If, in the battle between good and evil, similar methods, such as instruments of war, physical fights, and altercations, are used, then what distinguishes them?
When both sides in a conflict use instruments of war, violence, and physical altercations, they can look identical on the battlefield.*
However, what distinguishes "good" from "evil" in such scenarios usually comes down to intent, restraint, and the ultimate objective.*
Here is how philosophers, ethicists, and military historians separate the two when the methods look the same:*
1. The Cause and Objective (Just War Theory)
• Good typically fights for defense, protection, and the restoration of peace. Its ultimate goal is to end the conflict and protect the innocent.
• Unholy evil typically fights for aggression, subjugation, and dominance. Its goal is control, destruction, or eliminating a group.
2. Targets and Restraint (Discernment- Discrimination)
• Good applies proportionality and discrimination. It actively tries to avoid harming non-combatants (civilians) and limits destruction to what is strictly necessary to stop the threat.
• Unholy targets indiscriminately. It often uses terror, targets civilians intentionally, and employs unnecessary cruelty or destruction as a primary weapon.
3. Rules of Engagement
• Good operates under a framework of laws, ethics, or codes of honor (such as the Geneva Conventions or moral doctrines). It treats prisoners of war humanely and stops fighting when the enemy surrenders.
• Unholy evil recognizes no moral boundaries. It views rules as weaknesses to be exploited and relies on treachery, torture, and total annihilation.
4. The Desired Aftermath
• Good seeks a just peace where rights are restored, and coexistence is possible.
• Unholy seeks a tyrannical order where the victor completely suppresses or destroys the vanquished.
In short, while the mechanics of violence (swords, guns, fists) may be identical, good is defined by its limitations and defensive nature. In contrast, unholy evil is defined by its lack of boundaries and aggressive intent.*
Who usually wins in the battle between good and evil?
When unholy evil wins, it is much like Satan itself: deceptive.
Because the unholy is willing to win through any means necessary- ruthless, brutal, lies, cheats, sabotage, fraud, rape, murder, and terror- it often wins illicitly and initially.
However, because those unholy and illegal acts are so abusive, negative, and destructive, basically destroying anything in their path, including the abuser's humanity and the economy, anything the unholy touch becomes unstable and unsustainable, and in the long run it always loses; much like Ponzi schemes, broken and fraudulent systems will collapse in on themselves, because it's all negative, including in its returns.
And as soon as trust and credibility are lost, respectable standing is diminished; the advantage gained from cheating is lost, especially as defenses are put in place to account for those types of illicit gains.
Moreover, though abusers assume that it's easy to win through ruthlessness, fear, hate, subterfuge, sabotage, fraud, game cheats, abuse, and harm, and therefore will win everything or the majority of the time, aggressors fail to realize the futility of their grandiose assumptions every time.
On the micro-level, aggressors want absolute power and control, yet will never attain it, because abusers do not have any control over themselves; how can anyone have self-control without calmness and inner peace?
Furthermore, without calmness under fire, questionable judgments are made without rationale or reason, and definitely without intelligence.
Without the ability to formulate wise strategies, making assumptions that the best defense is a psychotic offense, therefore having no defense at all, and offensively destroying everything in sight, including one's own assets, is a massively losing proposition.
If things are negative and destructive, adding more and greater negatives, especially in negative returns, will not magically become positive returns. In other words, -2+-4 will not ever become +6.
On a macro-level, running everything into the ground through destructive and destabilizing measures creates massive unsustainable systems, especially economic, because fear increases risk, frightening away investors, also customers, and abuse scares away talent, creating massive brain drains and regression.
Without progress from customers, investors, and brain advancements in technology and the economy, the aggressor nation will fall further and further behind. So even if a superaggressor steals advanced tech, it will not have the technical or sophisticated instruments to understand or recreate it.
In addition, aggressors never learn because superabusers never admit to mistakes or wrongdoing; therefore, they never pivot away from catastrophic failures and cannot adapt to changing and challenging situations of harm.
For example, the German Empire under monarch Kaiser Wilhelm II helped to instigate World War I. The result of this aggression for Germany alone was over 2 million soldiers and half a million civilians killed. Industrial decline of 57 percent and hyperinflation. And a loss of territory of 13 percent.
Did Germany learn its lesson from WWI?
No. (Though the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles did not help). Germany fell victim to superaggression, hatred, and fear. What was the result, hastened by unsustainable economic practices? Roughly 3-4 million military deaths and 7 million civilian deaths, total economic collapse, currency worthless, cession of 25 percent of its territories, bombed-out industries and cities in ruins, and mass starvation.
What was the lesson learned from WWII?
Nothing?
When aggressors win, it pushes the world towards apocalyptic possibilities due to its destructive and unsustainable nature; aggressors may win but will rule over a wasteland that will inevitably fail to sustain life, economy, and industry.
Ultimately, when unholy aggression triumphs, destruction, pestilence, and damnation follow.
Nothing good is sustained, and salvation is denied.
Nothing is won, except self-deception, self-annihilation, and self-condemnation in harm, in damnation, and in crimes against humanity.
Note: The truth will out.
"Truth will come to light; murder cannot be hid long; a man's son may, but at the length truth will out."
- William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, Act 2, Scene 2.
Therefore, though history may initially be written by the victor, the truth will eventually be written by what is sustained in enduring verity.
So, what's the difference between "good and "unholy evil"?
Only the difference between eternal life and death, heaven and hell, salvation and damnation.
*Referenced from Google AI search: If, in the battle between good and evil, similar methods are used, then what distinguishes them?
