Rights and wrongs...

Question about morals.
Most people have varying moral strengths and weaknesses. They're good about some things, bad about other things. Question is... can one counteract the other? Could someone have a very bad trait, but enough good qualities to make them an overall "good person"? How about the other way? Can a lifetime of righteousness be undermined by a single disgraceful quality?

At what point does a person go from being 'good' to 'bad' - is it an equation, a simple matter of addition and subtraction, or is it a complex system involving overall impression, nuanced by the nature and extent of the person's moral/immoral acts?

There is no real measure for good and bad. It's just your opinion wether or not someone's bad.

If it was possible to describe morality quantitatively, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It can, however, be described abstractly in logical terms.

I don't think there's a barrier, as mentioned it would differ from person to person. However the distinction can probably be made through the persons day to day intteractios.

If I made a joke, would I ruin this thread?


See what I did there

I'm likely in the vast minority for thinking this way, but I believe that everyone naturally tends toward the bad. Sure, everyone is capable or doing great and kind acts (and very many people do), but left completely alone to our own vices, we tend to slip downwards.

As said before, I'm sure many will disagree...but you asked. ;)

I have personal issues with the words "good" and "bad."

Without divulging too much into the topic however...
I'll leave it at:

Good & Bad are man made concepts.

These ideologies are supported by the local culture and have a tendancy to change from culture to culture; nation to nation.

Since these concepts are too abstract, unstable and ultimately too reliant on the subconcious and naturalization I have a difficult time using them.

Instead I try to rate people by a rather simple mathamatical equation:

The amount of times someone has made me feel positive (a)
- The amount of times someone has made me feel negative (b)

If the answer (c) is a negative integer then they're a hopeless cause and aren't worth my time or consideration. Et Visa Versa.
Cleary there are varying degrees and the greater the value of (c); the greater the respect and fondness.

So, as you can guess this equation allows for individuals to make mistakes and yet redeem themselves as well, so its pretty continuous and time based rather than a concrete manor of judgement.

I suppose another difference between this system and the concept of good vs. bad is that it centers less on personal oppinions and ideologies and relies more on interaction and encounters. I don't tend to dislike someone based on arguements or clash of oppinion, because that just makes a discussion much more interesting. I'd dislike ever so much to always be agreed with.

I believe that good and bad is too blury a line to describe humans. However I believe our attitudes towards others and ourselves, are what others use to describe individuals as good or bad. Bad attitude-bad person, good attitude-good person. But this is flawed in so many ways. Our actions determain whether or not we are good or bad. Also, everyone has some form of good and bad in them. If someone displays more of one over the other, then in turn that person is placed the adjective good or bad. However most of this makes no sense so don't read unless you're really bored. This is only my opinion. xD

I don't think there is such a thing as good or evil, it all depends on each individuals standpoint. Something that's good in my opinion could be bad in someone elses. Same thing goes for people.

If anyone in the world thinks that rape is good, then I would have to say that they've got issues.

I do think that there are some things in the world, such as sleeping around, that some people see as good and some as bad, and it's up to the individual. However, I see bad as "making the choice to do something that will have a negative impact on another." I suppose one could say that sometimes it needs to be done at some point or another - such as breaking up with someone when you no longer have feelings for them, for example. My reply to that is that it is more of a negative impact on them for you to stay with them, as they will not be loved, but resented.

It's always difficult to find the exact wording that would define 'bad' without it including some kind of perspective, however I think it might be possible if you spent enough time thinking about it.

To me, there is good, there is bad and there is the grey area in the middle which is the part that is purely individual perspective. But just because some things are down to perspective doesn't mean that everything is.

You've just asked a question that humanity has been asking itself ever since we realised we had hands. Truth is, we really don't know. It's hard to describe, because the ideas of 'good' and 'evil' are purely circumstancial. For example, take something like stealing. Now, most everyone knows that taking something that isn't yours isn't right, but what if you were a starving man with five children to feed, and stole one loaf of bread from a warehouse that stored food for a single person who was known for being gluttanous. It's still technically bad, no matter what the circumstances, but it is justified. I think that's the main thing here, justification of our actions. You'll always hear these nutters who go and kill people on the highway. They always come back with some insane reason, like God told them, or that they had a bad childhood. Whether or not these are viable reasons isn't important, to the person themselves they are reason enough. We are merely observers to each other's behaviour and judge it accordingly. Where the true morality comes from is within, the idea of the conscience telling us what we should and shouldn't do.

Our morals are not our own, rather they comes from the community in which we grown up. So really individuals do not have their own morals, rather they are morals others, to which they were gorwn with. So to be evil or good is to whether or not you follow the morals of your given society/community. Yet one can be immoral yet ethical. For instance, if you come from a society where homosexuality is condemned, yet you reflect upon that and realize that it is perfectly okay, and act upon that, then you are acting ethically, but immoral. ((Sorry, that the only example I could find at the moment))

This all ties into whether truth is relative. Does truth come only in absolute or can it be percieved as something else? If truth were absolute, then I would say that rape would not be acceptable. Is good and bad absolute in society's views?

As for myself, as to define whether I'm good or bad, I try to balance myself out. Being too much of one thing to me isnt necessarily healthy.

There are very few absolute moral truths, but they do exist. Murder, theft, and lying are all bad qualities a person can posses in 100% of cultures. Murder, theft, and lying by definition are also universally undefinable. So that murder in one culture is not murder in another. To answer D's question we have to define good and bad. I could give you a defintion of good and bad, provide examples, but it wouldn't answer the question because it would be my interpretation.

A person's worth also cannot be determined through a moral equation of sorts. Emotional perception shouldn't be used to label a person good or bad. Hate, dislike, and love may be qualities perscribed to individuals who may be good or bad, but it's not necessary. I do not hate or dislike Osama Bin Laden. I do not hate Hitler. Yet most of us would deem them bad individuals.

Now, in reponse to D's question: There is no simple answer. Murderers CAN became decent or even good individuals. Good acts and good morals do not wipe the slate clean in the case of a murderer. His bad act should not be weighed against his good against, but rather alone. In the same way, this man's good acts should be considered seperately as well.

Morality is a tricky subject as it is entirely perceived and not absolute. The ideal person could perhaps answer your question, but I am not the ideal person. ;)

As so many people have said, good and bad aren't physically real. They're abstract. Even so, they're relative. Peoples ideas of both good and bad change depending on perspective, time, context. People have different ideas but, as BoB said, basically, if it hurts other people then it's bad. If it helps people it's good. That becomes more complicated, though, when you have something that helps some but hurts others. And it too cahnges depending on perspective and things.

Giving good and bad a set place is just something that builds a plot for crappy stories. Same for evil. Evil doesn't exist. Evil cannot be good. Ever. That's what makes them evil (which really isn't fair. They're bad because it's all they can be, but then it's not their fault. They can't be anything else. Except for different levels of smug). Everybody has the capability of being kind or 'good', as in helping others. Some people just don't. 'Cause they're jerks :)
Some people are just jerks...

D keeps trying to make people think. I disapprove.

Aww Shlup, did the big words make your head hurt? *pat*

Don't mock my pain. I will comfort myself with an Otter Pop.

Is this thread supposed to balance out my idiotic ones? :p

I remember when I used to enjoy these discussions. Now I just look at it at intellectual masturbation. My peen is already tired of my hand; I don't need my brain to go down the same route.

Wait, I didn't just say that, did I? Damn. >_<

As said "good" and "bad" are abstracts made to tell us what is what we should and should not do. But from my point of view, it all depends on circumstances and severity. I mean someone sounds like a monster when you say "He killed a guy," but when you add on "because he was fighting for his life," it takes on a whole new meaning. So yeah...all in all this is a tough question to answer in black and white terms.

I thinkt he fact that people are interested in discussing what makes us good and bad is a positive thing. As long as people are considering the ramifications of their acts, I think the tendency is toward the good. We're all flawed, but at least if we know it and try despite our failings, we'll be ok.

"All ideals corrupt, fanatic ideals corrupt fanatically."

What BoB said basically sums up what I think. I agree that some things are just WRONG and some things are definitely GOOD, but most things are in the middle and is up to the individual.

There are so many ways to answer this question, I'm not sure which would make the most sense. I'll just try to be brief.

Morality, is a term that I often have trouble grappling with since as so many have said it seems to be more or less relative to a person and an action. There are some acts that can be uniformly classified as "bad" and others "good" but yet there always seem to be exceptions mixed in there.

I think it depends on a given action whether someone's opinion of another's morality changes. If a "good" person kills another in cold blood, I would tend to think they would then be considered a "bad" person. If however, that person killed out of self-defense, that changes the equation altogether. Likewise with someone who is regarded as "bad" doing "good". There is no formula to figure out how many how many good deeds can negate a bad one, or how many bad negate good. Usually, it will depend on the situation, the people involved, the circumstances, the context and all the elements that contribute to our individual beliefs and wills.

I also want to agree entirely with what Eest posted.

Take care all.

I disagree with this idea of Universal "Bads."

Rape:

Rape is basic instint excercised by animals to reproduce.

Rape is justified by tradition/medicine. There's an instance in some primitive African Cultures where men are encouraged to be sexual with children, even babies, because they're ignorant to HIV and have a belief that children are born pure and undiseased and are therefor without risk. (A Kenyan friend informed me of this)

Murder:

Murder is justified though war. There are some "hippies" and "liberals" who of course oppose war, but the state, the law and the general mass populus support the soldier. A soldier must kill or be killed. It's a state of survival.

Murder is justified through criminal punishment. Some individuals and people are murdered in the jusitice system as punishment for their "heinous" acts.

Murder is justified through relief. In some contries people support Euthenasia, killing someone as a form of relieving them of their pain and suffering.

Murder is justified through the right to excercise free choice. Though it's debatable if feti are actually "alive." It is not debatable that some people are deeply against it because it is murder and yet freedom of choice and abortion is supported in several countries.

Murder is justified through necessity. Food. (not people but still murder)

Theft:

Theft is justified by naturalizing colonialization (as well as the post colonial effect) and corporations. We take from the land that is not initially our own and we make a profit off of materials that don't necessarily belong to anyone. For instance, England... has no land but has several buisness's mining and corporations overseas that were established since the Enlightenment period where they expanded their buisness borders to exploit the materials and people of other lands. The people are no longer ... as... exploited, but the land they claimed, the mining fields, the oil fields, the logging stations, the fertile land that they aquired during this period are still theirs despite the fact that they are on land outside of England. If England ever gave back these resources to the according country then England would be quite poor considering they have little - no land of their own to exploit.

Theft is justified through necesity. A person stealing food to survive. A Kidnapped soul stealing a knife to escape. A cop stealing ... (appropriating) a vehicle to take chase of an individual. A cop stealing alcohol, drugs, money from convicted criminals & underage individuals because they've been given the right to steal these items as a response to justice.

Theft is justified by the state. The governemnt it selfs steals information on you. Corporations steal information about you. Taxes.

Lieing

Lieing is justified by the Media. Censorship, they choose what facts and information about a specific tragedy you see, not only that but they choose how you see it. Which in as sense condones all media as liars because you will never be shown an incident as it originally happens or happened. You will see altered tidbits, highlights, pictures accompanied by quotes, news captions and reports.

Lieing is justified by Corporations and The Government, to keep the general populs regulated. Corporations use surreal images and subconcious messages that are lies dressed as life in order to encourage us to consume their product. The Government keeps information from us or only gives us pieces of information concerning several topics in order to maintain civil peace, civil obedience or simply to keep us ignorant.

Lieing is justified by tradtion, folklore, stories and cultures. Lies about Santa Clause which are of course not harmful... but still lies. The Tooth Fairy, The Easter Bunny, Ghosts, Ghouls, Witchs. (Some of you may argue that these are real.) Harmful fun.

Lies are justified by entertainment. Movies, Plays, Poetry, Novels, Paintings, Games. None of it's real, so they must all be lies. Lies used to entertain us. It's all actors lieing or rather, acting, in a fake scenary and forging accounts. Some of these may represent real occurance or real people but the words aren't reality, they're script and the people aren't the real people, they're phonies.

Lies are justified by Religion. Alright, this one is debatable. But if there are so many different religions... then all but the "right" one must be lieing. And if this is not the case, then all of them are lieing. The use of stories, metaphors, allegories. Concepts of characters. Of great powers and great events. This may just be entertainment applied to a following in order to give the religion more appeal and to empassion the sluggish follower who is emotionally stumped.


My point is, that any action can be justified. The only matter is who is justifying it and why. We're regulated. We're kept in state where concepts are naturalized and given exceptions. Essentially we are told what is Good and what is Bad as a way to achieve these goals of regulation.

But if I say killing a random man on the street is justified. It's what is right. Then who is to tell me it is wrong? These people who do all of the above anyways? By acting on that, by saying that it's right I'm stepping out of their boundries they have pre-established for me. I'm thinking for myself. Otherwise I'm following a guideline of concepts and rules disguised as Universal.

However, it's always been that people who think and move outside of the norm never go without punishment.

Early Christians, Heretics, Feminists, Black People, The Nazis, Criminals, Environmental Activists, Peace Keepers, Womans Rights Activists, (Activists in General), Mutaneers, Slaves, Poachers, IRA, KKK, Early Colonists, Prodestants, First Nations. The list is endless.

In th end, there are no rights and there are no wrongs they're are only indivudal actions a person can take to better their own lives which may include following socially acceptable norms.

'Murder' is generally defined as killing without lawful excuse. Same goes for theft and many other crimes, where the qualifier is that those things must be done for a certain reason, if they're to be legal... so the underlying 'act' is still wrong - i.e. killing, stealing, causing some kind of harm to another person - but there are limited circumstances, differing from culture to culture, where it can sometimes be 'right' to do it.

But anyhow... with regard to the original topic, I was thinking of something like this: Suppose someone's got a 'character flaw' - they're greedy, or vain, or arrogant or obnoxious. Does this mean they're not a 'good person'? Suppose someone's environmentally conscious, or is generous to their friends, or does something else that's widely regarded as 'good', yet has one or more of those 'flaws' as well...
Never mind, it's all up to shades of degree and individual perception. I basically agree with everything eest and The Captain said.

Well...start with the fact that everyone has a flaw in some form or another. ie//I am endlessly stubborn. Does that make me "bad?" I don't think so.

Concerning murder, all cultures condemn murder. It's the interpretation that allows them to justify the action in war, capital punishment, etc. It no longer becomes murder, but something else.

All I know is that it is bad to use a riding mower after taking cold medicine. Just don't do it, people.

1+1=Apple. Think about it. There is some sort of awesome truth in these words.