Reality and Justice and the Metaphysical Norms

They would have to be: they are inextricably linked...

Anthrobus... how so, because it would be a revelation for us all to hear.

You cannot do more GOOD in a given situation than is required to rectify the BAD intention, if you over-rectify the given situation you add to the bad intention: you do more EVIL. That is how the good and bad intentions are inextricably LINKED. The bad intention seeks the disequilibrium, while the good intention seeks to restore the equilibrium, and so the WHEEL of KARMA turns...

Could you have another go at saying this? I can't quite disentangle this one.

Oh well sure they're opposing dualities, in no way do they change eachother, they change the consequences sure, but they do not affect eachother, only the end result.

And here you're stating disequilibrium, while I got the assumption from earlier that you meant they were in balance. Could you clarify what you mean here?

There is no such a thing as the POSITIVE GOOD, and there is no such a thing as the NEGATIVE EVIL. GOOD is at all times negative, and EVIL is at all times positive. If a man should attempt to address a perceived deficiency that does not exist in a given situation, then he should do EVIL, or if a man should fail to address a perceived deficiency in a given situation, then he should do evil. Not to a address a situation where no perceived deficiency exists is the GOOD, and to address a situation where a perceived deficiency exists is the GOOD. Not to ACT is neutral in the first instance, and to act is negative in the second instance. EVIL then does not address the perceived deficiency that does exist, and address's the perceived deficiency that does not exist. Not to act is neutral in the first instance, and to act is positive in the second instance. It does not matter that the perceived deficiency is the result of deliberate or accidental causes, and personally, or impersonally invoked.The GOOD seeks to protect the BALANCE, or to restabilise the BALANCE, while the EVIL seeks to vanquish the BALANCE, or to destabilise the BALANCE. Do one degree more of GOOD in a given situation than is required and you do EVIL, or do one degree more of EVIL in a given situation than is required, and you do GOOD. GOOD and BAD intentions are thus inextricably linked. The overriding queston is this: what is the BALANCE?

Intention doesn't really come into play in this as far as I can tell. One can have all of the good intention in the world but still overcorrect for a bad situation.

When one overcorrects one does EVIL, and to that exact degree..

But if you have gotten it closer to the balance then you have done net good, even if you have over-corrected.

NOT GOOD ENOUGH I'M AFRAID...until you explain what the BALANCE is, and what your true intentions were...

I'm just going off of what seems to be your stated assumption that there is an balance. I don't even agree with you about that, let alone know what the balance is.

I just mean that, theoretically, if there is a balance, overreaction can still result in a situation being closer to the balance. Overreaction can have a net good effect.

SEEMS COMMONSENSICAL: but if you accidentally achieved a NET effect to the GOOD, then I should have to censure you to the nth degree...

There is the inorganic accidental, and there is the organic deliberation. If a ROCK should accidentally bounce upon your head from a height you should accept it, but if a person deliberately threw a ROCK upon your head from a height, you should have to crush him to the dust...yet you wonder about the reality of intentions and morality...

I do not question the necessity of intent to morality. I am just stating that your theory of good and evil depends on the change in the situation, not the intent.

Hmmm. How do you know all of this? Or, should I just take your word for it?

NO IT DOESN'T: if you should throw a ROCK upon my head, and severely injure me, and then tell me that it was an accident, and if then I was watching CLINT EASTWOOD say in PALE RIDER 'DON'T PISS DOWN MY BACK AND TELL ME IT'S RAINING', then I might have to crush you to the dust, and not for the situation that you have created for me, but for your intent...

That which is neither neutral nor non-neutral, and that which is neither positive nor negative: that is the BALANCE...But the BALANCE changes with the circumstances. If for instance MAN destroyed the earth-bound vegetation. NATURE might strike back to the BALANCE, and by flooding the SEAS with SEA-SCUM algae bloom, and thereby destroying fish-life too, but in essence, protecting what's left. NATURE has that power, and has recourse to extraordinary measures, it would be her decision alone, and based upon what she knows...but to go back, if a person should do 101 per cent EVIL in a given situation, he approximates to the one per cent GOOD. But we still know of his wicked INTENTION. Therefore, and with regard to the ORGANIC lifeform, the INTENTION, and not the resulting consequence of the action is paramount...