Would you still mind the weeding out of that single free will in making people unwilling to hurt one another?
Pain is as much a part of life as is pleasure so no. I do believe that people are intrinsically good in the majority and that when true evil shows itself mankind does tend to raise its game to fight it.
In terms of a fictional world like the show then yes the ideal is for only the "good" characters left and for evil to be defeated. However one of the things that's always appealed to me about Lynch's work is that he doesn't just show a black and white, good vs bad story and long may it continue.
Pain is as much a part of life as is pleasure so no. I do believe that people are intrinsically good in the majority and that when true evil shows itself mankind does tend to raise its game to fight it.
In terms of a fictional world like the show then yes the ideal is for only the "good" characters left and for evil to be defeated. However one of the things that's always appealed to me about Lynch's work is that he doesn't just show a black and white, good vs bad story and long may it continue.
Hmm... I don't believe people are intrinsically anything, either good or bad, but that society conditions the majority into certain standards of behaviour. Some may choose to reject, some choose to follow, some choose to refine them.
On reflection, you may be correct - in a sense - because there's evidence to suggest we're wired for co-operative behaviour, even down to the cellular level. This pattern even shows in protozoans, who will act together to achieve certain objectives, then go on their way separately afterward.
Societies, by and large, tend to find ways to keep people in line; there's a line in - I think - one of the Discworld books which says something to the effect of: It costs too much to put a policeman on every street but with religion you can put a policeman in everyone's head.
Beyond that, we most likely learned it's much better to try to get along - at least, some of the time - because outcasts don't usually live very long. No food, shelter or protection from predators tends to weed out the worst.
So, in a round about way I come to agree with you but not necessarily in the way you intended. Hehe.
Addendum:
A further spanner in the works is this unpleasant fact... People tend to follow leaders. Consider how many people were willing to trust such obviously evil leaders as - for example - Hitler, Pol Pot or some of the fanatics in the Middle East.
Good is defined by the people holding the reins. Most people don't think, they react.
In terms of leaders in particular the dictators of the 20th century they didn't just appear from nowhere and what they did could have been stopped with early or any intervention. Hitler in particular was the product of generations of building anti-Semitic attitudes in Europe, the victors in WW1 pretty much destroying Germany for being on the losing side, the great depression hitting and a perfect storm of psychopaths being led by charismatic psychopath leader.
But you are right in that people do seem to be naturally predisposed to be led which will always lead to exploitative people taking advantage of people's trust.
In terms of leaders in particular the dictators of the 20th century they didn't just appear from nowhere and what they did could have been stopped with early or any intervention. Hitler in particular was the product of generations of building anti-Semitic attitudes in Europe, the victors in WW1 pretty much destroying Germany for being on the losing side, the great depression hitting and a perfect storm of psychopaths being led by charismatic psychopath leader.
But you are right in that people do seem to be naturally predisposed to be led which will always lead to exploitative people taking advantage of people's trust.
Yup, exactly. None of the maniacs appeared out of nowhere. My point was, though, given the choice, most people will fall in line with the current popular feeling. Your average psychopathic dictator will jump in to take advantage because people will take orders from a perceived authority figure, even when it goes against their "better" nature. No doubt you heard of or read about the electric shock experiments conducted by Milgram. Interesting and uncomfortable reading.
The Stanford prison experiment also makes uncomfortable reading in what the nature of people showed. Again I'll say I have faith in people in general to do the right thing, you may say I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one ?
Here's something else to think about:
Define Good and/or Evil in absolute, objective terms.
Difficult, isn't it?
I am a believer in Moral Absolutism but not necessarily in ways everyone would agree with. I don't, for example, believe that theft is inherently immoral. I would steal to feed my family, if it was necessary to do so. That said, I believe I have a pretty good grasp of the ideas of right and wrong.
Consider that our hypothetical dictator also has the same grasp but he (it's almost always "he") sincerely believes - however wrong we may judge their actions to be - that they are doing the right thing for the right reasons. Most working definitions of good depend on things like "for the benefit of most people", or "not to the detriment of most people".
Suppose Mr Dictator had this idea that, however wrong others may think it to be, there were some people, some religious or ethnic group responsible for all society's ills. And then he had this bright idea that by getting rid of this section, he'd make the world - or a least, his bit of it - a much better place.
Our hypothetical dictator, leader, whatever, could provide evidence, justification and so on that he was doing this for the greater good and the horrible thing is, he'd genuinely believe it.
Is such a person evil? I hasten to add, I am not trying to rehabilitate Hitler, or any other such. I believe the idea of Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing to be inherently evil but I have no objective, measurable way of proving it.
Just suppose we are all wrong and that we should kill, lie, cheat and steal to get what we want and that the best way forward really is survival of the fittest and devil take the hindmost?
I really, really hope not and I believe Moral Absolutism is a starting point for that but, like Classical Physics, it may only work up to a point.
If that's the case, we really are stuck for a definition of either Good or Evil.
Fire walk with