Evil Vs good or both for a better economy?

[Darker45]

I certainly don't agree that "good is only valued when evil is experienced." Can one appreciate abundance only because of deprivation, for example? Or is it possible abundance is appreciated for itself? Is peace not beautiful in itself? Should we first experience the terrible realities of wars to appreciate peace?

I appreciate a better economy. Indeed, one reason is that I've long been fed up with the evils of a bad one. But I don't think a good economy is desired because of something evil.

[Dave1]

Hardship creates innovation. When things are hard, humans with intellect or those that hate hardship create a system for ease. Good is only valued when evil is experienced.
For a better economy, competition and conflict are necessary and people will see the negativity in it and choose good to preserve. When greed, corruption or scarcity comes into play, economic growth emerges to tackle those problems. So, without problems, a better society is not possible.

With what I have said, are you of the opinion that for a better economy, good has to be valued as evil forces that to happen?

I think this mindset has lead a school of thought before, that war in itself is good and that it is necessary in human evolution. This sort of thought though for me is wrong as whatever angle you look at war, it will not bring any good to the economy of any country.

Of course to balance everything there will always be evil in our lives like what we are seeing in the Middle East right now. But it doesn't make any sense that after this, some countries are going to benefit from it and become a better economy.

So I disagree with this notion.

[Parveziqbal123]

If "evil" and "good" are viewed in the context of economics, then good is generally considered more beneficial to the economy, because honesty, trust, law-abidingness, and mutual cooperation promote trade and investment. However, sometimes activities associated with evil, such as wars, crime, or corruption, may increase financial activity in some sectors in the short term, but in the long term they lead to economic instability, waste of resources, and obstacles to development. In contrast, virtuous and ethical behaviors promote sustainable development, social stability, and public well-being. Therefore, from an overall and long-term perspective, "good" provides a better foundation for the economy, while "evil" often causes large economic losses despite temporary benefits. This is my review just, what do you think?

[barbara44]

If "evil" and "good" are viewed in the context of economics, then good is generally considered more beneficial to the economy, because honesty, trust, law-abidingness, and mutual cooperation promote trade and investment. However, sometimes activities associated with evil, such as wars, crime, or corruption, may increase financial activity in some sectors in the short term, but in the long term they lead to economic instability, waste of resources, and obstacles to development. In contrast, virtuous and ethical behaviors promote sustainable development, social stability, and public well-being. Therefore, from an overall and long-term perspective, "good" provides a better foundation for the economy, while "evil" often causes large economic losses despite temporary benefits. This is my review just, what do you think?

So you actually think that being evil is good in other aspects? No way man. Evil is evil and then good is only the one that is good no matter what. There are some can fake it like robinhood, or those corrupt politician that only act as a good person in the start, but the final judgement is still going to be on their true intention. So with what is said, a connection and transaction from them to the other is still possible.

Evil people already knows the consequence of their actions, so it should not surprise them anymore later down the road. What is only important for them is 'the now' and their own self only, not the other people on their area. They already secure their profit and just move on their other victim once they got busted out.

[Jewan420]

With what I have said, are you of the opinion that for a better economy, good has to be valued as evil forces that to happen?

If there is no evil, then we will lose the ability to fight against evil. What if there is no fraud, scam, corruption in your country and everyone is honest? Then dishonest people from outside will try to attack. Since you do not have the ability to fight against evil, you may be defeated by evil. You may be able to recover yourself by gaining experience from that fight.

Just as a positive attitude is necessary, so is a negative attitude. The pencil was invented from a positive attitude, the eraser was invented from a negative attitude. So along with good, evil is needed to strengthen itself. However, the long-term continuation of evil is not good. Before any law is made, crime is needed. But crime is not good for a long period of time, it needs to be eradicated. Similarly, evil is needed, but it has to be eradicated.

[serjent05]

With what I have said, are you of the opinion that for a better economy, good has to be valued as evil forces that to happen?

If we are talking about progress we must know the implication of evil and good.  Does evil promotes peace?  Does evil promotes development?  Does evil implement fairness and justice?  If war is everywhere, there will be no time for progress since the time and effort is spent on killing each other, and if ever there is development, it is more focused on mass destruction, not economic progression.

Economic development comes during peacetime since people have no worries and they are able to use the full of  their knowledge in developing how to improve life.

With what I have said, are you of the opinion that for a better economy, good has to be valued as evil forces that to happen?

If there is no evil, then we will lose the ability to fight against evil. What if there is no fraud, scam, corruption in your country and everyone is honest? Then dishonest people from outside will try to attack. Since you do not have the ability to fight against evil, you may be defeated by evil. You may be able to recover yourself by gaining experience from that fight.

Your sentence is confusing. How can you fight evil if there is no evil at all?  If there is no evil, the ability to fight evil is not needed. I think this does not need further elaboration.  And how can you beaten by evil if there is no evil at all?

[davis196]

I have a theory that evil in terms of wars, famine, corruption, hardship etc. are necessary for a better economy. For instance, if people don't see the negativity in evil, they won't respect good. As the only purpose of good is to preserve better things. For such things to be created, evil has to find loopholes in those good things and chaos comes to disrupt. Change happens and good again comes into play and then is preserved.

Hardship creates innovation. When things are hard, humans with intellect or those that hate hardship create a system for ease. Good is only valued when evil is experienced.
For a better economy, competition and conflict are necessary and people will see the negativity in it and choose good to preserve. When greed, corruption or scarcity comes into play, economic growth emerges to tackle those problems. So, without problems, a better society is not possible.

With what I have said, are you of the opinion that for a better economy, good has to be valued as evil forces that to happen?

I find it difficult to apply moral categories to economy and finance. We are entering the post-capitalist era, where dehumanization is expanding.
You can watch a bunch of Youtube videos about the "enshittification" of the internet and how most products and services are lower quality than they used to be, but their prices are going up. It seems that "evil" is dominating over "good" in the modern day life and there's no way out. I can't think about any innovation, that has made my life better in the last 5 years. AI is mostly used for creating online slop and many people are going to lose their jobs because of the massive AI adoption. Do you consider AI to be a "good" innovation or an "evil" innovation?

[Cheema02]

Good and evil coexist in an imperfect society; evil creates an imbalance, and goods correct the imbalance just as evil and good exist in the mind of man.
 Man creates rules for the betterment of society because of the chaos created by bad people. For a society to have a balanced, peaceful, and wealthy environment, it needs to correct the wrongdoing committed by bad people.
In the end, good always triumphs over bad because the majority of us choose good over evil.

Yes, in society we believe the existence of God and evil simultaneously. Both type of people perform different actions like bad actions create problems in societies and good people treat it in a well manners and fix these problems for the welfare of mankind's. So rules and regulations can be created to maintain the decorum of societies. Mostly goodness faces problems in societies so goodness always wins when people follow the right track and take steps against wrong actions. So when people works with faith and honesty then gradually societies moves towards a peaceful place for living. Every individual have a dream of better future and also have a peace in life so always goodness remains dominating over evil. So its depends on us how we treat the daily challenges and faces the evil and creat path for goodness to make the perfect societies for living.

[Rubuchi]

I certainly don't agree that "good is only valued when evil is experienced." Can one appreciate abundance only because of deprivation, for example? Or is it possible abundance is appreciated for itself? Is peace not beautiful in itself? Should we first experience the terrible realities of wars to appreciate peace?

I appreciate a better economy. Indeed, one reason is that I've long been fed up with the evils of a bad one. But I don't think a good economy is desired because of something evil.

it is in fact a dangerous analogy to use especially for leaders who are leading people to think this way. What one will be saying if it means that for every good thing that will happen, a bad would have happened or experienced. It is an excuse tl breed corruption, maladministration and all forms of bad governance and that's why I would totally frown against it in all ramifications. Meaning everybody who is enjoying now actually passed through some evil experiences and all who are facing troubles to say they must enjoy? Life on this earth is not a script, neither is it some piece of words written on paper. It is dynamic and works how it has been written or designed to work by its creator so any thing can happen to anybody anyhow God wants it to, more reason why you've been advised on several times not to envy one and the other because it will never change anybody destiny in life.

[gracreavix]

I have a theory that evil in terms of wars, famine, corruption, hardship etc. are necessary for a better economy. For instance, if people don't see the negativity in evil, they won't respect good. As the only purpose of good is to preserve better things. For such things to be created, evil has to find loopholes in those good things and chaos comes to disrupt. Change happens and good again comes into play and then is preserved.

Hardship creates innovation. When things are hard, humans with intellect or those that hate hardship create a system for ease. Good is only valued when evil is experienced.
For a better economy, competition and conflict are necessary and people will see the negativity in it and choose good to preserve. When greed, corruption or scarcity comes into play, economic growth emerges to tackle those problems. So, without problems, a better society is not possible.

With what I have said, are you of the opinion that for a better economy, good has to be valued as evil forces that to happen?

I find it difficult to apply moral categories to economy and finance. We are entering the post-capitalist era, where dehumanization is expanding.
You can watch a bunch of Youtube videos about the "enshittification" of the internet and how most products and services are lower quality than they used to be, but their prices are going up. It seems that "evil" is dominating over "good" in the modern day life and there's no way out. I can't think about any innovation, that has made my life better in the last 5 years. AI is mostly used for creating online slop and many people are going to lose their jobs because of the massive AI adoption. Do you consider AI to be a "good" innovation or an "evil" innovation?

Dehumanisation has been going on for as long as I can remember. It's nothing new. Morality is not of this world. For the strong will rule over the weak. Morality is counted out. Just that if the person that is strong have morals, good for you. If not, dehumanisation is inevitable. It even annoys me more when people bring religion into wars. I think religion is brought among people so the government or who ever is in charge can control the masses. It's all about control and putting everybody in place.

[Bushdark]

I have a theory that evil in terms of wars, famine, corruption, hardship etc. are necessary for a better economy. For instance, if people don't see the negativity in evil, they won't respect good. As the only purpose of good is to preserve better things. For such things to be created, evil has to find loopholes in those good things and chaos comes to disrupt. Change happens and good again comes into play and then is preserved.

Hardship creates innovation. When things are hard, humans with intellect or those that hate hardship create a system for ease. Good is only valued when evil is experienced.
For a better economy, competition and conflict are necessary and people will see the negativity in it and choose good to preserve. When greed, corruption or scarcity comes into play, economic growth emerges to tackle those problems. So, without problems, a better society is not possible.

With what I have said, are you of the opinion that for a better economy, good has to be valued as evil forces that to happen?

This kind of thinking is absolutely wrong and you don't have to think that with hardship and insufficient basic amenities, people will be able to think well and start wasting their time on something that will not work when the government is corrupt and nothing is working.

You need to take a look at the current war in Ukraine that have destroyed so many lives and innovations are left untouched because their is fear of getting attacked at any moment. Evil does not bring good tiding and their is no way evil is going to bring good innovations and instead, people will start thinking of how to create bombs and guns to kill their fellow humans.
Evil will yield more destructions in the name of protection which will end the lives of innocent people and businesses will be destroyed.

[Moreno233]

There is no way to completely eliminate evil in the world. In the aspect of business, a lot of things happens, people use unconventional and other ways to manipulate others. This can easily be seen from the ongoing wars and those fought in the past, it is aways about something and people deploy evil means to get the lion share

[Rengga Jati]

What you say is actually true. Some parts of your opinion make sense given the current situation. Some bad things can trigger us to be more prepared and learn more for a much better future.

But...

I have a theory that evil in terms of wars, famine, corruption, hardship etc.

Not all of them are like that. Not all crimes can provide benefits for the future, and not all societies can accept them. Just like war, it certainly causes enormous losses; this is a much more complex problem. It's not only material losses, but also mental health, security, comfort, and various other complexities. It reduces inflation due to ongoing war. It forces countries affected by war to struggle desperately to recover. Do we expect to learn from situations like that? Personally, I say no. There are things we can learn from other things that can make a country much more prepared and advanced.

The same goes for corruption. Once it has become a culture embedded in a country, it has no positive impact. Over time, corruption becomes more rampant and unstoppable. In fact, more and more people are being found guilty of corruption while holding certain positions. Instead of learning from past cases, they are increasingly engaging in corruption for their own benefit, even when the punishment for corruptors is only a few years or months in prison, as in my country.

[Odogwu-Blockchain]

With what I have said, are you of the opinion that for a better economy, good has to be valued as evil forces that to happen?

Yes, there is a philosopher that said, to be angry is easy, but when, how and where to be angry is not easy.

What I mean, to use evil and negative for the betterment of an economy is easy to do, but knowing the exact time, season, and knowing how to use negative and evil to plug in, and where location is best suitable to apply at.

All these needs to be studied at the first hand level before implementing evil into an economy to bring out the good results.

[Pi-network314159]

I have a theory that evil in terms of wars, famine, corruption, hardship etc. are necessary for a better economy. For instance, if people don't see the negativity in evil, they won't respect good. As the only purpose of good is to preserve better things. For such things to be created, evil has to find loopholes in those good things and chaos comes to disrupt. Change happens and good again comes into play and then is preserved.

Well sometimes it is good for bad things to happen, for people to learn, but that doesn't mean that people don't know bad from good. Evil is evil and good is good, we don't need to witness it before we can change. It's often said that we learn from what happens to others, this means that we can avoid bad things from happening to us from afar if we avoid them earlier enough. But sometimes people are tempted to try evil and they later face the rot, that will make them see more reason not to be tempted to do evil.

[Jaweria parveen]

As we have all learned that goodness is that which makes one's character good and evil is for those who only think of their own benefit and have a wrong view of society. Moreover, these two things together make a society. Wherever we have seen, there is good as well as evil. If we see goodness everywhere, we will not know that anyone has the right to character. We have seen good people in the field and along with them there are bad people who make wrong suggestions and benefit only for themselves. If there are only good people in many places, then the training there can also have an effect and there is not much truth in it, so there will definitely be some jealous and some bad people who will always think of thwarting your goal.

[Chilwell]

-Snip-
With what I have said, are you of the opinion that for a better economy, good has to be valued as evil forces that to happen?

No, and I strongly disagree with you.

Nothing good can come out of evil, especially war. But at times, some countries are favoured by it if they have what other countries need to survive or sustain the war. However, this doesn't mean an automatic turnaround for them. Many aspect of the economy has to be considered before a true turnaround happens.

I believe that self-discovery, good leadership and human capital are crucial to national building and in turning a country's economy around. Not necessarily a war.

You are speaking the fact here because take for instance China do all that without a single blood shell, I also agree with you that there is not anything good that can come out of Evil, even though it is favoring some countries I still doubt it  I am so confident that good thing never come from evil except the evil repent then it will be considered as good. Some leaders are so selfish pretending to be caring for their nation but that is actually lie because all those things they are doing is to enrich themselves and their family members.

Look at Venezuela is it proper on how Trump is handling their case, few people will be saying that is for the good of America people, I will not argue this, yes it is for the good of American people but is it done in a proper way, NO because those people that you took their president are also going through a lot. What good do you think will come out of this evil?

[tabas]

I might agree to it. Because if we're going to study history, most of the powerful countries have to conquer the other lands for them to extend their powers and territory. They're taking lands that were rich into things and they're owning it. That's why there are territorial islands and places right now that's part of a country's head state and they're recognized as part of theirs. So, any entitlement, economical structures have its origin to their mother country. Although right now, it's quite different, allies are formed and a country can be rich without having to get into war but through economic reforms and partnerships.

[GiftedMAN]

There is no way to completely eliminate evil in the world. In the aspect of business, a lot of things happens, people use unconventional and other ways to manipulate others. This can easily be seen from the ongoing wars and those fought in the past, it is aways about something and people deploy evil means to get the lion share

Evil is part of life and evil mainly rule the world than good od because people believe more in evil than good that's why you see them progressing doing evil in business than good. Aside wars which other people manipulate others to achieve their evil means there are so many things that people get involved which is totally evil all in the name of being ahead of others or to make money but the good thing is that you will always see people who practice good in the midst of evil doers.

[Obulis]

Evil has nothing good to offer. If anyone needs to see pains before they can appreciate good then that's absolutely nonsense because good and evil are not friends. Some suffering are intentional orchestrated and so will at the end still mean nothing good. All the corruption, hardship, wickedness etc during war usually ends up teaching the greater majority how to do the same corruption etc after war. Evil don't have any good to offer and good don't have any evil to offer.

There's no need for conflicts before the economy gets better because conflicts can be a total draw back that will take so long for recovery and innovation is a separate entity that there must not be hardship before it happens. Even as it sometimes happens around hardship, innovations are usually out of futuristic view of existing conditions not necessarily because there's hardship. Trying to improve existing conditions doesn't really mean that it is hardship. Before putting competition and conflict together you most not forget that there are negative competitions and conflicts are usually also negative, negative competitions are propagators of conflicts that draws back the society.