is it possible to be good? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

3leggedfrog · 09-06-2003, 08:18 PM

ok here is a monkey wrench i have been thinking over lately.

can we be good just for goods sake or are we good because it is expected from us through laws and social/ culture/psychological pressures. is it possible to do a good deed devoid of selfish intent? do we do good deeds for an expected reward. for an example the reward of good will of others, wanting to go to heavan or nirvana or whatever, or to preserve the notion that we really are a good people psychologically?

i have no idea if i am good. i obey the laws (for the most part) of my culture and succumb to pressures to "be good". but how does one be good?

ok i guess i am still trying to figure out what is good. i feel like a child. does anyone else feel this way. anyone have a answer?

papermachesatan · 09-06-2003, 11:22 PM

You can be good for several reasons a few of which I will list:

1. Good because it is required of you by soceity. Good because it's required by law or religion.

2. Good because you expect some sort of reward.

3. Good because you genuinely want to help someone.

4. Good because you seek to create heaven on earth. Being good is a great step towards that success.

Humanism operates on the principles of 3 and 4.

Although I'm guilty of #1 and #2, I'm sometime good out of #3 and I try to base much of my personal morality code on #4, the golden rule, etc.

#1 and #2 partially describe what you've listed.

Nefir · 09-07-2003, 05:48 AM

I think there is another very important reason for being good that satan left out (how ironic, too

) :

5. Good because. Just because. Not out of the desire to help someone, or because society says its the right thing to do - in fact, all of these things would not even be on your mind. You would do good (but good, the way you perceive it), simply because something inside you has made you this way, and you can't help it.

I think I fit pretty well under 5, and this has been a boon and curse at the same time. Some people have given me their trust and respect, though I never asked for it. Others feel that is just creepy and weird, and that it makes me a doormat.

Whatever. I see no problems with being this way. I just hope that the good, as I perceive it, is indeed good.

papermachesatan · 09-07-2003, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nefir
I think there is another very important reason for being good that satan left out (how ironic, too ) :

5. Good because. Just because. Not out of the desire to help someone, or because society says its the right thing to do - in fact, all of these things would not even be on your mind. You would do good (but good, the way you perceive it), simply because something inside you has made you this way, and you can't help it.

I think I fit pretty well under 5, and this has been a boon and curse at the same time. Some people have given me their trust and respect, though I never asked for it. Others feel that is just creepy and weird, and that it makes me a doormat.

Whatever. I see no problems with being this way. I just hope that the good, as I perceive it, is indeed good.

so like compulsively good?

Nefir · 09-07-2003, 01:26 PM

Quote:

compulsively good?

Well, you've just summed up and condensed my several paragraphs, and many more which were left untyped, into two words. Well done, you, prince of evil.

Compulsively good... It damn sure feels that way some times.

3leggedfrog · 09-07-2003, 01:44 PM

Quote:

3. Good because you genuinely want to help someone.

is this possible? is it possible to do a altruistic act with out some kind of reward? the repercussions of this can possibly be to reaffirm our self image that we are "good" because we do this act. or it might be that we might be just acting out our preprogramed responces that our culture has conditioned into us.

Quote:

4. Good because you seek to create heaven on earth. Being good is a great step towards that success.

this act of doing good is not just for good sake but for the reward of everyone around you to be good. thus insuring your saftey and mental health. not a bad reason but still doing good for a precieved reward.

papermachesatan · 09-07-2003, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 3leggedfrog
is this possible? is it possible to do a altruistic act with out some kind of reward?

I suppose there is a reward; the satisfaction of knowing that you helped someone. But that doesn't lessen the good any.

[quote]
the repercussions of this can possibly be to reaffirm our self image that we are "good" because we do this act. or it might be that we might be just acting out our preprogramed responces that our culture has conditioned into us. [quote]
Possibly. But there ARE people who can be happy for another person. Because you're incapable of doing so doesn't mean other's aren't.

Quote:

this act of doing good is not just for good sake but for the reward of everyone around you to be good. thus insuring your saftey and mental health. not a bad reason but still doing good for a precieved reward.

You're operating under the erroneous assumption that because there is some sort of reward involved that the acts or motivation behind the acts can't be good.

neddy65 · 09-07-2003, 02:54 PM

you must do what makes you happy and if doing "good" does that for you then it is it's own reward. I don't think you can seperate an action from its cosequence( makes you feel better about yourself or others feel better about you), if you didn't want to get anything out of a good deed then you couldn't do good at all.
you also have to live your life within the constructs of the society in which you reside. Your surroundings will almost always dictate what good is based on the accepted norms. Like it or not.

3leggedfrog · 09-07-2003, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by papermachesatan
You're operating under the erroneous assumption that because there is some sort of reward involved that the acts or motivation behind the acts can't be good. [/B]

no i am not saying that...well maybe. let me clear this point. is doing good for selfish reasons still doing good?

3leggedfrog · 09-07-2003, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by neddy65
you also have to live your life within the constructs of the society in which you reside. Your surroundings will almost always dictate what good is based on the accepted norms. Like it or not. [/B]

i am trying to step out of my culture to see if it is possible to do a good deed. you do bring up a good point and that is what is good is not fixed. or is but by each indvidual society. i may be wrong on this account but there are some simularities to what is good. for an example kill is bad. now where cultures differs is when they put qualifiers on, "but for... but when... killing is good". also culture can be wrong in what they term what is good, hitler.

now my question is it possible to do a good deed. what i mean is that without our cultures influnce either by demand, laws, or by programing, the mommy said that is bad, or by some selfish intent, rewards, is it possible to do good?

neddy65 · 09-08-2003, 04:39 AM

The act itself, without motivation, or expectation of reward can indeed be good, if good comes as a result of said act. The fact that you may recieve reward in any form as a result of this act is incidental.
Not sure if that helps at all.

Moonduck · 09-08-2003, 07:28 AM

Good - Pleasurable and not harmful
Evil - pleasurable and damn the consequences

It is quite possible to be good.

3leggedfrog · 09-08-2003, 07:58 AM

very hedonistic of you moonduck. (not that is bad) but what about the acts that are not pleasurable? does pleasure = good? what about doing good for the sake of good and not for the pleasure of the result? a form of reward. maybe we are just a selfish race and doing good with our any form of reward is impossible. maybe the behavorialist psychologist are right. every acton needs a stimulus and some form of reward even doing good.

Cynthetiq · 09-08-2003, 08:50 AM

check out these threads that have been going on during the weekend...

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=25952

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=25847

there may be something there that adds some more to your quest for "good"

3leggedfrog · 09-08-2003, 07:42 PM

hmmm had to think for a while Cynthetiq on your post. thanks. your view of good is a personalistic view. making us better by examining our values. while this is a really great idea (and i must confess i took your advice and wrote down my values) this just proves to that all good has some selfish intent. for this ethic, the intent to improve oneself.

i just finished reading a post about a man who gave macdonalds to a homeless person. i must ask myself what was his intent. is this a true act of goodness. i hope so but i am too pessimistic about that. was he trying to make himself feel better because he gave food to one who was in need? was he reliving a bad moment in his life and trying to make it better? was he trying to hedge his bets in favor of going to haven or some other perfect otherworld. was he doing it because someone told him too.

i give a beer and five dollars to the homless people i find by my apartment. why do i do this? because i hope he\she will use the money to buy something they need. homless people dont always need just food a passing homless person once told me. what is my intent for doing this act of kindness. approval of my peers if they are around if not then pitty. i feel sorry for the down and out and to make myself feel better i give them something that i hope wil make their life better. to me this is selfish. i do this because i want to feel better. the homless person makes me sad and giving money to him/her makes me happy. yes, it is a "good" act but am i doing this act because i want to be happy. is this good? the act is but motivation?

take that happyness away and will i still give that homless person a beer and five dollars? let me give you an example, would you give a homeless person money or food if you knew he was going to sell it to buy meth or crack or whatever? by giving this person money or food and knowing that the result will be not happiness would you still do it.

or a better example what happens if you see that same homless person over and over again would you stil buy that person lunch?

i am way to pessimistic. should we care for the motivation of a good deed? what happens when that motivation is gone. will we still do a good deed?

my worst mistake was studying psychology and philosophy it made me pessimistic.

neddy65 · 09-09-2003, 05:08 AM

So you are walking down a path that is regularly used for jogging and such, and you spot a rusty nail on the path. If you pick the nail up, have you done good by taking away the chance of someone stepping on it and getting hurt even if you never know if that would have ever happened. If you don't pick up the nail and someone does step on it and gets hurt are you evil for having allowed this to happen by not picking up said nail.
If you picked it up and the next person along doesn't get hurt. you will never know about it so a good dead done without reward is the result.

this made more sense in the shower when I thought of it

h2ogo69 · 09-13-2003, 03:31 PM

humans are essentially good but prone to evil... thats one of the only christina beliefs ive kept a my own... if u ask me u cannot be good to be good there will be other factors involved.

Xell101 · 09-13-2003, 06:31 PM

I am good to all provided it isn't unsuitable in a serious way as no one deserves to feel bad. That is my reasoning behind being nice.

EeOh1 · 09-13-2003, 08:47 PM

I was required, over the summer, to read a book titled Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West.. Don't let the name fool you. It's a book based upon Baum's Wizard of Oz, but it's a completely adult novel. MaGuire writes the entire Oz story from the perspective of the wicked witch. And the entire book deals with what evil is and what good is. What seperates the two and what is each? Is good simply not taking "evil" action? Or is good being idle? Is evil in action or intent?

In my opinion, evil is in intent. If you're intent is evil, then you are evil.

3leggedfrog · 09-14-2003, 06:21 AM

yea i also read that book a couple of years ago. my girlfriend made me.

Jesus Pimp · 09-14-2003, 01:59 PM

Depends on your definition of good.

ccxcone · 09-15-2003, 10:05 PM

Alright, I'm going to attempt to answer your question from a different approach. First off, I'd like to say that I believe that you can do good for the sake of good, without any selfish modifyers involved.

Alright, take a look at the situation, can people really be good? Well, can the really be bad? Does anybody really do things that they think are truely bad? Would anybody keep on doing those things if it made them a bad person? That's just one side, but all it really affirms is that nobody is really a BAD person, which is something I truely believe. I'm more towards believing people do the wrong things for the right reasons, which can be much more horrifying (Hitler).

But take an instant of kindness. Appologizing for something that wasn't a big deal, picking up a pencil for somebody who didn't ask, without thinking about it, and forgetting about it soon afterwards. Have you ever done something for someone and forgotten what they looked like, or even why you did it in the first place? I know I have. I've gone long out of my way for people without expecting a damned thing. I don't do it because it makes me feel better, either. Sometimes, I could go out on a favor for someone and get very irritated while doing it, because it took away from things I really needed to do. In the end, I still finnished helping someone out, and it really made their day.

I don't see what's wrong with feeling good about something like that. I don't do the action to feel good in the first place, it just seems to be the natural reaction I get afterwards. I don't do it for the feeling, the feeling comes from the action. The other person smiles, or I realize that I did something that made them happy, and that's what makes me happy. If making other people smile at my own expense is selfish, then what on earth could be selfless?

My last defense I'm going to put out for human goodness is one I believe I got from somewhere else. I can't remember where it was, so there aren't going to be quotes or paraphrasing or credits to whomever made it, but I wish I could. Anyway, take a child standing on the middle of the street, and a person (completely unrelated to the child) saw a car coming for the child. As a first reaction, he jumped in the way of the car, successfully saving the child, but got hit by a car in the process. Ever hear of stories like that? Or about stories of men who jumped on grenades in time of war to save their comrades? Those people who do those things and lived usually said the same things, "I didn't think about it, it was almost like a reflex." If human instinct can think up of something that selfless, I think humans aren't as bad as people make them out to be.

anti fishstick · 09-19-2003, 12:27 AM

i think it is our inherent nature to be good. and we are taught to be bad thru learned behavior and whatnot. example: racism has to be taught.

Kyo · 09-19-2003, 11:46 AM

I believe the opposite of most of the comments posted here.

For one, I believe humans are inherently animalistic. They hurt others for fun and for profit - anyone who has seen children tormenting animals or elementary school bullies knows what human nature is capable of. We will rob, steal, murder, rape, and commit all sorts of other 'heinous crimes' if societal constructs were not in place to pre-empt or discourage us.

Consider this - rules exist only for those that follow them. Those without discipline or breeding are the ones that become drug dealers, drunken wife beaters, child molesters, etc. We don't have to be taught to be bad - is anyone 'taught' to murder other people? Is anyone 'taught' to rape? No. Murder happens when people lose control, not when they 'learn' to be evil. We are all naturally inclined to hurt and destroy what we fear and what we oppose. Men need sex, so if they can't get it from a willing partner and do not have enough self-control or fear of the law, they will rape to get it. Desire is not learned - it is innate. We are taught self-control.

As for intent vs. apathy, I give you several versions of the same dilema:
a) A man is pushed off a cliff with a rope around his waist. You can choose to either grab the rope or let him fall.
b) As a catch, assume he is extremely heavy, so that you know without a doubt that even if you grabbed the rope, you would not be able to pull him up - but you wouldn't be pulled over the edge with him either. Assume further that no one is going to help you, no matter how long you wait.
c) Now assume he is so heavy that you know if you grabbed the rope, you would be dragged over the edge with him.

In each case, is grabbing the rope (doing something) or letting him fall (doing nothing) the ethical action? More importantly, why? And another thing to consider - what if you were already holding the rope when he was pushed over? In each of the three cases your choice is now to either keep holding (ie, do nothing), or let go (do something). Does it make any difference which is the 'active' choice and which is the 'passive' choice?

Now consider: in a), assume you do not grab the rope. Who is responsible for the man's death: the one that pushed him over the cliff, or you, who did nothing to save him? For a more striking example, say you witnessed a shooting. The man is still alive, but needs hospitalization or he will die on the street. You could take him yourself, but there are other people driving by who saw it also. If you choose to ignore him and go your merry way, who's fault is it if he dies?

On ethics, be wary of taking the utilitarian viewpoint - there are many slipperly slopes down which utilitarianism fall. To clarify: utilitarianism states that something is correct or 'ethical' if it maximizes happiness.

To begin with, several questions arise: whose happiness are we maximizing? The happiness of an individual? The collective happiness? Who 'matters' when considering the collective? Where do we draw the line? Do animals count? Better yet - since plants cannot feel happiness, are they completely irrelevant?

How exactly do you measure happiness? If you had two choices - one that could make a dozen people a little happier, and one that could make one person very, very happy, which is more ethical? Is there any way to quantify exactly how much happiness we are gaining in each case?

If you still insist on "happiness = right" then I give you this example:

There is a homeless man on the street. He has no family, no relatives, no friends - no one that would care if he died. There are twenty people in a hospital, all of whom have families and bright futures - except that they need organ transplants immediately or they will die. Coincidentally (*cough*), the homeless man is the only match for the organs - if he is killed, his organs can save all twenty people, otherwise all twenty will die. Would it be ethical to murder the man for his organs?

If so, what if there were only five people that needed his organs? Or two? Or one - how do you determine who is 'worth' more happiness? Going the other way, what if 40 people needed his organs? 100? 200? What if the world was about to be destroyed but could be saved by killing one innocent person? If killing one innocent to save the world is ethical, what about the whole world minus one person? Minus two? Minus two thousand? Where do you draw the line?

To avoid this whole mess, I define good to be doing what you believe is right (note that this is different from not doing what you think is wrong). With this kind of definition, being 'good' becomes very possible.

I was originally had an extensive argument of ethics, but it turned into a 2 page essay that was a tangent to this thread at best, so I deleted most of it. But there we are.

ForgottenKnight · 09-20-2003, 08:39 PM

It is very much possible to be good. I have to agree with Kyo that being good is doing what you believe is right.

yellowgowild · 09-21-2003, 01:51 AM

I think you're talking about internal locus of control(gut feelings), or outer (religon, laws etc..)

Anyways the idea of whats good cant be defined since everyone has a deifferent opinion on it. Just because alot of people believe something doesnt mean it's true. You just have to find your own level of bullshit that you're comfortable with.

Kyo · 09-21-2003, 07:38 AM

A lot of philosophers would disagree with you. Primarily because morals aren't worth much if there isn't an absolute standard. If you leave it up to each person to create their own moral system, you would never be able to call anyone evil, because they would simply create their own moral system where what they are doing is correct.

In other words - morals without some kind of universal standard are useless on a spiritual level; they become laws.

ARTelevision · 09-21-2003, 07:44 AM

"good" is a situational, relativistic idea.
the attempt to make it an absolute is spurious.

cazba · 09-21-2003, 08:36 AM

Good and Evil are man made ideas. That's why cultures are so different. It is possible to be "good" though inside a cultures structure.
Some things cut across culture though. don't kill, steal ect.
Bottom line though is this. Good and evil will be judged by those who see your actions and yourself

Kyo · 09-21-2003, 11:21 AM

Exactly. The point is that morals are determined by the majority - might makes right. That is exactly the path that history has taken.

But if that is true, then there really isn't anything wrong with killing another person. Nor is there anything wrong with stealing, lying, rape, incest, etc. The authority of the 'moral' is that if I do any of these things, people will agree to punish me. By living in this society, we each implicitly agree to abide by common 'morals'. Because we do not kill others, we cannot ourselves be killed.

But that means morals don't mean anything beyond laws - created and maintained by people. 'Good' and 'Evil' can no longer be used in the way they were meant, because nobody has enough right or authority to determine whether anyone else is 'good' or 'evil'.

Serial murders, then, are criminals, but not evil. Child molestors are criminals, but not evil. Domestic abuse is crime, but not an 'evil'. That is the consequence of subjective moral standard.

EeOh1 · 09-21-2003, 07:38 PM

I already mentioned the book Wicked in this thread, which I think is a great book to read while on the topic of good vs. evil...but.

I think it's definately possible to be good. I'd consider myself good. And what's good? Not taking action that would result in negative consequences or follow-up action against someone else. To me, being good is avoiding hurting others...It's so hard to describe.

Discuss on!

Kyo · 09-22-2003, 08:17 AM

'Avoid hurting others' is an overly simplistic description - if you read the problems I posed in a post further up, there are many cases where someone is going to get hurt, but you get to decide who. Are there cases where killing would be justified? You have a gun to his head, he has a gun to your head - what are you going to do? The first guy to pull the trigger wins, but you could both just walk away. Would you count on your opponent to just walk away? Far more likely that he'll pull that trigger, so you have to pull it too. But that's killing - which, according to most of you, is somehow inherently 'wrong' (I don't buy that, by the way).

Morality seems to wrap itself around intuition. If I encounter a moral dilemma and act on instinct rather than trying to reason it out, I am confident that I will be performing according to my own moral standard.

09-06-2003, 08:18 PM	#1 (permalink)
3leggedfrog Psycho Location: Hiding from the penguins they come to take my sanity away!	is it possible to be good? ok here is a monkey wrench i have been thinking over lately. can we be good just for goods sake or are we good because it is expected from us through laws and social/ culture/psychological pressures. is it possible to do a good deed devoid of selfish intent? do we do good deeds for an expected reward. for an example the reward of good will of others, wanting to go to heavan or nirvana or whatever, or to preserve the notion that we really are a good people psychologically? i have no idea if i am good. i obey the laws (for the most part) of my culture and succumb to pressures to "be good". but how does one be good? ok i guess i am still trying to figure out what is good. i feel like a child. does anyone else feel this way. anyone have a answer? __________________ "enjoy life to the brim but do not spill it" quoted off my tatoo "Iam myself every day."

09-07-2003, 05:48 AM	#3 (permalink)
Nefir Junkie Location: Louisville, KY	I think there is another very important reason for being good that satan left out (how ironic, too ) : 5. Good because. Just because. Not out of the desire to help someone, or because society says its the right thing to do - in fact, all of these things would not even be on your mind. You would do good (but good, the way you perceive it), simply because something inside you has made you this way, and you can't help it. I think I fit pretty well under 5, and this has been a boon and curse at the same time. Some people have given me their trust and respect, though I never asked for it. Others feel that is just creepy and weird, and that it makes me a doormat. Whatever. I see no problems with being this way. I just hope that the good, as I perceive it, is indeed good. __________________ You do not use a Macintosh, instead you use a Tandy Kompressor break your glowstick, Kompressor eat your candy Kompressor open jaws, Kompressor release ants Kompressor watch you scream, Because Kompressor does not dance

09-07-2003, 02:54 PM	#8 (permalink)
neddy65 Loves green eggs and ham Location: I'm just sittin' here watching the world go round and round	you must do what makes you happy and if doing "good" does that for you then it is it's own reward. I don't think you can seperate an action from its cosequence( makes you feel better about yourself or others feel better about you), if you didn't want to get anything out of a good deed then you couldn't do good at all. you also have to live your life within the constructs of the society in which you reside. Your surroundings will almost always dictate what good is based on the accepted norms. Like it or not. __________________ If you're travelling at the speed of light, and you turn the headlights on, do they do anything? My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father, prepare to die! Drink Dickens' Hard Cider because nothing makes a girl smile like a Hard DIckens' Cider!

09-08-2003, 04:39 AM	#11 (permalink)
neddy65 Loves green eggs and ham Location: I'm just sittin' here watching the world go round and round	The act itself, without motivation, or expectation of reward can indeed be good, if good comes as a result of said act. The fact that you may recieve reward in any form as a result of this act is incidental. Not sure if that helps at all. __________________ If you're travelling at the speed of light, and you turn the headlights on, do they do anything? My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father, prepare to die! Drink Dickens' Hard Cider because nothing makes a girl smile like a Hard DIckens' Cider!

09-08-2003, 07:58 AM	#13 (permalink)
3leggedfrog Psycho Location: Hiding from the penguins they come to take my sanity away!	very hedonistic of you moonduck. (not that is bad) but what about the acts that are not pleasurable? does pleasure = good? what about doing good for the sake of good and not for the pleasure of the result? a form of reward. maybe we are just a selfish race and doing good with our any form of reward is impossible. maybe the behavorialist psychologist are right. every acton needs a stimulus and some form of reward even doing good. __________________ "enjoy life to the brim but do not spill it" quoted off my tatoo "Iam myself every day."

09-06-2003, 11:22 PM	#2 (permalink)
papermachesatan Psycho Location: Texas	You can be good for several reasons a few of which I will list: 1. Good because it is required of you by soceity. Good because it's required by law or religion. 2. Good because you expect some sort of reward. 3. Good because you genuinely want to help someone. 4. Good because you seek to create heaven on earth. Being good is a great step towards that success. Humanism operates on the principles of 3 and 4. Although I'm guilty of #1 and #2, I'm sometime good out of #3 and I try to base much of my personal morality code on #4, the golden rule, etc. #1 and #2 partially describe what you've listed.

09-08-2003, 07:28 AM	#12 (permalink)
Moonduck Junkie Location: SE USA	Good - Pleasurable and not harmful Evil - pleasurable and damn the consequences It is quite possible to be good.

09-08-2003, 08:50 AM	#14 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	check out these threads that have been going on during the weekend... http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=25952 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=25847 there may be something there that adds some more to your quest for "good" __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

09-08-2003, 07:42 PM	#15 (permalink)
3leggedfrog Psycho Location: Hiding from the penguins they come to take my sanity away!	hmmm had to think for a while Cynthetiq on your post. thanks. your view of good is a personalistic view. making us better by examining our values. while this is a really great idea (and i must confess i took your advice and wrote down my values) this just proves to that all good has some selfish intent. for this ethic, the intent to improve oneself. i just finished reading a post about a man who gave macdonalds to a homeless person. i must ask myself what was his intent. is this a true act of goodness. i hope so but i am too pessimistic about that. was he trying to make himself feel better because he gave food to one who was in need? was he reliving a bad moment in his life and trying to make it better? was he trying to hedge his bets in favor of going to haven or some other perfect otherworld. was he doing it because someone told him too. i give a beer and five dollars to the homless people i find by my apartment. why do i do this? because i hope he\she will use the money to buy something they need. homless people dont always need just food a passing homless person once told me. what is my intent for doing this act of kindness. approval of my peers if they are around if not then pitty. i feel sorry for the down and out and to make myself feel better i give them something that i hope wil make their life better. to me this is selfish. i do this because i want to feel better. the homless person makes me sad and giving money to him/her makes me happy. yes, it is a "good" act but am i doing this act because i want to be happy. is this good? the act is but motivation? take that happyness away and will i still give that homless person a beer and five dollars? let me give you an example, would you give a homeless person money or food if you knew he was going to sell it to buy meth or crack or whatever? by giving this person money or food and knowing that the result will be not happiness would you still do it. or a better example what happens if you see that same homless person over and over again would you stil buy that person lunch? i am way to pessimistic. should we care for the motivation of a good deed? what happens when that motivation is gone. will we still do a good deed? my worst mistake was studying psychology and philosophy it made me pessimistic. __________________ "enjoy life to the brim but do not spill it" quoted off my tatoo "Iam myself every day."

09-09-2003, 05:08 AM	#16 (permalink)
neddy65 Loves green eggs and ham Location: I'm just sittin' here watching the world go round and round	So you are walking down a path that is regularly used for jogging and such, and you spot a rusty nail on the path. If you pick the nail up, have you done good by taking away the chance of someone stepping on it and getting hurt even if you never know if that would have ever happened. If you don't pick up the nail and someone does step on it and gets hurt are you evil for having allowed this to happen by not picking up said nail. If you picked it up and the next person along doesn't get hurt. you will never know about it so a good dead done without reward is the result. this made more sense in the shower when I thought of it __________________ If you're travelling at the speed of light, and you turn the headlights on, do they do anything? My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father, prepare to die! Drink Dickens' Hard Cider because nothing makes a girl smile like a Hard DIckens' Cider!

09-13-2003, 03:31 PM	#17 (permalink)
h2ogo69 Banned	humans are essentially good but prone to evil... thats one of the only christina beliefs ive kept a my own... if u ask me u cannot be good to be good there will be other factors involved.

09-13-2003, 06:31 PM	#18 (permalink)
Xell101 Junkie	I am good to all provided it isn't unsuitable in a serious way as no one deserves to feel bad. That is my reasoning behind being nice.

09-13-2003, 08:47 PM	#19 (permalink)
EeOh1 Crazy	I was required, over the summer, to read a book titled Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West.. Don't let the name fool you. It's a book based upon Baum's Wizard of Oz, but it's a completely adult novel. MaGuire writes the entire Oz story from the perspective of the wicked witch. And the entire book deals with what evil is and what good is. What seperates the two and what is each? Is good simply not taking "evil" action? Or is good being idle? Is evil in action or intent? In my opinion, evil is in intent. If you're intent is evil, then you are evil. __________________ If life gives you lemons...throw them at someone.

09-14-2003, 06:21 AM	#20 (permalink)
3leggedfrog Psycho Location: Hiding from the penguins they come to take my sanity away!	yea i also read that book a couple of years ago. my girlfriend made me. __________________ "enjoy life to the brim but do not spill it" quoted off my tatoo "Iam myself every day."

09-14-2003, 01:59 PM	#21 (permalink)
Jesus Pimp The Original JizzSmacka	Depends on your definition of good. __________________ Never date anyone who doesn't make your dick hard.

09-15-2003, 10:05 PM	#22 (permalink)
ccxcone Crazy Location: Indiana University of Pennsylvania	Alright, I'm going to attempt to answer your question from a different approach. First off, I'd like to say that I believe that you can do good for the sake of good, without any selfish modifyers involved. Alright, take a look at the situation, can people really be good? Well, can the really be bad? Does anybody really do things that they think are truely bad? Would anybody keep on doing those things if it made them a bad person? That's just one side, but all it really affirms is that nobody is really a BAD person, which is something I truely believe. I'm more towards believing people do the wrong things for the right reasons, which can be much more horrifying (Hitler). But take an instant of kindness. Appologizing for something that wasn't a big deal, picking up a pencil for somebody who didn't ask, without thinking about it, and forgetting about it soon afterwards. Have you ever done something for someone and forgotten what they looked like, or even why you did it in the first place? I know I have. I've gone long out of my way for people without expecting a damned thing. I don't do it because it makes me feel better, either. Sometimes, I could go out on a favor for someone and get very irritated while doing it, because it took away from things I really needed to do. In the end, I still finnished helping someone out, and it really made their day. I don't see what's wrong with feeling good about something like that. I don't do the action to feel good in the first place, it just seems to be the natural reaction I get afterwards. I don't do it for the feeling, the feeling comes from the action. The other person smiles, or I realize that I did something that made them happy, and that's what makes me happy. If making other people smile at my own expense is selfish, then what on earth could be selfless? My last defense I'm going to put out for human goodness is one I believe I got from somewhere else. I can't remember where it was, so there aren't going to be quotes or paraphrasing or credits to whomever made it, but I wish I could. Anyway, take a child standing on the middle of the street, and a person (completely unrelated to the child) saw a car coming for the child. As a first reaction, he jumped in the way of the car, successfully saving the child, but got hit by a car in the process. Ever hear of stories like that? Or about stories of men who jumped on grenades in time of war to save their comrades? Those people who do those things and lived usually said the same things, "I didn't think about it, it was almost like a reflex." If human instinct can think up of something that selfless, I think humans aren't as bad as people make them out to be.

09-19-2003, 12:27 AM	#23 (permalink)
anti fishstick Post-modernism meets Individualism AKA the Clash Location: oregon	i think it is our inherent nature to be good. and we are taught to be bad thru learned behavior and whatnot. example: racism has to be taught. __________________ And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom. ~Anais Nin

09-19-2003, 11:46 AM	#24 (permalink)
Kyo Crazy	I believe the opposite of most of the comments posted here. For one, I believe humans are inherently animalistic. They hurt others for fun and for profit - anyone who has seen children tormenting animals or elementary school bullies knows what human nature is capable of. We will rob, steal, murder, rape, and commit all sorts of other 'heinous crimes' if societal constructs were not in place to pre-empt or discourage us. Consider this - rules exist only for those that follow them. Those without discipline or breeding are the ones that become drug dealers, drunken wife beaters, child molesters, etc. We don't have to be taught to be bad - is anyone 'taught' to murder other people? Is anyone 'taught' to rape? No. Murder happens when people lose control, not when they 'learn' to be evil. We are all naturally inclined to hurt and destroy what we fear and what we oppose. Men need sex, so if they can't get it from a willing partner and do not have enough self-control or fear of the law, they will rape to get it. Desire is not learned - it is innate. We are taught self-control. As for intent vs. apathy, I give you several versions of the same dilema: a) A man is pushed off a cliff with a rope around his waist. You can choose to either grab the rope or let him fall. b) As a catch, assume he is extremely heavy, so that you know without a doubt that even if you grabbed the rope, you would not be able to pull him up - but you wouldn't be pulled over the edge with him either. Assume further that no one is going to help you, no matter how long you wait. c) Now assume he is so heavy that you know if you grabbed the rope, you would be dragged over the edge with him. In each case, is grabbing the rope (doing something) or letting him fall (doing nothing) the ethical action? More importantly, why? And another thing to consider - what if you were already holding the rope when he was pushed over? In each of the three cases your choice is now to either keep holding (ie, do nothing), or let go (do something). Does it make any difference which is the 'active' choice and which is the 'passive' choice? Now consider: in a), assume you do not grab the rope. Who is responsible for the man's death: the one that pushed him over the cliff, or you, who did nothing to save him? For a more striking example, say you witnessed a shooting. The man is still alive, but needs hospitalization or he will die on the street. You could take him yourself, but there are other people driving by who saw it also. If you choose to ignore him and go your merry way, who's fault is it if he dies? On ethics, be wary of taking the utilitarian viewpoint - there are many slipperly slopes down which utilitarianism fall. To clarify: utilitarianism states that something is correct or 'ethical' if it maximizes happiness. To begin with, several questions arise: whose happiness are we maximizing? The happiness of an individual? The collective happiness? Who 'matters' when considering the collective? Where do we draw the line? Do animals count? Better yet - since plants cannot feel happiness, are they completely irrelevant? How exactly do you measure happiness? If you had two choices - one that could make a dozen people a little happier, and one that could make one person very, very happy, which is more ethical? Is there any way to quantify exactly how much happiness we are gaining in each case? If you still insist on "happiness = right" then I give you this example: There is a homeless man on the street. He has no family, no relatives, no friends - no one that would care if he died. There are twenty people in a hospital, all of whom have families and bright futures - except that they need organ transplants immediately or they will die. Coincidentally (cough), the homeless man is the only match for the organs - if he is killed, his organs can save all twenty people, otherwise all twenty will die. Would it be ethical to murder the man for his organs? If so, what if there were only five people that needed his organs? Or two? Or one - how do you determine who is 'worth' more happiness? Going the other way, what if 40 people needed his organs? 100? 200? What if the world was about to be destroyed but could be saved by killing one innocent person? If killing one innocent to save the world is ethical, what about the whole world minus one person? Minus two? Minus two thousand? Where do you draw the line? To avoid this whole mess, I define good to be doing what you believe is right (note that this is different from not doing what you think is wrong). With this kind of definition, being 'good' becomes very possible. I was originally had an extensive argument of ethics, but it turned into a 2 page essay that was a tangent to this thread at best, so I deleted most of it. But there we are. Last edited by Kyo; 09-19-2003 at 12:02 PM..

09-20-2003, 08:39 PM	#25 (permalink)
ForgottenKnight Jesus Freak Location: Following the light...	It is very much possible to be good. I have to agree with Kyo that being good is doing what you believe is right. __________________ "People say I'm strange, does that make me a stranger?"

09-21-2003, 01:51 AM	#26 (permalink)
yellowgowild Psycho Location: Tampa	I think you're talking about internal locus of control(gut feelings), or outer (religon, laws etc..) Anyways the idea of whats good cant be defined since everyone has a deifferent opinion on it. Just because alot of people believe something doesnt mean it's true. You just have to find your own level of bullshit that you're comfortable with.

09-21-2003, 07:38 AM	#27 (permalink)
Kyo Crazy	A lot of philosophers would disagree with you. Primarily because morals aren't worth much if there isn't an absolute standard. If you leave it up to each person to create their own moral system, you would never be able to call anyone evil, because they would simply create their own moral system where what they are doing is correct. In other words - morals without some kind of universal standard are useless on a spiritual level; they become laws. __________________ Sure I have a heart; it's floating in a jar in my closet, along with my tonsils, my appendix, and all of the other useless organs I ripped out.

09-21-2003, 07:44 AM	#28 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	"good" is a situational, relativistic idea. the attempt to make it an absolute is spurious. __________________ create evolution

09-21-2003, 08:36 AM	#29 (permalink)
cazba Upright Location: olympia wa	Good and Evil are man made ideas. That's why cultures are so different. It is possible to be "good" though inside a cultures structure. Some things cut across culture though. don't kill, steal ect. Bottom line though is this. Good and evil will be judged by those who see your actions and yourself

09-21-2003, 11:21 AM	#30 (permalink)
Kyo Crazy	Exactly. The point is that morals are determined by the majority - might makes right. That is exactly the path that history has taken. But if that is true, then there really isn't anything wrong with killing another person. Nor is there anything wrong with stealing, lying, rape, incest, etc. The authority of the 'moral' is that if I do any of these things, people will agree to punish me. By living in this society, we each implicitly agree to abide by common 'morals'. Because we do not kill others, we cannot ourselves be killed. But that means morals don't mean anything beyond laws - created and maintained by people. 'Good' and 'Evil' can no longer be used in the way they were meant, because nobody has enough right or authority to determine whether anyone else is 'good' or 'evil'. Serial murders, then, are criminals, but not evil. Child molestors are criminals, but not evil. Domestic abuse is crime, but not an 'evil'. That is the consequence of subjective moral standard. __________________ Sure I have a heart; it's floating in a jar in my closet, along with my tonsils, my appendix, and all of the other useless organs I ripped out.

09-21-2003, 07:38 PM	#31 (permalink)
EeOh1 Crazy	I already mentioned the book Wicked in this thread, which I think is a great book to read while on the topic of good vs. evil...but. I think it's definately possible to be good. I'd consider myself good. And what's good? Not taking action that would result in negative consequences or follow-up action against someone else. To me, being good is avoiding hurting others...It's so hard to describe. Discuss on! __________________ If life gives you lemons...throw them at someone.

09-22-2003, 08:17 AM	#32 (permalink)
Kyo Crazy	'Avoid hurting others' is an overly simplistic description - if you read the problems I posed in a post further up, there are many cases where someone is going to get hurt, but you get to decide who. Are there cases where killing would be justified? You have a gun to his head, he has a gun to your head - what are you going to do? The first guy to pull the trigger wins, but you could both just walk away. Would you count on your opponent to just walk away? Far more likely that he'll pull that trigger, so you have to pull it too. But that's killing - which, according to most of you, is somehow inherently 'wrong' (I don't buy that, by the way). Morality seems to wrap itself around intuition. If I encounter a moral dilemma and act on instinct rather than trying to reason it out, I am confident that I will be performing according to my own moral standard. __________________ Sure I have a heart; it's floating in a jar in my closet, along with my tonsils, my appendix, and all of the other useless organs I ripped out.