(SERIOUS) If we got rid of all the bad things in this world?

[Nihilmatic]

Let's say hypothetically every single possible "bad" thing in this world was removed, just gone, it never occurred and any thought about it would cease to exist, bad things such as, rape, murder, etc. Would we find new things as "bad" such as not being able to reach the remote. Would these actions be criminally punishable, because actual bad things don't exist? Are we, as human beings, programmed like that? Or would something else happen.

 

[QuickTwist]

Society would change drastically. People would be enlightened and our evolutionary process would grow at an alarming rate.

 

[Toro]

My opinion is that if all evil was extinguished from the world and the minds of those who occupy it we would end up back where we are eventually.
Human intelligence enables us to break away from nature which of course is unnatural. That's where the problem starts.

It maybe not. Maybe it was one bad apple that caused all this...see what I did there

 

[Helvete]

Here you're catorgorizing everything as either good or bad, instead of varying degrees of good and bad. If you have just two options and then eliminate one you're left with a very simple, complacent world, this is basically just death/static though as if everything is the same with no chance of variation or differences then literally nothing would even move.

As it is its impossible to eliminate the bad as everything is relative, something will always be less enjoyable than something else and the two extremes will be compared as good or bad. All that would happen is the bottom line gets raised eliminating the worst and the average gets raised and new more enjoyable things will become available, effectively not really changing anything. You still end up with two extremes of equal distances.

 

[Auburn]

Interesting question!
First, I think the actual scale of this question's hypothetical implications need to be addressed. (I'll leave aside the question of "what is bad/good?" for now and just go with the generic idea)

Some things that jump out to me right from the get-go: Social Economics.

How could a "good" world exist in which there is still lower and higher tiers, and where some people are doing gritty work for low wages? The economy of the world would have to be reinvented -- which can't happen unless we:

A) Have unlimited resources. If there is scarcity anywhere in the world, then there's going to be toil, poverty, disease, and death. To eliminate everything bad, humanity would have to reach a level of global sustainability where everyone lived a luxurious life. Functionally speaking this means robot automation of most of the task force, with work done only through personal desire - or in high ranking positions where human intuition still trumps A.I.

B) Have a fully benign nature. Even with unlimited resources, there would still be "bad" in the world because we'd cause it. We'd still figure out of a way to get angry at each other, get jealous, cause divisions in social statuses, rationalizations for segregation and so forth. It comes with the package of being human.

But through genetic engineering... I think we could get pretty close but not 100%. If we were 100% benign we would also be helpless. We need our more nasty traits because if we weeded out all of our innate hostility, we would be incapable of fending off threats.

As long as there's threats to human life, environmental or otherwise (predator/asteroid/defective-humans/cyber-virus/etc), the proper response to the situation is gonna be defensiveness or offensiveness, which will get ugly at some point or another.

So the only conceivable situation for me that has no "bad" in it is one where all participants are void of survival instincts and the environment is so absolutely safe that it requires none from them.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

The value of good is based on the experience and memory of bad/pain/etc. All born after that magic point in time would live a very dull life, something akin to The Giver.

Pretty boring and meaningless if you ask me.

 

[Cognisant]

I think what Nihilmatic is trying to get at is whether laws would become stricter if people were more law abiding, like how in the movie Demolition Man people could be fined for swearing in public because society was so law abiding.

And there's your answer, although I imagine there would come a point of diminishing returns, a society wouldn't become more draconian as the citizenry became more law abiding because it just wouldn't be fiscally justifiable.

 

[Tannhauser]

I don't think laws are made that way. Instead of incrementally criminializing everything that does not appeal to our senses, we ask ourselves what kind of soceity is a good one. As long as we value things like freedom and freedom of speech, the laws have to accommodate that.

 

[Rook]

@OP:

Those before me have raised interesting points and while I do not ascribe to the simply good and bad schools of thought, I may entertain your premise with a few hypotheticals of my own:

Let us assume vegans become masters of all and to use animals for food is forbidden, it never occurs, no human eats their meat or milk or honey. Now... will there be people who say it is immoral to eat plants, to cleave through their stems and consume their flesh, pulped raw or cooked, as well as their seed? I think this is what you are getting at with humans finding new 'bad' things. Auburn's infinite resources then comes into play here.

In truth, the situation you describe is already partially in effect: With assault, rape, disease and so forth being less of a thing in many countries compared to, say, 1639, humans have already found new things to complain about and new ways to squabble with one another(or old ways over new things for that matter). Whether language use, ideals or simple differences in opinion, the 'bad' you see in others can be construed in a myriad of ways.

A pepsi drinker may see a coke drinker as bad, a juice drinker both of them as vile... see here fans who laud the superiority of their chosen technology, their belief clashing with those of others.

There will always be this contention, and in a perfect world one consumer may hate another because they prefer the green blanket over the polka dot one, or listen to Generic Artist's music more than Robotic Derivative's. Or even smaller things, like your brother spending too much time in the bath when you want to groom your mustache and adjust your bra, breeds the good vs bad state of mind.


Short of complete alteration of human brains, millions of years of evolution, lobotomies, or a governed singularity, humans will always find grounds of contention no matter the laws in place or the absence of the 'worse' (cannibalism, baby juggling etc.)

I don't think laws are made that way. Instead of incrementally criminializing everything that does not appeal to our senses, we ask ourselves what kind of soceity is a good one. As long as we value things like freedom and freedom of speech, the laws have to accommodate that.

A good point, two themes on my brain atm: North Korea and Singapore. Both are examples of areas where laws govern a lot, and while Singapore is more conventionally utopian(safe, neat, punctual,'green') , I despise it for the cameras everywhere, the banning of dogs from the public sphere(except in prams) and a myriad of other small laws(chewing gum fines, no smoking here and there and there) which convinced me how utterly boring utopian ideals can be.

 

[Haim]

Bad is just other word for a thing which is against my intersts ,which can be many things.People can hate other person even if he is totally normal and dies not harm anyone, therefore "bad"(for no logic at all)
Also not bad is not the same as good, it is void no feelings which effect person feelings just as bad if not more for some people(that like to feel)