I think most are inherently neutral. Like if a baby pops out and is not nurtured like most babies are...it's is nuetral and bases it's beleifs and lifestyles off of what it knows. Because of the "human condition" most babies are conditioned to be happy and comfortable and are in general taken care of. So in that sense they are good. And most would stay that way until something else intervenes for them not to be that way. Unless of course their brain does not function "normal" in which, even though they are conditioned into what is right or wrong, cannot decern between the two.


Then of course there are those perceived to be bad, but think they are good. This is where we get into strange gray areas. Like people in the KKK. They are normal functioning human beings, who for all intents and purposes lead decent enough lives. They also think that what they do is GOd's will and therefore don't think they are bad. Same goes with leaders of countries and what makes them good or bad is a matter of opinion.

superspaceboy said:

yeah, that makes a lot of sense...but don't you think that when a baby comes out of the womb, it's just one big hot purple screaming wad of "LOVE ME! LOVE ME! LOVE ME!"? i mean, okay, it doesn't know what love is - it doesn't know the WORD love, or how the interactions of loving take place, but it does instictually need that interaction and comfort...and i think we never lose that neediness, even though it may turn into something else thoughout our lives.

ANYWAY.

Come on. There isn't one without the other. You must accept both and never be so blind to believe that anyone could be good OR evil alone.

INSATIABLE said:

I think good people can do bad things, sure. But does that make them evil? I don't know.

I just have to say, I'm thankful for your responses.
Interesting stuff.

I think it depends on the context, but generally I think people are good. I think society functions on the basis that people are good and when we deviate from that we are labelled as evil.

CarrieMpls said:

I'm a good person who has done bad things. But what I consider to be bad, some consider ways of life.

I think what constitutes as a bad person is someone who consistantly and consciously does things that harm others for their own benefit.

LleeLlee said:

I would agree most with this, the more I think about it.

And ya'll are selling me a bit on the intention kick. But I don't know if I can say one is more important than the other. I think they need to be viewed in entirety.

But is someone with the best of intentions who is never able to execute (or worse, makes horrendous mistakes for the worst) any better than someone who does nothing but thinks ill? One is harmful, one is not.

CarrieMpls said:

Anyone who also doesn't adhere to say social norms is labelled as weird or a "loner." They could be a good person but because they are lacking social skills, theyre considered odd. Good intentions without action are pretty pointless. It's from action that we get a true picture of a persons intentions, good or bad, imo.

...
[Edited 2/27/07 15:45pm]

CarrieMpls said:

If we're talking about defining who we are (which I thought was the point of this thread), then what is going on inside is more important. How we affect the world around us is also interesting, but it seems like another discussion.

Ask this question:would more people steal if they could get away with it?
Where do we learn ethical behavior?; from our parents, family, society, religion, school, laws. All of which reinforce how we ought to behave along with repercussions if we don't.
I'm a firm believer in Kantian ethics. If ever confused about how to act, ask yourself; What if we all behaved this way? ( What if everybody is a thief? It would be total anarchy.)
I believe intentions are significant. If you save a drowning man because you know there will be a reward, the act is not moral. If you save him because it's the right thing to do, then it is moral.
I think man is capable of both good and evil given the right circumstances.
[Edited 2/27/07 16:03pm]

CarrieMpls said:

Maybe I'm screwed, but I just cannot be content with pointing at a line of people with a chart of all their actions to date and check "Good" or "Bad". They're just people. Everyone is both. I can't fathom that anyone is born good or evil, and that anyone at death can be labelled "Good" or "Evil".

If that were the case, we'd be fucked, because it's all relative and based on opinion on top of that.

i think some are pre determined while still in the whomb

i believe some are through circumstance turned bad

shausler said:

Really? How far does someone have to go to be "Good" or "Bad"? How about one's thoughts? Could a person's actions sell you to believe they're truly Good or Evil, and not just human (Both)?

INSATIABLE said:

those are bad questions

but your a good gal

LleeLlee said:

I would argue that good intentions without actions are not pointless. Yes, it's true that if one falls into the lazy trap of continually tossing out the "Oh I meant to do XXX, but I forgot/never got around to it/etc" then their "intentions" are indeed meaningless because they were never sincere to begin with and lip service was only as far as the person ever meant to go.

However, it's my contention that a good intention does have meaning depending on the person. For example, recently my birthday passed. Later I was told by someone that they'd remembered my birthday and had meant to call, but due to circumstances never did. That they'd remembered my birthday at all and intended to call meant a great deal to me.

I argue also that actions do not necessarily paint an accurate picture of a person's true nature. If one gives to a charity, yes the donated money is 'doing good' for the charity and that reality is "good" but what if the person gave only because they wished to shore up their public image, or craved the publicity they'd receive as a result of their 'giving'? What if one's outward good works stem from a self-serving place?

shausler said:

You've got that backwards and you know it.

INSATIABLE said:

Take for instance a figure such as Hitler, was he evil? Most would agree that he was. Maybe thats an extreme and obvious example, but when your bad actions outweigh your good ones, you could say that person is correctly perceived as evil. Despite the fact that he may have been good to his mother ( I dont know) all of that falls to the wayside when you consider the consequences of his actions. Just an example of someone who is considered as evil by the majority.

...

..
damn the edit.
[Edited 2/27/07 16:11pm]

What does good mean? Evil?

Is selfishness evil? I believe we are all deeply, inherently selfish. I don't think that's evil, but some people do. Are murderers necessarily evil? How about soldiers?

Good? What's good? A tendency to get pleasure from being altruistic (<-- still selfish, btw)? A person who minimizes their contribution to suffering in the world? A monk detached from desire? A person who believes they are acting morally?

WillyWonka said:

I agree that its more complex than I stated, definitely. I was generalising about intention and action. The charity example is a good one, some people give to charity and dont make a huge song & dance about it. I think maybe how they go about it gives us an insight into the intention.

LleeLlee said:

I agree.

While I know that my intelligence level will never ever be categorized by what some would term as ...uhmnn.... uhhhh


what's the word I'm looking for here .....




uhhh...

























well...


nevermind.

But,

I always thought that I was smart enough to hold my own in these types of discussions.

But after reading all the insanely intrinsic, profound & wise posts on this thread & not understanding any of it,
I've come to the conclusion that all I really am is just an empty, intelligent-word slinging dick-swinger.

And while I know that that isn't really considered as inherently evil (or as Obi Wan likes to say "e-ville"),
I know that it ain't good.

LleeLlee said:

I can't disagree. Then again, we're talking about percentages here. The negative extent of damage/death cause by Adolph's reign far outweighs anything he may have accomplished that was good of heart. But can we say anyone is completely Good or Evil?

Why is anyone discontent with accepting that we're a bit of both, whichever side the scales tip?

INSATIABLE said:

I'm not discontent with it. And I'd agree with you.

I think we like to put things in boxes and label them and then feel like we understand. It's a lot easier to say Hitler was evil than to think about how he was devoted to his dog and gave all the little kids in his village sweets (or, you know, whatever ) and that he, like everyone, was human. We'd rather paint a portrait of a monster. It's hard to accept that any of us could be Hitler. We want to put him in the other box.

I'd also like to point out, I was thinking of the Hitler example myself, LleeLlee. Cliched and extreme, but it makes the point.

retina said:

I see what you mean, but I still think they're equally important.

HereToRockYourWorld said:

Of course, these were my next thoughts as well. Perhaps we need definitions for the discussion at hand... I agree that we all might have subtle differences in our definitions, but I think the similarities would be much, much greater.

CarrieMpls said:

Would they be? I don't know.

Sorry, I'll keep my silly philosophical nonsense to myself.

retina said:

I picked up a book in the bookshop yesterday and thought of you, it was called "Why it is so hard to be good" and it raised the issue of context, as in being good is quite easy, but living up to other people's expectations/definitions of good, is where we most likely fail, something like that.



I think the majority of people are inherently "good" but pretty relaxed about things in grey areas, and probably deliberately ignorant, not from being bad, but lazy.