Rights and wrongs...

[Big D]

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?

[themagicroundabout]

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.

[Primus Inter Pares]

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.

[Old Manus]

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


See what I did there

[Samuraid]

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.

[Chemical]

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.

[Skarr]

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

[Zante]

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.

[Loony BoB]

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.

[Captain Maxx Power]

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.

[The Summoner of Leviathan]

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))

[Hawkeye]

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.

[Yamaneko]

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.

[RPJesus]

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...