I suspect that this chestnut is not accurate.
Are there examples from history that show that a good person acting with good intentions but foolishly did more harm than an evil person acting villanously would have done in the same circumstances?

Well, you've made this a little more specific than I meant as I didn't mean "in the same circumstances" but "in general".

That said, I would say Dick Cheney (evil and villainous) could not have been nearly as effective as Colin Powell (good and unwise) in bringing about the Iraq war (harm) and that had Colin Powell acted differently (wisely) the war could have been avoided.

Prohibition is a good example of this, in my opinion.

bizarre - the idea that prohibiton was the action of good people. Just look at the deeply horrible people most active in trying to get poker banned, load of rubbish the lot of 'em and the same sort of people.

jesus?

Well, its hard to say, I suppose, because if your evil, villainous person is sufficiently sophisticated he could just adopt the methods of the well-meaning sap, and so could never truly do worse.

But its a near-certainty that more harm and suffering and destruction have come at the hands of those who thought they were doing well than anyone who could be considered truly evil or villainous. True evil, if it exists, is essentially irrelevant.

Neville Chamberlain did a lot of harm by trying to appease Hitler, and Chamberlain wasn't overtly evil. But if he was truly a good person, maybe he wouldn't have been trying to appease Hitler.

It's a difficult question because we don't really know who is good and who is evil except by their actions. A person who causes harm through unwise action maybe wasn't that good to begin with.

Can we really presume to know a world leader's intentions?

Honestly I hate reading words. Especially too many of them. Nothing personal of course, but it seems as though you watched Breaking Bad tonight.

Can't say I blame you, it's a pretty damn good show.

Then imagine how horribly you're doing!! Zing!

No offense intended there vhawk, but you are an ACist after all.

Perhaps it's time for some self-reflection?

Just kidding dude. Everyone is unintentionally evil unless they subscribe to the famed non-aggression principal - in which case they are clearly not evil ldo (because initiation of physicality is the only measurable doohickey thingamajig!). Could it be any simpler?

I doubt I've made much of an impact one way or the other.
Thats exactly why I AM an ACer.
Nope, no one is evil, thats the point. Everyone is just fallible. And you can convince a lot of people of just about anything, as long as you have "good intentions."

So spreading the AC gospel has no inherent goal or purpose? Just pure incoherent spewage to no definable end?

I mean on the one hand I find that hard to believe, but on the other, it's obvious from any reasonable person's perspective that the whole AC movement thingy doesn't stand a snowballs chance in Haiti, so I guess I can sorta see where you're coming from..

Oh oh.

Can of worms.
Can of worms.

Please, no personal attacks or insinuations.

I forget which dialogue Plato addresses this issue. He discusses how the just should seek power, because, otherwise, only the unjust would rule.

NC's mistake was selling out checkoslovakia, no good person would have done that, it was a callous act of a hardened politician. It wasn't an attempt to avoid war because by then he had no doubt war was inevitable. Ironically it was also his only serious mistake.

My QI memory includes Thomas Midgley Jr - the man responsible for more environmental damage than anyone else in history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZAnnvSOEmw

Not easy to make a good example but something like:
A good but strict Christian might make abortions illegal which actually causes more overall harm to women while a 100% secular person would allow them.

Evil people, and I definitely believe in evil, usually don't think of themselves as villainous. I'd guess that Hitler thought he was acting nobly, looking out for the Aryans and whatnot.

So I'll vote for evil people creating a lot more harm than unwise good people.

good story...funny show....idea would make an interesting thread by itself

One could argue that he was doing what he thought was best for what he thought was most important (his people being more important than the czechs). Also, that it was, at least the least costly decision. Cold and callous, yes. To him, I am sure he thought he was doing what was right (and therefore, good).

Even the most seemingly evil of people can state why they do what they do. It isn't like Hitler thought, "you know what would be cool? Let's do some evil things." He thought he was going to make the world a better place, and, hence, he thought he was doing good.

We can clearly see how he was evil, but I bet it never crossed Hitler's mind that what he was doing was evil.

Even diagnosible ASPD people don't think they are doing evil, imo.

Whether or not an evil person considers himself to be evil is irrelevant.

You've got Hitler and the Nazis, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Stalin, Mao, etc. chalking up significant harm. Where is the specific massive harm coming from good people acting unwisely?

I've suggested Jesus - not a clear example as he may not have been good

Neo.

Neo thought he was saving the humans, when in actuality he was actively destroying their only reason for living - illusion.

The suggestion was not that good people acting unwisely were worse than Hitler, but that they could, despite their goodness, cause significant harm in ways that an evil person acting villainously could not (because the evil person would be actively opposed by people who would not actively oppose the good person).

My off the cuff suggestions from the thread where this came from:

I do not follow.