The often used reasoning religious people use justify the existence of evil in a world overseen by an omnipotent and all good god is that without evil there can be no good.
if thats the argument then the logical extension would be evil doers are enabler of good and therefor good.
to use a real world example. Hitler was good because without his evil doing, there can never be the good of Alliances fighting back and saving Europe.
weird argument it is.
update 090802: poppies below in the comments section refer to a passage (Romans 3:8) in the bible that says
Or can we say-as some people slander us by claiming that we say-“Let’s do evil that good may result”? They deserve to be condemned!
– bible International Standard Version 2008.
so then why does evil exist in a universe created by an omnipotent and all good god?
Glenn Greenwald debates Chuck Todd on whether Bush torture policy should be investigated and the role of the Press. Great debate a must hear.
My thoughts on this is that Bush torture policy should be investigated, but only prosecuted if it can be won. cause if Obama’s justice demand losses Bush torture policy will be in effect legal. and we dont want that to happen.
or some legal mind please tell me that i am wrong.
Is Nassim Nicholas Taleb suggesting we should cap company size? or am i reading him wrong?
Taleb in an Financial Time opinion piece title “Ten principles for a Black Swan-proof world” wrote
1. What is fragile should break early while it is still small. Nothing should ever become too big to fail. Evolution in economic life helps those with the maximum amount of hidden risks – and hence the most fragile – become the biggest.
Since hidden risks are by nature unidentifiable, fragility of growing companies cannot be known. Without being able to grade fragility, the government should should just break up all companies above a certain size?
Or is he suggesting that the government can evaluate hidden risks that the market cannot identify (or response to) and break up companies before their size and risks become too threatening? if this is what he meant then, what are these kind of hidden risks that governments are better at finding?
when a government official’s repeated errors have left thousands of their fellow citizens dead or grievously wounded, along with hundreds of thousands of other human beings, it would be more seemly for them to remain silent, in mute acknowledgement of their own mistakes.
– Stephen M. Walt, an Harvard International relations Prof wrote on his blog.
To suggests that people who made grave mistakes in public office should get off the airwaves completely puzzles me. I mean shouldn’t it make more sense for them to defend their policies or to explain why they enact those policies in good faith but was ultimately a mistake, by confronting them on public record. This will help the public learn and official humble. shutting them up serves no ones interest but sooth the vengeful few.
I have argued essentially the same point before when they executed Saddam Hussein. Executing war criminals (which shuts them up permanently) is no way to learn from history, an only cause more trouble down the road.
Death of man who made a different. He like many in history have made grave mistakes but unlike most has publicly recognize his mistake and spent the reminding of his life repenting. R.I.P.