Say there are two dystopic societies:
One does evil in the name of good - genuinely believes that it is being a force for good by doing something that is wrong. The other doesn’t even care about right or wrong - shrugs about evil.
I don’t want to get bogged down by a specific example, but let’s use genocide and/or slavery as examples, since there’s almost unanimous agreement that genocide and/or slavery are wrong. Which would you consider worse: A society that genuinely believes it’s doing what’s morally right and beneficial by committing slavery and/or genocide against certain people, or…a society that practices slavery and/or genocide and, when confronted about the evil, shrugs and says, “Yes, it’s wrong. So what?”
Um…can I vote for the excluded middle?? I wouldn’t want to live in either. I suppose that, choosing the lesser of two weevils, I’d go with the latter though, since if they are pragmatic about the evil they are doing there might be room to change, while the ones who are convinced they are right and correct (and the gods are on their side or whatever) probably won’t be convinced, since they know they are right and everyone else is wrong. The latter might cave in, down the road, to pressure from outside (or even inside, since you won’t be branded a heretic for saying things stink presumably), while the former never will and will fight to the death anyone who claims differently.
However, I’d prefer nuking them both from orbit, just to be sure…
“Worse” is an unhelpful descriptor here.
Do you want to know which would be worse to live in?
Worse to read about as a story?
Worse to attempt to counteract (ie, to be a hero and overthrow)?
The one where people think it is good. In one where the system is indifferent to evil you at least have the hope of a popular rebellion against evil because there can be a moral disconnect between government and the people. In the one where the people have convinced themselves that evil is moral (like we have done in the US with mistreatment of black people, convincing ourselves that it is moral) you end up with problems that span centuries. I doubt the military dictatorship in Myanmar will still be standing in several hundred years by comparison.
Right, you don’t have to live in either. It’s about opinion/evaluation of the society from afar.
I’ll stick to my answer then…to me, personally, folks who think they have right and goodness on their side are always slightly scary anyway, since it’s pretty difficult to convince the fanatic, while pragmatists, despite doing the same sorts of evil can, potentially at least, but swayed for pragmatic reasons, and thus could be brought around to see the light…if there is something in it for them anyway.
Both XT and Wesley Clark make good arguments. I’m going to lean toward XTs reasoning: the pragmatically nasty state has a slightly better chance of embracing reforms, when they realize that reforms actually lead to more productivity, less disease, and a better lifestyle for the ruling class.
The ones who think their society is “good” for doing things their way have bought in to the ideology, and are not as easily swayed by solid pragmatic reasons for reform. They can’t even perceive it as “reform” at all! They would see “freeing the slaves” as social decay, not social progress.
Russian communism reformed itself out of existence. North Korean communism isn’t able to deal with reality.
I’d prefer to live in the first society where at least they thought they were doing right. They are predictable.
In the second group they seem to be chaotic and unpredictable - hedonistic perhaps? Just do whatever you feel like doing, worng or right, it doesn’t matter. Not for me.
There is no excluded middle in dystopian societies. You are either in the elite “haves” or the oppressed masses of “have nots”.
At best, maybe you can pick what category or district you’ll be assigned.
At the same time, though, the society that does evil in the name of good at least still believes in the concept of right and wrong. That at least gives a starting point to argue them on.
Perhaps someone else will be able to find the exact quote I’m thinking of, but going by my vague memories…
I recall C.S. Lewis once observing that an idealistic tyrant would be far more dangerous than an evil tyrant. A greedy tyrant may eventually have enough gold for the time being, and for that period, will leave his subjects alone. A lustful tyrant may have enough wine and women to sate him for a while, and during that time, he’ll leave his subjects alone. A sadistic tyrant may get tired and take a break from inflicting pain.
But an idealistic tyrant? He will NEVER be satisfied with his efforts! He will NEVER dare take a break. How CAN he? So long as there is evil (however he defines it), an idealistic tyrant must fight it tooth ands nail, ceaselessly.
That’s why a tyrant driven by ideology or religion is more dangerous than a run of the mill dictator. A Francisco Franco or an Augusto Pinochet will jail, torture or kill you IF you dare oppose him… but so long as you pay your taxes, obey his laws and mind your own businesses, he’s likely to leave you alone.
An ayatollah or a Stalin/Mao will never leave you alone. He wants your heart and soul, not just your obedience.
I don’t even think the distinction makes any sense. I think Hitler believed he was doing good. So did Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. During the heyday of their empire, the British thought they were bringing civilization to the uncivilized. I don’t think anyone believes himself evil.
Maybe it would help to think of the not-caring evil empire as some sort of anarchist or libertarian extreme? The government is so hands off that it really doesn’t care if you rape or murder or enslave people. They don’t want to infringe on your rights to commit genocide. As long as you pay your taxes once a year, the rest is none of their business. I don’t know if that’s exactly what the OP envisioned, but it’s the model that comes to mind for me.
Or perhaps think of it like the slavery compromise among the founding fathers of the United States. Many of them opposed slavery, but they had to compromise in order to achieve other goals. Though this is more of a divided government than a not-caring government.
So like “The Purge”?
Maybe the OP can explain what he means by “societies” and “doing good and evil”?
Who is controlling the society? A dictator? Some complex caste system? Anarchy?
And what “good” and “evil”? Is it just sort of hedonistic and vapid? Is it a bit socially oppressive? Are certain classes being ground up into protein bars to feed the rest?
For example, the government in the Capital in the Hunger Games films seems to just “do evil” for no reason. There is no economic reason to make the districts live as impoverished Appalachian hillbillies in a world of force fields and hover jets. And the Hunger Games themselves seem pointless and cruel. But if you live in the Capital, it’s probably pretty safe and comfortable.
The Megacities of Judge Dredd, in contrast, are incredibly violent. Judges seem to generally be trying to do right by the letter and spirit of the law, but the often totalitarian nature of their system is due to this being a dangerously overcrowded society on the verge of collapse.
I would rather live in the soma-hazy coccoon of Ford Almighty than under the stomping boot of Big Brother. I may have less chance of developing a soul in the Brave New World, however.
I’m envisioning a dystopic, warped democracy, actually. One where the vast majority of people vote wholeheartedly in favor of evil in the name of good, or don’t think right vs. wrong is even a problem at all (“What’s wrong with being wrong?”)