Hypothetical topic: who is more evil between these two

Person A:

Is unbelievably rich and a nice person to those who know him but deep down inside he wants to cleanse the less fortunate of the city and under the cover of darkness he prowls around the city giving drug addicts and mentally unsound people bags filled with money in the hopes they will rob, kill each other, etc or just overdose from any drugs they buy.


Person B:

Hates children and babies in particular so he breaks into hospitals to make babies cry and/or traumatize them and he still somehow manages to escape every time from being caught, and yes he goes around stealing from children as well, while he wouldn't hurt them he doesn't mind making their lives a living hell.

one fucks with the scum of society while the other fucks with innocent children...is this a real question?

KaptainKiro posted...

one fucks with the scum of society while the other fucks with innocent children...is this a real question?

Painting the "less fortunate of society" as all scum seems pretty broad, plus your usage of the word "fucks" seems to imply that working towards the death of others is equal to traumatizing others.

EDIT: Shit, I misread the poll question and accidentally voted for the second option.

Person B is clearly worse. Hes not trying to make the world better, questionable methods notwithstanding. You could argue person A is misguided, but their end goal is not to actually cause widespread misery.

Person B arguably causes more societal harm and is less morally sound since children are generally innocent (whereas you can rationalize that the adults -- even if they're unfortunates -- made a choice), so him.

DistantMemory posted...

Painting the "less fortunate of society" as all scum seems pretty broad, plus your usage of the word "fucks" seems to imply that working towards the death of others is equal to traumatizing others.

ridding society of obvious drains vs traumatizing innocent children seems like a pretty obvious choice to me. paint it how you want, ill take children over drug addicts and crazies any day of the week.

Voted A, but I meant to Vote B (thought the question was which was less evil).

Person A runs around giving bags of money to society's less fortunate.

Person B is an asshole to kids.

There really is only one correct answer here.

The evil is bill gates, and I'm very happy with the opportunity to not vote, so he'll come visit me with a crowbar and malicious intentions. Which can only end in reputational damage and/or injury for him, and maybe monetary gain for me.

Engineering people's deaths is worse than taking people's candy, regardless of who the people in question are.

_AdjI_ posted...

Engineering people's deaths is worse than taking people's candy, regardless of who the people in question are.

Does giving them bags of money really qualify as engineering their deaths, though?

I mean, I could see the argument if this guy was shooting them or giving them guns or drugs or something like that, but he's not - he's just paying them large sums of cash in the hopes that they use it to destroy themselves. There's no guarantee that will happen; in fact, I find it quite likely that for the majority of these people the influx of cash would actually lead them to better lives, not worse ones. And even for those that do wind up dead because of the money... is that really his fault? Once the money changes hands, are these people still his responsibility? I mean, people come into large sums of money all the time - casino or lotto winnings, inheritance, so on and so forth - and what those people do with the money they receive (and any ill effects fueled by the same) are usually seen to be their own fault.

Really, the only thing shitty about the first guy is his motivation; his actual actions could reasonably be considered altruistic.

_AdjI_ posted...

Engineering people's deaths is worse than taking people's candy, regardless of who the people in question are.

This, he's actively working to kill people he deems unworthy. His methods may be dumb and possibly counter intuitive, but he's clearly more evil than a guy who dislikes kids and is mean to them.

Person B, though I think A's actions are ultimately more destructive to society.

darkknight109 posted...

Does giving them bags of money really qualify as engineering their deaths, though?

Probably not, which makes the question much more complicated. If he were to, say, fund organized crime, he could more reliably guarantee that the money would be used for nefarious deeds, but that would also eliminate any sort of moral high ground he might be feeling from it.

_AdjI_ posted...

Engineering people's deaths is worse than taking people's candy, regardless of who the people in question are.

its truly incredible the lengths libs will go to to defend the shittiest people in society

Person C

The creator of this topic

Person A's actions can ultimately do more harm to more people.

adjl posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Does giving them bags of money really qualify as engineering their deaths, though?

Probably not, which makes the question much more complicated. If he were to, say, fund organized crime, he could more reliably guarantee that the money would be used for nefarious deeds, but that would also eliminate any sort of moral high ground he might be feeling from it.

And therein lies the dilemma.

The answer would be pretty straightforward if Person A was unarguably doing harm with the intent of murder, but he isn't and his actions could wind up greatly benefiting those whom he is targeting with them. So, instead, we're weighing Person A - who has far darker intentions, but far nicer actions - against Person B, who still has shitty intentions but not nearly to the same extent and whose actions are significantly more harmful.

I'd still go with Person B in that scenario, but it's really a question of whether you think a person should be judged by their actions or their intent.

KaptainKiro posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

Engineering people's deaths is worse than taking people's candy, regardless of who the people in question are.

its truly incredible the lengths libs will go to to defend the shittiest people in society

I can think of a lot more people who I would consider "the shittiest people in society" above drug addicts and the mentally unwell. In terms of moral culpability, I'd say those two groups - the second especially, since it's not like mental illness is a deliberate decision - are pretty low on the totem pole.

Very classy for you to use mental illness to further your partisan views, though.

darkknight109 posted...

it's really a question of whether you think a person should be judged by their actions or their intent.

You know what they say, good intentions pave the path to hell

person A isn't making anyone do anything. hes giving them money, and hopes his assumption of how scummy they are is correct and that they will kill each other or themselves.

I mean would I be a bad person if I gave a homeless man some money even if I was fairly certain he was just going to blow it on booze instead of food? which I have done, but way I see it, I gave him the option to go buy himself some food, if he doesn't well thats his problem not mine.