“The road to conflicts and wars is paved with good intentions”
Encounter
The krow flew for days, listening to and observing the world as far as his limited existence would allow. One day, he saw some people who looked like labourers sitting together under a fir tree, talking about the anniversary of the death of the famous philosopher Karl Marx on 14 March (1883).
“Well!” said the krow to himself. Despite Karl Marx’s great contributions to the social, political, economic, and philosophical spheres, he was ignored during his lifetime and lived in poverty—and he was even marginalized in his burial in London (Highgate Cemetery, 17 March 1883), in the section reserved for the poor who could not afford gravestones. It is only after a person has “died” that the world begins to admire and commemorate them. In contrast, whilst they are alive, it seems that nobody cares. That’s just the way the world is.
The krow continued to fly and observe, as always. He couldn’t help but notice the smoke and the sight of the ruins of bombed-out buildings, which stretched out and piled up everywhere. He also noticed the wailing and weeping of people who had lost their loved ones—people who had done nothing more than be born there and who might well have died (thus concluding the transformation) there. But there is always someone who wants war, who wants to be an emperor, who is always right and wants to dominate all.
The krow observes that the world has always gone mad and keeps destroying itself over and over again, committing the same errors. But “This time (21st century), the world acts a little wiser than other times (I and II World Wars),” said the krow to himself, and he perched on a tall, sturdy oak tree from which he could see everything clearly around the mountain where he was.
The krow, through the twigs, saw two elegantly dressed, elderly men sitting around an old-style table on which stood two cups full of coffee and a sort of coffee mocha. Next to them was a plate of assorted pastries. The two friends were engaged in a discussion. The krow immediately realized that the area served as a refuge for those fleeing persecution by the SPECC systems. All wars and conflicts—in addition to the killings, violence, and atrocities committed against innocent people and the extermination of enemy SPECCs—inevitably involve the persecution of intellectuals (scientists, thinkers, and young men and women) for various reasons.
These two gentlemen—one a physicist (an ex collaborator of Werner Heisenberg) and the other a philosopher who had conducted several projects but disappeared from public view after the Second World War—are the subject of this reflection. Without revealing their real names, the krow is now writing this reflection in the form of a dialogue between two people, Alan and Bell.
Background storyline – PLAYING WITH EMPTY SETS
It is an evident fact that each human thinks of “good,” even when they desire to do something “evil.” It seems illogical and absurd, but it is true: even when people reason, or when they commit destructive and evil acts, they at least believe they are acting in their own “good” interests; or whatever they do or intend to do, they believe it is for someone’s benefit.
For example, according to historical evidence, when Hitler did what he did, he was firmly convinced that he was acting in his own interest, for the good of his ideology and the good of his country. Another example of the empty sets of “good” and “evil” is the Sarajevo human safari during the period from 1990 to 1996, where 11,000 civilians were killed for the satisfaction (good) of weekend snipers (in November 2025, the Milan
The conflicts and wars of today (21st century – March 2026), which cause the death and maiming of innocent people, clearly call into question the very concept of “good” and “evil” in the human world. Everyone thinks in terms of good, yet they inflict evil upon one another. They devote all their energy, all their technology, and all their intellectual resources to achieving the good in which they believe. Yet the whole world is falling apart.
Then, where is the problem if the concept of “good” appears so ambiguous, absurd, and devoid of meaning? If, for example, “good” is meaningless or makes no sense, then “evil” - the complementary part of “good” - should also be “devoid” of meaning. What is this game about? Thousands of years of so-called “humanity,” its “dignity,” the international community, and human rights with SPECC systems - are they all together playing a big progressive act for the world?
This real situation recalls William Shakespeare’s words, noted the krow: “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players;” (As You Like It).
Dialogue between two friends on “empty sets”
Alan (philosopher) and Bell (physicist), while sipping their favourite Italian hot coffee, started to discuss the matter.
Alan: I assert that the concepts of “GOOD” and “BAD” are empty “sets.” They are sets without elements. That is why those who are thinking “good” for others and for the world do relatively “evil” things, like creating conflicts and wars, to realize what they think with an empty concept of “good.” What is your idea about this, Bell?
Bell: Your assertion touches on a classic problem in meta-ethics: the indeterminacy of the good and bad. By describing “Good” as an empty set, you are highlighting that the word itself carries immense emotional and moral authority without elements or definitions. But Alan, could you be a little clearer about this?
Alan: Well, dear friend Bell, briefly I’d like to say it like this: you know that in logic, an empty set contains no elements. Likewise, “good” and “evil” are “Empty Sets,” and they have to be formed with subjective fillings. However, in any human language, they often treat “Good” and “Evil” as “placeholders” (0). Because the term is “empty” (0), individuals, religions, and political ideologies fill it with their own specific values—whether those are “order,” “freedom,” “belief system,” “faith,” “equality,” or “tradition”—namely, SPECC system basics.
The danger arises when people mistake their specific SPECC contents for a universal definition of the concept. When someone believes their version of “Good” is the only valid one, they can justify “bad” actions (like war, violence, killings, and the annihilation of other SPECC systems) as necessary means to a supposedly moral end.
Bell: Alles klar! Danke, Alan! I thought that you were talking about the same thing that R.M. Hare (prescriptivism) and J. L. Mackie (error theory) discussed in depth. But your “empty set” theory is original, and those theories have no direct relation to yours without an interpretation. Now, could you explain what the meaning of the paradox of moral zealotry is?
Alan: Almost the entire human history is moulded by “Autocratic, Authoritarian, and Paternalistic Aggressions” (AAPA). They seem like different types but are the same in their initial and final results (aggressions), the outcomes of their rhetoric power, and the gravity of their atrocities. AAPA want power over others for their own benefit. This occurs when an AAPA group “thinks good” for others without their consent.
For example, during the period of “empires,” European powers competed for territory, wealth, and global command. They used to think and act with concepts of colonizing, slaves, dictating, power gaining, commanding, and getting what they want by hook or by crook (economic exploitation). That was, for them, a great period (good), but for others (non-Westerners), everything became dark and miserable (evil).
The West could do what they wanted because they had the best instruments to realize their ideologies—such as monotheistic religions: Catholicism, Islam, and the background divine logical sustained for them, “Hebrews.” These justified the “white man’s” power over others. These Hebrew “God” concepts that they have created for themselves justified themselves and what they were doing and condemned all who were different because their white “God” commanded them to do so.
The religion and the moral systems they have created for themselves are well used by them to colonize the world. Their logic was that “we know the truth and the good” (because God-given). You, the different dark skins, do not. Therefore, we must impose our “Truth” and “good” upon you for your own benefit.
The inevitable result of this logic creates a "clash of Goods" where both sides believe they are the protagonists of a moral crusade. But is this the “good”? The question remains open, because the concept remains “empty” of a final, reductive definition.
(To be continued in part II with conclusive points).
