Good and Evil exist

Of course, if something exists then it must be possible to formally and rigorously define it. And it turns out that it is possible to define good in such a manner. Examining the definition you then discover a number of theorems.

1. good and evil are relative to people with universal values, only values that can be made universal can ever be good for the obvious reason that if good contradicts itself then there is a problem with that notion of good.

Social power and status cannot ever be intrinsically good because it's not possible for literally everyone to simultaneously hold either of them.

Note that for something to be a moral value, it has to be path independent as well as universal. For 'good' only universality is required. It has to be good in all situations, always, without exception. For morality much more is required as the meaning of 'logically consistent' is stricter, for obvious but technical reasons.

2. society as a whole has a concept of good (empathy) and evil (psychopathy) due to the fact that any society that values psychopathy immediately self-destructs and so doesn't contribute its values to the sum over all possible societies.

3. the subset of society called cattle also have a concept of good (harmony, moral flexibility) and evil (principles, conflict). The violent contradiction of that concept of good against every other concept of good is why the value of cattle's concept of good is equal to only a single non-cattle's concept of good. And I'm being generous.

4. when you cancel out all conflicting universal values, there is still something left. No matter what your values or what your principles, psychopathy is always in violent contradiction to them. Which is why psychopaths are always evil.

As if by coincidence, psychopaths are one of the few people who are incapable of conceiving of good or evil. And in fact, I can't think of any other kind of people who are so incapable. Therefore, the only people for whom psychopaths aren't intrinsically evil are other psychopaths and probably ONLY other psychopaths.

Anyone and everyone who can't conceive of good and evil is intrinsically evil, to everyone except other people who can't conceive of good and evil. Only universally evil people fail to acknowledge the existence of evil. For everyone else, people who do acknowledge the existence of good and evil, you have to specify what they're evil in relation to.

Bravery Is Evil

It amazes me that people think bravery is a good thing, but then again most of the general population are mindless cattle. Bravery is not FEROCITY. Bravery is evil, ferocity is good.

Bravery means you're an idiot incapable of accepting the danger you're in despite knowing it intellectually. Alternatively, it means you devalue your own life and survival, thinking it of no account compared to others'. Bravery is a spontaneous act taken without consideration.

Ferocity means that you cherish your life. That you fully appreciate the COST of what you're doing. Ferocity means that you're not going to RISK running upon something that could crush you, you consciously WILL FACE IT and pay the cost of doing so. Because it's worth it, to you.

Protection

Ferocity is only ever done to protect a person, a place, or a principle. Because you WILL pay the cost of challenging a greater power than yourself, what you're protecting needs to be worth the pieces of yourself you'll leave behind in trade.

Bravery is routinely done by sociopaths in order to "look cool" and be admired. Ferocity never can be because fleeting admiration can never be a fair reward for, say, public humiliation. Or the pity that results from not having hands or feet.

Human beings don't consciously and deliberately trade away either body parts or pieces of their egos in exchange for something as intrinsically worthless as social approval. Not when this social approval comes paired with reduced social status as society throws you away like a used kleenex.

Supermen

Bravery is the stuff of heroes, of bland idiots looked up to in wonder that anyone could be so fucking stupid. Bravery is for "heroes of the cattle". Bravery is societal. Bravery gets awards and recognition.

Ferocity is the stuff of supermen, looked upon in astonishment and not a little fear that such people can even exist. Ferocity is for lone wolves who'll do whatever it takes to do what matters to them. Ferocity is individual.

Bravery is for people who laugh in the face of death because they're too fucking stupid to understand it. Ferocity is for those who respect death as an overwhelming force, and will fight on using sheer willpower.

Bravery is driven by self-belief, the delusion that one can do anything, no matter how retarded and foolish. Ferocity is driven by sense of responsibility, the fact that one HAS to do something, no matter how low the odds of coming out unscathed.

Supermen yes, but not Nietzschean supermen. Rather the opposite.

Societal Disapproval

Bravery should be scorned, hated and despised by every thinking person (a small fraction of the population admittedly) as encouraging martyrdom. Just as I've always despised martyrdom for totally violating personhood.

Ferocity IS scorned, hated and despised by all would-be leaders of the cattle (and the cattle themselves) as a force that naturally opposes them. It is scorned as "unreasonable", hated as "incomprehensible", and despised as "uncivilized".

Just as people become fierce, the cattle around them tell them to "chill" and "cool it" and "relax" because they're "scary".

Summary

You know when nurses laud dying or dead children saying they were "very brave"? What they mean by that is the children heedlessly marched to their own deaths. And I continue to fail to understand what's good, what is in any way positive or noble or worthy, about being a victim and a mindless animal led to the slaughter. Except of course that mindlessness makes people a more easily led and manipulated TOOL.

Bravery is for tools.

Raw hatred has more going for it than bravery.

Bravery is evil.