Defining "good" as "moral, virtuous", and "kind", do you believe that people are generally good? Why or why not?
I do not accept good or bad as measurement, as they are wholly subjective. They are suitcase terms. You can put a lot into them.
People are generally what their environment makes them. If you were raised by headhunters and someone asked you if it was good that you have 5 shrunken heads, you would say, "No, my brother has 20."
All behavior is learned. It is society built by humans that is sick. Humans are not good or bad or anything. Humans are just reacting to their environment.
Excellent response/description. imo.
I agree. This is a great description. Thank you.
Maybe, but there is always that kid that says, "Shrunken heads are overrated, I collect ears"
Your genetic foundation imposes biases in your response to the environment, and also your upbringing.
Or who says, "Ew, shrunken heads are gross." Thus, the subjectivity discussed.
Genetics create physical attributes. All behaviors are learned. Upbringing is clearly a part of ones environment.
I see it this way,; no human who's ever lived can match the goodness, honesty and reliability of the average dog so how good can we possibly be?
We're apes: hairless, smarter, cleaner (most of us) but still apes so that's how good we can be; as good as our primate ancestry enables us to be and apes do some messed up shit. Just watch a documentary on chimpanzees to see how closely our two species resemble each other in numerous ways.
Humanity would be much better off if we'd evolved from dogs. We'd greet each other by sniffing butts but I consider that a small price to pay.
On the upside to butt sniffing hello, probably less to worry about from COVID transmission compared to handshakes.
When I daily sold lunches outside the gate of a major manufacturer, many times I would extend credit to customers who were "short" (all-cash business) over a period of a year, 40-50 customers a day, only once did someone stiff me! And sometimes they would show up weeks later... even though they knew I Never wrote the debt down, too busy
People good, religion bad!
People are animals, smart, sometimes loving, but capable of everything any other animal is capable of.
Like:
Caring for offspring.
Being in a large social group.
Working in a team.
Killing offspring.
Being anti social.
etc.
Morality is just the "magic" word we use to describe character attributes that aren't different then other social creatures.
we are basically animals and behaviorally a product of our environment..how we "behave" is a matter of choice.
empathy is a behavior that is observable in many species of the animal kingdom and is not unique to mankind. That said I think our system of laws and punishment are checks and balances that keep "immoral" behavior at bay in a greater percentage of our population than we might not care to admit
sadly i think that it's a close call.
but, regardless, just a small % of the population actually run the world. and the bad news is that they're greedy, immoral sociopaths.
that is the wrong definition for a good person, leaves too many open questions, instead I would use just 6 very clear traits:
Therefore most people will fall short to varying degrees?
@Dorkyndaft not those who are good persons
so what percentage of the time do I have to comply with these strictures to be considered good, or does compliance exist on a spectrum? Because, no one could meet these rules for every circumstance, and how is compliance assessed as 2 and 5 seem particularly problematic? What about 4, as if I hand the decision to someone more qualified, am I passing the buck? Would I then be evaluated on a spectrum of good? Is their a threshold point on this spectrum where I would be considered bad?
I agree that these are great traits for people to have but I think there is a problem using them as a way to define a good person.
@Cyklone define the problem, because you either are honest or you are not, you are either responsible for your actions or you're not, all these traits are either or, same as being pregnant, you either are or aren't, there is no percentage of time here. What? Are you saying that you can be mostly fair but sometimes unfair? Or that you can be altruistic about 58% of the time but 42% of the time a selfish prick? Then you're not a good person. It is as simple as that.
@Mofo1953 I don't think people or life are as black and white as you would make it out to be. Yes, I'm selfish some of the time, yes I'm altruistic some of the time, but not all of it. Sometimes for my own welfare I put myself first. If that makes me "bad" then so be it, I'm a selfish arrogant old f'ck and I'm fine with not fitting your definitions. But your dichotomy of good/bad would make everyone who isn''t a "saint" bad.
@Mofo1953 I'm fine with it and it's been written in my bio since I joined. I'm quite happy with being an arsehole at times as that's one of the characteristics of being an arsehole. I only argue because I think your definition is too black and white and I don't think it's helpful for anyone to define themself in such a monochromatic fashion, but if that's how you see life, not my problem. I just hope that other readers are more perceptive.
@Cyklone typical of people who want validation of their own shortcomings, attack reality as too harsh. So I say it is great that you know and accept your lack of integrity. Live the way you want to live, who the fuck cares. But don't ask for validation of your own version of what it is to be a good person when you are often not a good person by your own admission.
@Mofo1953 So I'm after validation, when I made it clear I don't need it and because I don't see things in black and white I'm attacking reality as too harsh and you equate the acceptance of my flaws as a lack of integrity. I fail to see how you're living up to your own definitions when you rewrite my post. I see you've violated rules 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 or are they just your general guidelines. Not too much integrity there. Now lets see how you pass judgement on me in your next post
@Mofo1953 So you admit to not being a good person, but when I do the same I'm trying to validate my point unsuccessfull,y or do you think that in some weird way I'm after approval. I thought I'd made it pretty clear I don't care about approval or validation. Why don't you check my posts, I've made enough of them, you'll see it's evident that I don't give a shit about approval. That's your thing. Debating with you is a waste of my time.because you fail to demonstrate the insight of being able to understand or even accept yourself. Accept you're not a f'cking saint, you're bloody human, be okay with that and move on.
@Mofo1953 So, you've been reduced to just slander now, and I have an obsession with responding to you hey? That would imply that you have not done the same. I observe that this has been very tit for tat, so how do my responses become an obsession and yours not? Again I note that you seem very blind to your own behaviours. How does that and even your current responses accord with your original precepts?
@Mofo1953 Now you sound like one of my grandchildren. I'm just having fun drawing you out because it was obvious that your original black and white ideas were ultimately indefensible. You can't pretend to be the good person any more, have even admitted that to be so and continue to demonstrate it. Come on, have another shot.
@Mofo1953 So how many times do I refer you back to your original post before you get the point? Do you really believe that insulting someone on a public forum is going to upset me or get you anything but contempt from others who read it? And of course, now we can also see the lie that you are trying to annoy me, because it is very evident which one of us is getting annoyed.
#2: I am aware of my strengths & weaknesses, work to adjust them. But "humble"???? Not for one freakin' moment! Makes me think of Uriah Heep.
I think it’s a mixed bag. Most people act lawfully towards others. We all have our good attributes, and our jerk moments, too. A majority of us do no harm, which qualifies as virtuous, I suppose.
Yes...I think humans are generally good. We all need other humans in order to survive. By being good to others we insure our own survival.
Interesting response. Defining "good" as "socially acceptable behavior that contributes to the survival and continuation of the species" could certainly be more broadly applied to people in general. However, we do see the exceptions to that rule almost daily as of lately.
@Dorkyndaft For sure...we always have the assholes with us also. But I believe most people are good.
Everyone has the perception of themselves to be always good, which sometimes doesn't happen. Nobody has only faults, the same way nobody has only qualities. Even people who are considered good can end up having very bad actions. So, it's very relative. Also depends on many factors.
Some people are good. Some are not. It depends a lot on their upbringing, and the thought they put into being good as an adult.
"There are always both good and bad 'apples' to be found in every barrel," as the saying goes.
But, imho and numerous past experiences, religion breeds 'bad apples' far more than it does good ones for some unknown reason.
For example, I once was asked to help, and told I would be paid, to use my skills as a Handyman Builder to do a job of building a Walk-in Dressing room at the home of some people I thought were friends, also Christians btw.
The agreed amount of payment settle upon was about $5 per hour and the husband was to be my Assistant.
I'd start work after taking my daughter to school every morning, work through until time to collect her from school.
3 weeks I worked at the job, it WAS a big job btw.
Thankfully THEY paid for ALL materials, etc, and not me, materials alone cost approx. $1,200.
When the job was done to THEIR satisfaction I asked for my payment and was told to wait a few days while they got the money together.
I've not seen a brass razoo of it even to this day but I did another renovation style job for an older couple some weeks later, materials cost them around the same, the time span was about the same length, I got Morning and Afternoon Tea Breaks supplied as well as my lunch, unlike with the previous job, and was paid promptly at the end of each day even though I asked them to hold off until the job was completed to their satisfaction.
The older couple were as Atheist as I am and was then and we debated strongly when they tried to insist that I should take an extra $150 on top of the agreed amount paid because the job was done better than they had expected.
Moral of the story, imo, Do NOT trust supposed friends who are also Christians.
Humanity is basically good. There are bad people mixed in there, but most people are good. There are good people who just do bad things sometimes. They are still good. There are mean people but they weren't born mean, or racist. Something happened that made them mean. Then there are the Jeffrey Dahmer's or Ted Bundy's who are just fucking crazy and certainly don't represent a very large area under the bell curve. Humanity good, religion bad!
I often think there is a corralation in the insanity of religious belief, and the likes of ted, and jeffery.
People are mostly, only as good as they were taught, and to the extent that they can muster the courage to display.
I am an optimist. People generally prefer to be in a position to help others. Even warriors are cooperative.
It is the ones that are imbued with distrust and prey on other's fears that I worry about. When a person like that gets in power, things go to hell.
Sorry, I don't believe in the dichitomy of good vs bad. There is what works and what doesn't work, so "good" will change according to context. But, "not good" is generally the result of selfishness, those who focus on what they want to the exclusion of what works, either for the community or themselves. You might notice how in this context " not good" aligns with those who wish to enforce their "rights" without consideration of what works for the community.
I think that the maddness of today comes from the belief that we are inherently "bad.". That the guilt taught from a psycho philosophy, driven by religions, has caused humans to fight against their nature of goodness, toward insanity.
It is all objective and based on circumstance, within or out of our control. There are people who have benefited from Trump's position who seem to think he is the definition of good, while most who see past the con and lying would define him as evil. Hitler was admired by his inner circle and a majority of Germans at the zenith of his power and despised by those who could see through his ambitions. Even on a day to day basis, some of the worst people you may meet have people whom they may take care of or befriend who would call them good. Happens almost every time a mass murder happens and the family and friends come forward to say what a wonderful person they thought he was and they don't understand how he became this monster that killed.
I think most people are good. I like words like Virtuous, good, right, wrong. I think they describe the human condition well. I dislike words like moral, evil, sinful. I think they imply that there is a force outside of humanity that defines if we do good or not.
Man is a tribal animal and co operation within the tribe was essential for the common good.
Give those attributes names like morality. ethics etc and let the religious leaders commandeer them and you have the writings in the old testament.
Everything the Jewish tribe did to further their aims was good, godly,. Everyone one outside the Jewish tribe was bad, ungodly,