries, we live by the code Innocent until proven guilty. You also have mentioned that one of the reasons that made Paul so evil was that his Jihad killed innocent people. Now, the scenario: Knowing that Hitler was going to kill 5.5 million Jews in concentration camps (along with .5 million slavs), and that he would be the leading cause of WW 2 (Not the only cause), and you were sent back in time to when he was a 3 year old boy, would you kill him?

If you said yes, then by your own logic, you are evil. Hitler is innocent at that age, none of the atrocities attributed to him have happened. Hell, he doesn't even have cognitave memory yet. You jsut killed an innocent in cold blood. Not only that, but you found him guilty of crimes he hasn't even committed, violating your belief that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. And, finally, you jsut violated your belief that the end does not justify the means. But could you have lived with yourself if you hadn't? You would have been responsible for the halocaust, for ww2. How could you have lived with yourself knowing that? Knowing that you are just as evil as he because you are as responsible for the same things as him because you had the power to stop him. What's that old saying? All it takes for evil to succeed is for a good man to do nothing? And if you do nothing to stop evil, how good are you?

garth · July 20, 2001

I'll look for specific passages from the books on casualties of the jihad later, I don't have the time to look through them all now.

First off let me say this: it's pointless discussing which house is more good or more evil than one other because they are all equally bad! It's like asking someone who was better of these three: Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Ghenghis Kahn.

I don't know where you're getting off on this Ordos thing either, I'm somehow connected with the Ordos even though I have said absolutely nothing about one House being better than another, and especially not Ordos. They're all equally foul as far as I'm concerned. Stop with the personal attacks Fedaykin, I haven't done a thing to you and it's very childish and immature.

ordos45 · July 20, 2001

Something we all overlook is what I call the martyr factor. If Edric killed himself seeing a jihad being waged in his name it is possible that his followers would declare him a martyr. If Paul had killed himself during the Jihad under the Atreides banner then it is possible he would be declared a martyr as well. But, the martyr factor itself is rhetoric in a sense as well. Different futures could have been achieved but at what cost to humanity.

As for the Hitler killing as a child I was once in a role play about time travel when that came up. In the RP I refused to kill him and stopped one of my team members from doing so. If he was killed how many of those millions he'd kill would become murderers or evil people themselves later on or give birth to evil people. I think this is the rhetoric scenario that would happen had Jessica never concieved Paul as ordered by the Sisterhood.

As for Paul enjoying the slaughter we don't really know but there may be context clues for us to look upon in the books.

Ok Fedaykin I'm going to quote you now. "You can not change the past and you can not control the future." Controlling the events of the future is more or less what Shaitan.. erm... I mean Leto II did with his Golden Path. He made sure humanity would survive.

While we focus on the Jihad also think of the famine times and the Scattering after Leto II's death so to speak. How many died then in his concern to save humanity. A whole lot.

Well that is all my thoughts on this for the moment. And yes I do realize some of my statements may conflict I'm merely stating what I view because a person's views can change from momment to momment and all sides of an arguement must be represented.

ordos45 · July 20, 2001

Was just rereading the thread and found Shaddam saying a jihad is a religous war not heavy handed imperial law. That is true yet if we had a jihad during the days of Leto II it would be false. During Leto II's tyrannical reign church and state more or less became the same. So then it would be law but it did not happen during Leto II's time so when it had happened in Paul's time it was just a religous war.

I forget if this was in Dune Messiah or Children of Dune but a former Fedaykin told Paul about when he was off planet during the Jihad and saw an ocean. He waded in and was cleansed by it morally and probably physically (Fedaykin taking a bath.) He more or less realized he was committing wrong and sinful acts by killing so many. Blah, blah, blah soon after he's killed by a stone burner but that is another topic.

peseverance · July 21, 2001

Shit there are more characters here than in ANY other post in here!!!!!!

You guys ARE THE FANATICS! listen to yourself speak!

exatreide · July 21, 2001

thank you. any way you are all forgeting that Paul had harkonnen blood in him. maybe that contributed to his um....isues. i belive ordos 45 i would not go back in time either becouse you might kill hittler but then stallen would rise to power. and everone would be saying soon we will stand soon we will stand soon we will stand inwinceibul um......sometihng like that. does not a solder kill a few to save the whole? dose this make evre solder evil? or dose he do this just to survive and dose that make it right???beocuse he killed 50 dose that make him evil?

ordos45 · July 21, 2001

Ok Ex Atreides now we move into the fact everyone is realizing this is a paradox. (someone on this forum pointed it out to me on AIM. If you want to take credit post that it was your statement. I'm not sure if you wanted your name revealed) Eventually the same arguements will be reused. There is no truly right answer.

Let me compare it to one such paradox. If you went back in time and killed your grandfather then you would never have been alive to go back in time and kill your gradnfather.

But as long as this topic goes on we will all argue not necessarily because we like to but because it is in human nature to be arguementitive. (ok maybe a little because we all like to argue.)

Mahdi · July 21, 2001

Congratulations Ordos45, you just killed 30-40 million people to save the life of one, and you call yourself good. Yet Paul Atreides killed billions of people to save our entire species, and you call him evil. Useing that as an example of good and evil, I think I much prefer evil.

ordos45 · July 21, 2001

Yes I know Mahdi. Save one and doom millions or kill one and still possibly condem millions in a possible future. Quite the paradox.

Sorry needed to add that I never said I was good nor did I say I was evil. There are times when we are all acting good or evil.

exatreide · July 21, 2001

muhahahahahahahahahahha... ...muhahahahamuhahahahahmuhahahahha ect.

[edit by Gobalopper] muhaha, isn't supposed to be that long! :)

exatreide · July 21, 2001

sorry.

fedaykin_jatin · July 22, 2001

wads wrong with killing a million to save one?

peseverance · July 22, 2001

I say thats justified if that one person saves a billion people :)

garth · July 22, 2001

It's a "Sophie's Choice" scenario: Who and how do you decide who lives or dies? Is making a choice like that "evil"?

July 22, 2001

What makes you think Paul enjoyed the Jihad? There was no way for him to stop it once it got started (essentially when Paul and Jessica were rescued by the Fremen). And before that he thought he'd be able to find a way through using his visions, which he'd only been having for a couple of days. And the Fremen were ready to go on a Jihad...if Paul had killed himself and his mother before they were picked up then the Fremen would have said he'd have died so his spirit would lead them. If he'd denounced the Jihad, then his priests would have murdered him, framed Chani and the Jihad would have been even worse. He was a figurehead, he didn't control the Fremen, they used him.

As for Leto II...remember the alternative he saw to his Golden Path was humanwide extinction on behalf of either the Ixians or the Bene Tlielax. And would you be willing to give up most of what made you human and do what he did to ensure humanity's survivial?

ordos45 · July 22, 2001

Tough question. I think you would only know the true answer if you had to face the problem in person.

alejandro · July 22, 2001

You opened a new Question Exatreides, Paul has Harkonnen blood, is that the cause of all? Is the Evil or Good in the DNA?.

garth · July 22, 2001

LOL that's gonna open another can of worms :)

exatreide · July 22, 2001

well the atereides were good leaders until paul came along. if victer would have survived there would have bene no jihad. btw, i think the harkonnens did contaminate his blood becouse of that wench jessica. if she never came along there would be no jihad. so i say blame the death of billion not on paul but on his mother.

peseverance · July 23, 2001

LOL if Jessica never came along Paul would not have the 'Voice' or the visions and therefore would not be able to impress Liet-Kynes and so on

Edric O · July 23, 2001

The "would you kill 1 to save 1 million" question needs another factor: guilty or innocent. And I mean guilty or innocent not just in the past and present, but also in the future. Hitler as a child was still guilty, he was guilty in the future. It is good to kill a few to save many, as long as those few are (or will be) guilty of killing the many. But Paul's victims were all innocent!

As for what if I went back in time and saw Hitler as a child... I would kidnap him and send him to America!! Problem solved. Without killing anyone! :)

peseverance · July 23, 2001

I'll dig a pit put hitler in it get a few thousand people to dance around the pit carrying spears and wearing war masks and scare the bejesus out of him ;D

he might need therapy after that

Edric O · July 23, 2001

Yeah, but then maybe he'll start WW2 to exterminate all primitive tribes that have dances similar to that one! ;)

The best way to re-educate young Hitler would be to put him in a warm, loving family, living somewhere outside Europe.

ordos45 · July 23, 2001

Wow Edric. A humanitarian way of dealing with evil? Oh well. As for Paul's Hark blood I think evil in that case is genetic. Look at Rabban, kindest parents in the universe and he kills for fun. His father Abulard or something like that kind man until made angry and then his rage takes over for a short time.

Sign In

Good and Evil

Recommended Posts

Edric O

Mahdi

garth

ordos45

ordos45

peseverance

exatreide

ordos45

Mahdi

ordos45

exatreide

exatreide

fedaykin_jatin

peseverance

garth

Guest Scytale

ordos45

alejandro

garth

exatreide

peseverance

Edric O

peseverance

Edric O

ordos45

Join the conversation

Activity

Important Information