From a survival of the species point of view, working against the survival of your species (through individual or colective action) would be "evil". That includes stripping your planet of resources while not caring about the consequences for the future generations. Allowing people with diseases that can be inherited to have children would be "evil" as you allow the gene pool to weaken (I have no kids but by my own definition, I shouldn't be allowed to have them except by adoption). We define what is good and not. We define what is accepted and what is rejected. More usually than not, we just do it in a smaller scale than the best interest for the survival of our species.
If all we are considering is the survival of the species as "good", then it behooves us to act as ruthless and merciless as possible. Any thought of altruism or benevolence would seem to be a distant thought, as the systems involved in supporting everyone would be a drain on those required to ensure that humanity lives to see another day. If we would need to amputate the arm in order to save the body-- well, its for the good of all that we sacrifice those billions.
But behaving in that manner would be to sacrifice our humanity for our survival. It gives up what makes us human for continued existence as something else. Arguably, so would allowing ourselves to stagnate as a society to ensure that everyone has no needs. Mankind needs challenges. Mankind needs hardship and pain. You can't take away these things to protect people from living. People need the freedom to strive to fail or succeed on their own terms, because otherwise the tree of mankind withers and dies because that spirit needs to be kept alive in each person, each individual.
That's why you can't define collectivism as the good and individualism as the evil. We have just the same capacity to be selfish or hateful when there are 30,000,000 of us as when there are 3. And what we might do to thousands of faceless strangers, we would never do if we came face to face with one of those persons. That's why collectivism and individualism presents a much more interesting choices than just good and evil reskined. Because either side of the choice you come down on, there is right and there is wrong. Because at the end of the day there is "good" and "evil" in all of us-- that's just part of being a human being.
Studied in catholic school. Studied some islam, buddhism, hinduism,.. When I die, I'll just banish as a person and my matter will recicle in another stuff. If there happens to be a God and such stuff, I'll worry about that bridge when I have to cross it. Meanwhile I'm happy just helping people around me.
The point was that independently of whether you are religious of not, the Abrahamic values have been ingrained in the few thousand years in our society as have had a profound effect on the shape of the discourse surrounding morality.
Not sure if nobody, but certainly some don't. Some may enjoy being the "wrong" side, others may think that they are not the "bad guys",... Slavery was legal and natural on ancient Greece, which was considered quite advanced. I don't think that slavery is particulary popular these days in "advanced" countries. If you support abortion, are you evil? And death penalty? Is it evil to eat animals? (but ok to eat plants) I don't think that the guys blowing the twin towers considered themselves evil. Not at all.
You seem to get my point. The notion of good and evil in a science fiction setting without supernatural beings to define the poles is quaint. Especially considering Stardock has voluntarily moved away from that system in favour of a more open system.
I don't believe that indiviual actions are evil per se. Neither collective ones. Nor they are good. From the game point of view, which must(/seems to) be based on extremes, individualism is more "evil" that colectivism. Someone imposing it's point of view over the rest. Not caring about anyone else except his personal goals. But it's obvious that societies themselves can be not caring (hey, let's take the lands from those natives and put them in camps). As I tend to understand the game's ideology system (which may be totally wrong), is that malevolent societies are composed by power hugry individuals that don't really care about their comrades. They may form a very solid and strict society but they simply don't value other lifes. Benevolent ones do care. It's exaggerated and some kind of mix in the ideology trees would be nice (so you can have "caring" and "uncaring" options in all the trees).
Is it any more right for a majority to impose their will on the minority? Is it any more right to tell people that they have to all be the same and conform to what the group decided that people must be? Is it more right to tell certain people that they must worship this god because that is the one the collective has chosen. That they must wear these clothing because that is the clothes the collective has chosen. That they must not interact with people of a certain skin colour, because those people are not in the image of the collective? To say we can all get a long in perfect harmony, so long as you harmonise with us? There is no room in a collective for difference or tolerance. They gave up difference when they decided they were all the same. They'd have to be to same because they are part of the larger whole. That's the evil of collectivism. That it crushes the souls of every person involved to make it's members a souless grey paste to spread across its surface evenly. That's why you can't equate the two. Good cannot equal collective good alone. It also has to take into account the good of the people who make up the collective as people. To reiterate, that's why a choice between the two is more interesting that a choice between "good" and "evil". There is not right choice between these two, and trying to find a mix between the two that works is not as ridiculous as trying to justify finding a cohesive mix between a benevolent society that uses slave labour camps, because we can understand as people that one can try to find a mix between collectivism and individualism. Because we live that day to day.
Maybe I misunderstand this (sorry if I do) but I don't say that the Borg are good. The Borg are. Period. Good? Evil? That depends on the point of view. They don't consider themselves "wrong" (otherwise, they would alter their behaviour?), it's outside forces who label them as such. From a current GalCivIII point of view, they don't fit the ideology trees that I can see. Hell, at this point and from my ignorant point of view, not sure how the Yor fit. Even if they don't care for meatbags, they do care abuot their own kind, right?
But the current system does allow you to cherry pick options from all the trees (if you do it right and don't mind not being able to complete them), creating a more realistic model than just "pick one tree and stick to it.
I was saying that by statement that collectivism=benevolence=good, the Borg, who are an epitome of collective society would have to be the epitome of good. Clearly, a rational person could see this as not a desirable state and therefore would have to reject the coupling of "the good" and "the interest of the collective". You can take the idea of the collective to an extreme. You cannot take the idea of "good" to an extreme. You can't be too good, because good, by it's nature is defined as desirable and right. Therefore it presents an uninteresting choice to whomever it is presented. Outside of pure gameplay mechanical considerations, the choice between three options shouldn't be so obvious as to make the moral choice involves choosing option A.