# Do "good" and "bad" people actually exist?



## Deleted User (Jul 8, 2018)

Are "good people" "good" by personal choice? Did they make the right decisions growing up? Were they lucky enough to be born into a loving family? Were they lucky enough not to suffer from mental illness? Were they lucky enough to have enough food on the table? Were they blessed with altruistic genes?

EDIT: As I posted on the second page


leafeon34 said:


> I really should have explained myself in more clearly in the first post.
> 
> The reason why I added quotation marks around the words good and bad is because they are subjective terms. When I use these words I refer to a person who would be considered good or bad in popular western culture. Good does not mean completely good and bad does not mean completely bad.
> 
> ...


----------



## snails1221 (Jul 8, 2018)

We are all corrupt on the inside, just some less than others.


----------



## Lia (Jul 8, 2018)

snails1221 said:


> We are all corrupt on the inside, just some less than others.


thank you for not really answering the question at all lmao


----------



## Veho (Jul 8, 2018)

The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevant. It is what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are.


----------



## Chary (Jul 8, 2018)

There's people who grow up to stab squirrels and shoot dogs for fun. Some rape others just on a whim, even if they had a loving home. So yeah, some people can be inherently bad.


----------



## Lia (Jul 8, 2018)

guys pls read the post


----------



## onibaku (Jul 8, 2018)

leafeon34 said:


> Are "good people" "good" by personal choice? Did they make the right decisions growing up? Were they lucky enough to be born into a loving family? Were they lucky enough not to suffer from mental illness? Were they lucky enough to have enough food on the table? Were they blessed with altruistic genes?



Hmm difficult questions to answer. I think it varies. I think being good is a characteristic developed over time and based on choices you have previously made. For instance, when someone commits a "bad act and crosses the "ethical" boundaries, its pushes that boundary further, making it easier to commit "bad" acts. That's not to say they can't change for the better, of course they can, it's just a matter of realization and reprogramming yourself and just having that will to do so. There are so many variables that come into play but I do believe that some people may be inherently evil 

Edit: I think it does somewhat boil down to personal choice too. There are situations where I feel that I can be a douche or a nice guy, I personally find that being a douche does not generate good or productive outcomes for either party. It may also depend on your ability to reflect, and also to be able to predict the outcome of ur actions.


----------



## osaka35 (Jul 8, 2018)

I figure a good person is one who recognizes when they mess up and try to not do it again. Effort, intent, results. These make for a good person. Opposite for a bad person(no awareness, no desire to change or grow, no effort put in to not do bad things, etc). Good person can do bad things, bad person can do good things, it's all in how it's handled and changed over time.

Though personality and influences have a huge impact on where someone starts out on the good/bad spectrum. Harder for some than it is others, for sure. But really, being good is mainly about the choice to be good. Either you try and be good, or you're not good. Some find it more effortless because of upbringing or personality, but it's always a choice.


----------



## yuyuyup (Jul 8, 2018)

after birth they dip the baby in either good sauce or bad sauce


----------



## onibaku (Jul 8, 2018)

osaka35 said:


> I figure a good person is one who recognizes when they mess up and try to not do it again. Effort, intent, results. These make for a good person. Opposite for a bad person(no awareness, no desire to change or grow, no effort put in to not do bad things, etc). Good person can do bad things, bad person can do good things, it's all in how it's handled and changed over time.
> 
> Though personality and influences have a huge impact on where someone starts out on the good/bad spectrum. Harder for some than it is others, for sure. But really, being good is mainly about the choice to be good. Either you try and be good, or you're not good. Some find it more effortless because of upbringing or personality, but it's always a choice.



The reason why I think people can be inherently bad is mostly due to one bad experience I had growing up. I was maybe 5 years old at the time and we had been camping somewhere with other campers. I came across some other children, mustve been about 4 years old, I remember them being slightly younger than me. They were basically tossing around this helpless kitten in the mud and laughing, it was on the brink of death. When I saw the kitten I started crying and took it to our camp site, cleaned it up and took care of it for the time we were there.

So basically I believe it also has a lot to do with the chemical make up of our brain. To be able to be empathetic.


----------



## snails1221 (Jul 8, 2018)

Lia said:


> thank you for not really answering the question at all lmao


I was answering the title "Do "good" and "bad" people actually exist" but, if you would like me to answer everything in the post I will.

>Are "good people" "good" by personal choice
It really depends, if someone was raised in a home where said "good" morals where forced upon them they might feel more obligated to follow them.

>Did they make the right decisions growing up?
If by growing up you mean 0-19 years old then no not necessarily. Although hard you can still turn your life around at that point.

>Were they lucky enough to be born into a loving family?
Being raised in a loving family is crucial to "moral development". If one is raised in a family where both the mother and father care about the child, they are less prone to go down the path of "evil". Whereas if said child is raised in a family with lets say, a single mother that is working multiple shifts to put food on the table they might be more drawn to trouble.

>Were they lucky enough not to suffer from mental illness?
In my opinion mental illnesses are irrelevant when it comes to morals 90% of the time. 

>Were they lucky enough to have enough food on the table?
If a child is desperate enough they could result to stealing food, or money to buy food. The experience of stealing may not seem that bad to the child and they might inclined to do it again.

>Were they blessed with altruistic genes? 
If someone has "altruistic" genes they may feel more guilty when doing something morally wrong but, as with anything if you try hard enough you can break through the mental barrier.


----------



## infinete (Jul 8, 2018)

I think upbringing helps to a degree but ultimately it is personal choice. The term good though is such a grey area. I think a good person considers the possible consequences of their decision and chooses the one which causes the least pain to others. So again ultimately by choice.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 8, 2018)

Well, let's go by the most obvious example. If someone wants you dead, is he or she a "good" person in your opinion? You don't need to answer, it's rhetorical.


----------



## Enkuler (Jul 8, 2018)

snails1221 said:


> >Were they lucky enough to be born into a loving family?
> Being raised in a loving family is crucial to "moral development". If one is raised in a family where both the mother and father care about the child, they are less prone to go down the path of "evil". Whereas if said child is raised in a family with lets say, a single mother that is working multiple shifts to put food on the table they might be more drawn to trouble.


Well I feel like one could grow up in a family that doesn't care (willfully or not) but still have friends to hang out with and get that necessary love you're talking about, AND use their family as a negative role-model to become a good person.



snails1221 said:


> >Were they lucky enough not to suffer from mental illness?
> In my opinion mental illnesses are irrelevant when it comes to morals 90% of the time.


If your family is a loving one but one that fails to deal with your special points, you can feel like no one will understand you (because if someone could, your family would, or at least that's what you'd think), and you could end up hating everyone.
...Or get back to my first sentence, you find what you need in your friends instead of your family, and use your family as a negative role-model and still become a good person. But mental illnesses are not irrelevant. They are just not directly relevant.
Which is exactly the problem in this thread. It feels to me like nothing is direct but everything contributes.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 8, 2018)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Well, let's go by the most obvious example. If someone wants you dead, is he or she a "good" person in your opinion? You don't need to answer, it's rhetorical.


In Hitler's mind the people who tried to assassinate him were "bad". In my mind they were heroes.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 8, 2018)

What is good and what is bad? I know of no physics based definition of the concept, much less a universal constant, and there does not appear to be any such thing.
Or if you prefer that I not only have the word of the [deity] available to me but have actually read them and dismissed it as so much ancient bullshit means I am a thoroughly wicked dude in the eyes of some (better yet for the sake of argument I will make myself an apostate), for others it just means I am a rational human being and for them then being rational is a human ideal (humanity has rapidly changed since we left the savannahs however many millennia ago, far faster than biology can keep up with and for now at least technology has not offered a solution as much as a glimpse at some and paths to them).
To that end good and bad stem from morals which are a human invention*, albeit ones with a basis in biology** and selected for over many many many generations.

*there are people that would claim that morals are divinely inspired/mandated and are very ardent in this belief.

**I am presumably descended from ones which checked behind the bush for a snake/lion/bear, shared with their community enough that they weren't booted out and so forth.

In psychology then often the easiest way to start understanding something is to look for the damaged, the aberrations and things on the extremes. As such then killing another human seems to be a near universally reviled concept so we can start with that


Stats vary a bit but before conditioning was invented (and if a news story here was anything to go by might well be disinvented before long for stupid reasons) some note it lines up rather well with estimates of sociopathy, though there appear to be exceptions even there (such things then becoming acts of heroism, self sacrifice or "I just wanted to get everybody home"). It has also long been recognised that making said killing a bit more abstract makes it easier in psychological terms as well as practical ones (give or take training).

Some others in the thread described what might be known as either sociopathy or psychopathy, however in and of themselves I don't know that such things are bad. You can have high functioning sociopaths, indeed it is observed that many politicians and business types might be this -- far easier to take the risks if you don't care about your employees having to get new jobs, or start wars if you don't have to think about all the death and destruction that will come with it*.

*I was recently looking into the German side of the North Africa campaign in world war 2. I forget the exact names and ranks but one had to fire one of his subordinates, a line noted was something along the lines of "you think too much about the well being of your men" (in military terms it is tactics vs strategy, tactics in battles (if being shot at then duck), strategy wins wars/campaigns) and the guy came back and said "I can think of no higher praise".

Sociopaths seem to be born, raised or created through illness and injury and I can believe other variations on the theme exist ("give them to me young enough" and all that). To that end I can well believe there are people supremely suited to acting within a given moral framework, and those that can scarcely understand the concept for it ( https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality covers it in a less washy means), or at least are terribly unsuited to operating within it. How moral is your moral framework -- to me the notion that you may kill, shun or otherwise really mess stuff up for an apostate is repulsive, horrific and various other related words, and I have gone out of my way to help some that suffered it in the past and happily condone efforts to undermine places and groups where it happens.


----------



## kuwanger (Jul 8, 2018)

Going along with what FAST6191 said about Orange/Blue Morality and osaka35 about self-reflection, I'd say a lot of people have their own definition of good and bad for which they spend some degree of effort trying to align it with others around them and hence often choose those they wish to be around.  I think few people actively choose to be bad and even more very few people actually consider themselves bad, even if they will at times call themselves a bad person.

At some level, I think most people feel a need for a duality to decide how to act.  The greater truth is many times morality and ethics are 2D or 3D (or even 4D) and even our greatest* philosophers haven't really come to any good/clear conclusions.

* Another duality.


----------



## dAVID_ (Jul 8, 2018)

You can't objectively say someone is inherently good or bad, because morality is entirely subjective.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 8, 2018)

leafeon34 said:


> In Hitler's mind the people who tried to assassinate him were "bad". In my mind they were heroes.


What if they aimed to assassinate him so as to replace him?


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Jul 8, 2018)

Veho said:


> The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevant. It is what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are.


Greatest philosopher of our time, 10/10  

Regarding the OP, there are no clear cut "good" or "bad" people, because what is considered "good" or "bad" depends on a person's perspective and beliefs, and I've never met anyone who only fit either definition fully.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 8, 2018)

I really should have explained myself in more clearly in the first post.

The reason why I added quotation marks around the words good and bad is because they are subjective terms. When I use these words I refer to a person who would be considered good or bad in popular western culture. Good does not mean completely good and bad does not mean completely bad.

The question I'm trying to ask is are good people good and bad people bad because they choose to be that way or is it chance? Would it be more accurate to call good people lucky people and bad people unlucky people? Are good people those who choose to do the right thing frequently and bad people those who choose to do the wrong thing frequently? Probably a mix of both.

I'm sure we can agree that these factors influence people's behaviour. Upbringing, mental health, financial stability, genetics, and so on. So here we go to nature vs nurture, personal choices, the existence of free will (or the lack of it). Its a question that gets into some very deep topics which aren't fully understood.


Veho said:


> The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevant.



I simply cannot agree with this.


----------



## Rabbid4240 (Jul 8, 2018)

It dosen't matter, in the eyes of feminists and trump haters, we're all awful people no matter what we do.


----------



## souler92 (Jul 8, 2018)

it's all on perspective so this discussion can go on endless...


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 8, 2018)

leafeon34 said:


> I really should have explained myself in more clearly in the first post.
> 
> The reason why I added quotation marks around the words good and bad is because they are subjective terms. When I use these words I refer to a person who would be considered good or bad in popular western culture. Good does not mean completely good and bad does not mean completely bad.
> 
> ...



What is popular western culture, and that is only if we are talking about current stuff (how many of us would slot into fantasy 1950s small town America? Such a thing is still well within living memory)? There are some sort of shared values, though even those are debatable at some level or at least pursued more or less vigorously (see also why there are few world level tech companies in Europe a la Google and Microsoft. No barriers of human differentiation or nature can be really said to be at play in this case, that leaves some kind of cultural or legal, which is basically the same thing here, difference).

As far as Veho's line you may be reading something else into it, or indeed possibly misreading it. I am sure Veho would be the first to list similar things to your list just before you quoted him as factors that influence or hinder potential to do certain things, as far as the more nebulous concept of good and evil then one's free agency very much comes into play. Or if you prefer there are plenty of examples of nice people coming from horribly dysfunctional backgrounds and complete arseholes what came from everything (though that in and of itself has been seen to be damaging, see lottery winners).


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 8, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> As far as Veho's line you may be reading something else into it, or indeed possibly misreading it. I am sure Veho would be the first to list similar things to your list just before you quoted him as factors that influence or hinder potential to do certain things, as far as the more nebulous concept of good and evil then one's free agency very much comes into play. Or if you prefer there are plenty of examples of nice people coming from horribly dysfunctional backgrounds and complete arseholes what came from everything (though that in and of itself has been seen to be damaging, see lottery winners).


I do think that the circumstances of one's birth influence the morals of one's behaviour; and yes, there are always exceptions.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jul 8, 2018)

> *Do "good" and "bad" people actually exist?*



Read the articles and watch the videos at these links, then decide if you really need someone to answer this question.

https://www.iheart.com/content/2018-07-08-pistol-packing-waitress-defends-co-worker-during-attack/

https://yournewswire.com/migrant-beheads-girl-germany-merkel/

www.youtube .com/watch?v=D0rG92eOSTc   (warning - some sick shit)

http://www.wlox.com/story/38562430/...n-suspected-of-kidnapping-raping-teen-sisters


etc., etc., etc.


----------



## notimp (Jul 9, 2018)

So after the moderator faction of this forum could dump their "self help pamphlet headlines" wisdom, and the "I get my news from facebook adbaits" fraction was allowed to push their mysoginist xenophibia, what have we learned?

There is no good or bad.

(Poor Disney princess shocked? Disney being used for "propaganda"? Have you ever heard of such a thing? Disney buying the modern "trope" of good and bad ("Come over to the dark side, Luke!") after failing to develop public stories of that magnitude themselves? Ever thought about Marvel in the context of greek mythology (which also didn't fall from a tree..  ) (the old greeks stories where better though, because they showed the propensity of their gods to fail - huh, strange how those public stories work, huh..  ))

Those are moral constructs. Morals are what (edit: democratic) societies use to "guide behavior".

There are people that cant feel empathy, we call them psychos - and give them the best paying jobs in the finance sector there are - then when they ruin the world economy, we float them with securities on the average persons saved up money - then send large parts of the world into recession because of it, to save the system -- and arguably, this is even justified. Also we believed in quants (autists with about the future planing capacity of a Mark Zuckerberg), so what are we complaining for. Also those are the only political ideologies left. Next stop mars. Apparently.

If people are confronted with trauma, and try to "repeat patterns" that leads to more trauma if their behavior is not guided. ("That war survivor is acting so strange" - was the best an entire generation of american war veterans could expect from society)

Cultural differences, and different frames of references guide our judgement ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment ) authority and power structures do as well. On the subject of "why wage war?" watch Dr. Strangelove ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove ).

If you life in a region of the world, where weekly public executions in front of a live audience (think roman colosseum) are a thing, and ritual self beating is something every decent adolescent male does at every decent spring festivity march,you have to turn to more extreme means, to shock your audience, if you - and your pals follow the internal logic of terror (hint, please - don't, no one will like you  ).

But thank you for the "everyone is his/her own fortunes champion" tagline, forum moderators.

Also, as far as moral ambiguity is concerned - people will always try out limits, go over the edge, hurt others, find marks - pray, ... However you want to qualify their behavior.

The best thing to be said against that (absent a rule of law), is this:
http://ncase.me/trust/


Also - lets end on a poignant example.

More than half of the people in this forum are in here to exploit others. Moderators are willing to let this continue (everyone is entitled to their own personal support question - by their standards), because they don't optimize for long term goals, or quality of information or quality of community, but rather an economically driven model of ad revenue, where "being overly inclusive" (to the point, where if you do not answer everyones quarrels utterly PC), is meant to drag along as many people as possible - even if they need "free personalized tutorials on everything" - every step of the way, and cant return the favor - ever in their lives.

Is this good or bad? You decide.

Also - just as a one sentence answer. If you believe in rule of law (and please do), there is no "good" or "bad" in there either. There is just action, consequences and motives. Thats also not by chance.

So talking about an internet and social media that leads to the oversimplification of everything, so everyone can haz an opinion, "good or bad?" is just a natural fit.  To question those concepts is a first step out of it - but beware of what lies on the other side..  (Stick to facebook is what I am saying.. The thing with 50 likes cant be bad.  Your friends will agree.)

Oh, and in regards to the "quantified self movement". I can't await the moment, when Chinas social score system ( http://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4 ) meets the decision trees of self driving cars...

The world will be so much better then.

Most youtubers would agree..  Less and less people are reading books (thats statistically, not by feels). Complex books especially dont sell, Harry Potter wasnt the solution.

(Sorry, turned out too philosophical...  )


----------



## XXXTORTELLINI (Jul 9, 2018)

Nothing is inherently good or bad, Good and bad are social constructs made by the people in power or the person determining the subject. The circumstances of who they are and what they've done are irrelevant.


----------



## notimp (Jul 11, 2018)

Worth a read too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

Good primer.


----------



## DeoNaught (Jul 11, 2018)

Are we talking about Socially subjective? or just subjective?

if it's just subjective, don't think, people are good, or bad, They might be Bad in action, or good in action, but I don't think they can be correctly labeled "good" or "bad". You can be drawn to 'bad' action or 'good' action, but you aren't 'bad' or 'good'. mostly because humans can do both, like they might live a life of crime, but always help children when they need it, or save someone from a car crash. A person who helps the poor and sick on the daily, and runs charity events, might secretly rape and kill people at night. possibly extreme examples, but I think they get the point across.

and on the genetics and circumstance part, it can make a person more attracted to "bad" action, or more attracted to "good" actions. but it DOES NOT, define them as "good" or "bad" people. 

And I hope I read the first post, and then second post correctly


----------



## Slimmmmmm (Jul 11, 2018)

"Good" and "bad" are opinions


----------



## notimp (Jul 11, 2018)

DeoNaught said:


> They might be Bad in action, or good in action, but I don't think they can be correctly labeled "good" or "bad". You can be drawn to 'bad' action or 'good' action, but you aren't 'bad' or 'good'.


There is a fun concept in this as well that basically states, that people do "moral attribution" after the fact, to "create a congruent self image". Meaning - people can, and will, justify anything - after the fact. It doesnt even depend on the outcome, they will do anything necessary to make it integrate into their self image.

And thats actually a good thing - because it prevents "crisis'es of the self".. 

So if someone says "you bad", you say "you misinformed", then add some padding, and thats mostly it. 

So all those moral concepts, work to "guide decisions" - but actually not very well as "classification tools". We usually stick to law for the later part. 

The church system of "sins" and "confessions" only worked as long as people believed in a "neverending afterlife". 

But then the church messed this up, by selling "entry tickets into heaven" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence ), so now thats not working anymore (and something about the enlightenment..  ) ) - and self reflection is at an all time low..  (Facebook dizz, mostly..  )


edit: For reference - one of the names this comes up in moral philosophy is "self serving bias", see:
http://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/video/self-serving-bias

//not looked at the video yet.. 

//here are more videos on the subject, not yet looked at..  http://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/series/concepts-unwrapped

edit: The videos on this site are insanely bad. Dont use as reference.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 11, 2018)

leafeon34 said:


> I really should have explained myself in more clearly in the first post.
> 
> The reason why I added quotation marks around the words good and bad is because they are subjective terms. When I use these words I refer to a person who would be considered good or bad in popular western culture. Good does not mean completely good and bad does not mean completely bad.
> 
> ...


Genes play a part along with environment. Different levels of serotonin, dopamine, norepinephrine. Having an increased reaction to stress will make you more aggressive.

Look at the common ancestor of Dogs and Wolves for example. Wolves experience high levels of stress when around Humans which triggers their aggressive protective defensiveness for survival. A Wolf knows if you're around a human your going to die. Proto-Wolves that didn't have this were able to be around humans without attacking them, and were selected for breeding. They eventually evolved into dogs.

If genes play a part then that also means certain races will be more prone to violence then others since we evolved different evolutionary paths. You can say Half are genes and Half are environment as far as I know. If they were raised in a good environment then people that are more prone to be violent criminals probably won't be violent.


----------



## Coto (Jul 11, 2018)

Sure, good people will be someone that shares similar beliefs as yours.

Bad people will be contrary to your beliefs.


----------



## Mark McDonut (Jul 11, 2018)

I think it's a mixture of choices and environment. environment not being just the surroundings and financial class, but the way their family and neighbors are to others. It's an old saying you can tell a lot about a person by how they treat people that are weaker, poorer, or of no benefit to them.

Then there's choices, people who strive to get out of toxic environments to be around other "good" people rather than contribute to a negative echo chamber they no longer want to be part of.

Shit people are shit straight through though. You can't always tell at first but man, when you meet a deadbeat you'll find out soon enough.


----------



## notimp (Jul 11, 2018)

Coto said:


> Sure, good people will be someone that shares similar beliefs as yours.
> 
> Bad people will be contrary to your beliefs.


Never seen a better description of the inner ethos of a millennial. 

True facebook user achievement unlocked.

Now without snark: Thats the easy game. Now stress your empathy and try to see the world from the perspective of someone that doesnt agree with you, and sees the world entirely differently. Thats actually an important quality not to get baited into "ingroup/outgroup" thinking - which returning back to godwins law, is the basic premise of populism, and the working principle of fascism.

The trick basically is, to have people dismiss the believes of others, based on group identity, which never can be gapped. Humans like this very much, because it reminds them of tribal structures. With the frequent outcome being, annihilation of rival tribes (exing the men, "integrating" the women - historically speaking, sorry) makes your tribe bigger. Whipee.

We've left that model of thinking about 2000 years ago. (Settlements, steady farming, cities, ...) - but the first cultural replacements werent the best (corporate states... ask india..  )

I believe some old guy named Shakespeare also wrote something about it... I believe the play is called Romeo & Juliet.... 

You can watch the DiCaprio movie as well..  I actually quite liked it as a youth..


----------



## Coto (Jul 11, 2018)

notimp said:


> Never seen a better description of the inner ethos of a millennial.
> 
> True facebook user achievement unlocked.
> 
> ...



here's a link for The Millenial Ethos in facebook if you are interested in that (yuck!)
https://web.facebook.com/events/327660831058477/

And the easiest game is to simply not give your views but give a generic response, to a generic question.
Also, I think my point is pretty simple: that way since people requires society, you can build up groups and manipulate them as you wish. It´s a good thing you figured out that alone, I will give you that. lol


----------



## notimp (Jul 11, 2018)

You shouldnt be without personal believes. And please don't just repeat or say what fits the situation, or social circle.
Trying to see the world from the perspective of someone else - doesnt mean you take their views, it means that you "contemplate them" (listen to them, maybe try to understand) - the result can still be "yuck - I'd never", but the more you do it the more clued into f.e. how life experiences, or age groups shape outlooks and believes you'll become.

So I guess in general - yes you'll become more "liberal".

Its only at the classification of "similar believes" is good and "different believes" are bad, where I'd draw the line. Those should hardly ever become absolutes. Stick to your beliefs - but still be open enough to hear the other side, try to experience where they are coming from. Don't imitate them, don't assimilate, simply keep an open mind, and listen - unless you are morally repulsed, in which case, don't.

I have to say, I've always found pleasure in intermingling with different groups, and I also don't find it very hard to do so, so thats part of my perspective. But then I also dont bend.

But if you separate this out into similar=good, other=bad - thats too easy to get instrumentalized by anyone with a willingness to lead.

Regardless the "outgroup = bad" model is actually a well known mode of social group attribution/manipulation - see f.e.: https://books.google.com/books?id=BJRJCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT166&lpg=PT166&dq=outgroup+bad+fascism&source=bl&ots=8DAe-IKCcX&sig=QvB3wplMtbWgXu4Ie0yoC3OBMmw&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAstey6pfcAhUqApoKHVbRB0kQ6AEIUDAF#v=onepage&q=outgroup bad fascism&f=false

So its hard for me to not confront it outright

Also there is a Nazi / altright connection:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrahumanisation


edit: A few lines, how this is used for social manipulation. If you have a group of people look for reference (positive impulses, understanding, norms, context..) only within an ingroup you define, or lead, or something along those lines, you can easily establish self strengthening effects that raise interdependency and aligns beliefs. Thats still not necessarily a "bad" thing, but the next step *is* - defining the (or an) outgroup as "bad people", or people "who would never understand you", or that you should naturally feel "opposed to".

Because at that point, you basically have thought control. You cut off "outside influences", and have people behave within "internal group logic".

In Europe, and especially in Germany and surrounding regions, we learn those principals quite early in school, based on this social experiment ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave_(experiment) ) and are actually encouraged to speak up, once we see people falling in line.. 

(Insert current geopolitics rant here..  )


----------



## xskibbles (Jul 11, 2018)

Depends on what is truly considered good or bad . Personally, I think in the end you as a person choose whether to be “good” or “bad” . Sure, how your raised,environment,etc can have an affect but in the end you choose how to go about . I do think there are some people that are just born “bad” and some that just do “good” without ever thinking about it .


----------



## Coto (Jul 11, 2018)

notimp said:


> You shouldnt be without personal believes. And please don't just repeat or say what fits the situation, or social circle.
> Trying to see the world from the perspective of someone else - doesnt mean you take their views, it means that you "contemplate them" (listen to them, maybe try to understand) - the result can still be "yuck - I'd never", but the more you do it the more clued into f.e. how life experiences, or age groups shape outlooks and believes you'll become.
> 
> So I guess in general - yes you'll become more "liberal".
> ...





You are just proving further my point:

good people will be someone that shares similar beliefs as yours. (hint: from self perspective, not the outside)

Bad people will be contrary to your beliefs.

Also, that's your opinion. I wonder why would you be so touchy with such subject anyway, it's not like your opinion will change anything, anywhere anyway

Albert Einstein:
“The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”
He talks from self perspective. Regardless the level of abstraction's context that phrase was given birth. But anything outside the self perspective scope is unknown.
Since the idea of "good" or "bad" is entirely made by self perspective, that's food for the outside, and tools (such as religions/politics exploit that very well).



notimp said:


> A few lines, how this is used for social manipulation



Religion, politics, and such. Those are the tools people in mass will follow . Sadly the moment these things get in your personal life, such as a loss or you are growing older (humans seem to need faith, and live in groups), then those beliefs will point you to another group either as "good" or "bad". Same for life experiences.

That's why to me there is not bad or good people, before at least, having full context, reasons, and beliefs. The self perspective decision belongs 100% to one self, outside is 0% .


edit:
Let's see how far I take this "ideology" of mine. Meanwhile, you will have to deal with it.


----------



## notimp (Jul 12, 2018)

@Coto: I dont know how old you are - or how versed in using unrelated "the more I know, the less I know" quotes as pro forma "arguments" for anything goes. Which is a cheap rhetorical trick, thats easily identified.

But the whole millenial "what I feel, is right" thing doesnt fly. Thats still MAGA level disregard of science, facts, and an entire world of shared knowledge you'd never even dip your toes in, with a "what I feel cant be factually wrong" standpoint.

Neither does "who shares my believes is good - who doesn't is bad" fly.

I also didn't confirm your point, I wholeheartedly opposed it and dispelled it where ever possible.

Your model of thinking is wrong, dangerous, and if you were taught it, please understand - that it is the main operational tool fascists and Nazis used to rise to power, so beware of whoever tries to bind you within that "logic".

"Everyone that doesn't think like me is bad" or "groups that dont think like us are bad" - is EXTREMELY dangerous ideology.

It only works - because you give people "social proof" within the ingroup, and then use this "trust" to remove them farther and farther from everyone else (isolationist tendency, echo chamber, ..) and thats - social manipulation, if you do it intentionally.

Or if you are facebook and do it so people stay on your site longer.

I hope thats clear enough by now - even though most millennials find it hard to extract the intended meaning out of written long texts. I kept the sentences as short as possible this time. I used the most placative images possible ("dont be a Nazi").

The other possibility is, that you are just trolling, which is a possible considering your Einstein quote of "anything goes - and as a millenial, I go with me feelz", which btw - never was Einsteins position to begin with... In which case - stop doing it in this specific case. The ideology you are peddling is dangerous.


----------



## dAVID_ (Jul 14, 2018)

Well tehnically Coto is correct, nothing we do is objectively right or wrong.


----------



## notimp (Jul 14, 2018)

Thats nihilism, also Coto never helmed that position.

 At least not to any extend "more so" than I did, and three others in this thread did before. I've no problem with people bringing that concept into the discussion (sarcasm, irony and the dynoysian principle are related, and dear to my heart  ), although when talking between millennials, nihilism rather seems like a necessity for them than a mode of choice, If you catch my meaning.

My opposition strictly and exclusively goes against the ideal, that "believes similar to your own" should be considered good, and "believes different to your own are (descriptor) bad".

Even considering the fact that good and bad don't exist in a definite sense, they are still used to rally entire populations to go into wars, and be it illegitimate ones, breaking international law. So for how illusive "good" and "bad" are as concepts, they are still freaking powerful as tools to bring 99% of people behind a certain verbalized position.

Examples (PR taglines):

- One nation under god
- Axis of evil
- Weapons of peace
- We bring democracy to the world
...

So the stories you are telling to illustrate your use of those black/white concepts, are important. (Just ask your average american, if he'd like to be on the side of the empire, or the rebellion in Star Wars, and then laugh on your entire way home, and for the next two days, because of the irony of what you'll get as an answer - "Honey, I think American Gladiators is on the TV again, honey...!").

(Democracy, btw. has nothing to do anymore with the initial concept invented by the greek (nowadays we are talking about "representative democracy", which is entirely different), and thank god (*pause for effect*) for that, I might add. We have about 100000x more voters these days.

Democracy in its essence today, is a structural system that allows for "changes in power" to commence, without dismantling the entire organizational structure, and thats about it.

How that can be filled with moral righteousness, is a lesson on its own..  From my perspective.)


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 14, 2018)

Good and bad people do exist. But does it mean that they are pure evil or pure good? No. Everyone has a drive, a motive, a way of thinking. So really, it's not black and white, but more of who has a darker color of grey. But that darker grey can mean many things. I have a dark past, but yet I've managed to remain positive, so does that mean that I'm not a darker grey? I have more on my  mind, more demons, yet I handle them. But what about someone who has less of a traumatic past, and less internal demons, but fails to keep the ones he has in control. Does that mean both are the same level of grey?

Actually let me ask a really interesting question, let's say, there is a psychopath, no, actually, more simplistically. Someone who doesn't feel empathy, is it wrong if that person realizes he is lacking it, and so pretends to have it to care about someone, and not out of malice, but they realize and formalize in their head that they should care about a person and they need to be cared about. Should that be considered wrong? Because in a sense, that's not what he is feeling, because well, lack of empathy. So is it wrong to have good intentions with a disingenuous action?


----------



## notimp (Jul 15, 2018)

Its him acting under social pressures (which are not bad per se, so dont just go with the sound of it...  ), so I'd actually consider it a god darn miracle, if he'd not obsess over the thing he can't do in a certain sense. The "fake it until you make it" approach would be personal choice, but also a rather popular one (8/10 people).

As said before - although between the lines, those people can become productive parts of our societies in certain fields, and are actually "looked for" in certain positions. But its always a "to what extent" question on several levels, so its mushy.  Also, as a side effect of them learning moral rules from an outside perspective, they become some of the best motivators/manipulators there are.

At the same point, as someone - who very much cant discard empathy at will, without a high effort in disconnecting, I'd always antagonize inherently amoral behavior (ethics rather - but, semantics) where ever it jumps a certain threshhold.

What doesnt work though, is to put psychopathic behavior patterns on a pedestal, or let it become part of the common narrative, without consequence. Because people are very into "imitating behavior". So you'll have a bunch of wannabe psychos (Gordan Gecko, Margret Thatcher, Wannabes  ) running around in no time - and that works against "group formed decision making" (not meant in a "millenial be inclusive way" (because that sucks), but in a weighing different informed opinions way). Which in general, never has benefited society - much.

Which is why the whole "financial crisis" debacle aftermath was such a disaster in a moral sense. The only thing we learned from that, as an informed public, is that all facebook movements in todays world can last for three months tops, and end, once the festivals are over (Occupy Wallstreet).

(Give me the concept of a "priest/monk class" over this in any society, at any point in time. Ok, maybe excluding the Mayans..  ) )


There is another more advanced angle to this. And this is arguably the most important teaching of works like "Il principe" - which seems to argue, that you can try your hardest to be a morally just, intelligent, educated, well intended human being - in the end it is much more likely that "history makes you" (you decide based on outer pressures), which is why engineering a system (of interdependencies, checks, balances) is always a better approach, than "designing the virtuous king".

If you want to read about those principles in theory, google suggests: https://www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldor...re_of_Democracy_Majority_without_Morality.pdf

Which is actually not a bad read.. 

TLDR; If you keep it within social norms, you are fine.

edit: Short, light hearted, youtube reality tv/documentary mashup on psychopaths 


So everyone can get a primer without feeling bad.


----------



## notimp (Jul 18, 2018)

Sacha Baron Cohen produced some great illustrations for the following concepts:

1. Use of the words "bad, naughty man, bad guys" in outgroup vilification ("people that dont think like you be bad!"), basically disabling any rational sense the person might have, by replacing it with a metaphor the person hasn't thought about. (Storys folks, they are mighty effective.):

h**ps://youtu.be/QkXeMoBPSDk?t=229

2. Propensity of every human being to become "bad/evil", just feeding them with stereotypes they respond to, and playing with concepts that are "on the edge". This illustrates, that you can basically make ANY person say and essentially do, anything - if you hook them the right way, and then lead them towards "situationally expected behavior". And should you still have doubts about that, let me ensure you - you are just uninformed. 

h**ps://youtu.be/QkXeMoBPSDk?t=359

Also if you haven't caught it so far - watch the entire video, to see what is only possible in post MAGA America.


You can even see the usual white hate rage mongering in forums like these. Regularly. People usually dont confront them, they dont want to touch them, or go with what sounds "logical" to them at first glance. And this my fellow forum members is the importance and power of story telling outlined. In an internet, where communities arent self correcting. And moderators arent part of communities, but onyl work off "flag if you want censored" list - because a site is optimized for ad views.

"Good" and "bad" are storytelling tropes. In the eyes of everyone that thinks about interactions on a societal level. (This includes religions, politicians, google employees, your friendly ad man, forum moderators, your popular best friend..  )

So the next time, especially as an american soldier invading IRAQ, a former ally country of yours, that never had weapons of mass destruction, and also never even was remotely responsible for 911, and also hadn't seen even remote cases of ripping babies out of their incubators at a birth clinic, or fired a torpedo, at some US war cruiser or another, think about that -- before you think about a piece of cloth weaving in the wind, when you are about to sign that job contract to kill some people to save the world from terrorists.

I know, just a small favor I ask. Because somewhere else in the world, there sits someone like me, that can instantly recount you up to five undisputed historical lies, that where used to sell wars to democratic populations. And thats not a predominantly american thing. Not even close..  Start reading roman generals, greek philosophers and fallen on bad luck italian noblemen from several centuries ago - you'd be astonished how often they are openly referred to even today. 

And thats storytelling. Or the actual power of "good" and "bad".

edit: And if you are open to one more "teaching" -

I'm actually only learning to comprehend, what this means in a world, where 60% of the under 16 year old have difficulty differentiating between "news" and "paid advertising" (think testimonials some youtuber sells out for). Thats a real statistic. A world, where an entire generation of young people learned in school, that they dont have to do any research, they could just flock onto the internet, and ask "someone" to answer their questions, and help them. A world, where american senators react to a phrase like "fake news" on a "guttural, emotional level" (great idea, Bob!), and where news outlets get replaced by facebook and google - because they sell more information about their "users" to companies looking to advertise, than any newspaper ever could.

Then I think about, that facebook and google don't want to be legally categorized as media - because they see having any responsibility about what they show to people as "too restricting". And about the inkling, that VR is supposed to be the missing link between people that have a hard time following a youtube tutorial and the thing that enables them to translate something they see in a recorded video, into their "reality".

"Look, move your hand like this, then turn right in 300 yards..."

Questions? Maybe someone could ask their Alexa for me...


----------



## Sliter (Jul 18, 2018)

I think hat being good or bad is just about having or not the intention of prejudice the others or get advantage making the others suffer in small or big scale


----------



## notimp (Jul 18, 2018)

Sliter said:


> I think hat being good or bad is just about having or not the intention of prejudice the others or get advantage making the others suffer in small or big scale


I'm unfair, because I'm wrapping you into my narrative, but - humor me with thinking about the following. 

Then how do you think about an entire generation of the best and brightest minds, that come out of universities in the fields of psychology, philosophy and social studies, flocking to facebook (the big 5, really) -- putting all they've learned to good use in finding more and cleverer ways so you spend more time on facebook, and offer up more free information about you to them, that they can then sell in return.

Or how about them finding ways to categorize you better, and faster, and more precisely  - so the price they are selling you for can get higher in return?

Thats where those people are working right now - and they - as a group - are making more money than they'd (inflation rate adjusted) would have made in the past.

Same thing, with math and physics students shortly pre financial crisis. (Quants)

Are those things, that just happen, because "the world turns", or are they designed?

Prejudice, for example, is the entire core principal of "big data" which is driving the current AI revolution.  (Its the stuff AIs "learn" on.)

And still - AI and the advances it will provide are arguably a positive thing. 

So the word "prejudice" you have used... might fall into a similar category as "good" or "bad". 

"I think prejudices are bad." sounds great.
But actually - in todays world - would be countered with:
"Acting on prejudices is necessary for AI development, and allows the NSA to catch the bad guys with algorithms."

And thats kind of the point. Everything is context.

"Emotional" Words "feel like they mean something", but they only do -  because they make us think about stories. Some of them are publically shared (common narratives), some of them we might learn at school (moral tales), some of them we might learn in films (Loosers like Shia LaBeouf get the Hot Girl, and fast cars, if only they help/join the military - to save the world - while never getting hurt), some of them we learn by our own experience, and then try to pass on.

What an emotional word or phrase means - ultimately, is up to you. (Yet we are not entitled to our own facts.  )

edit: Whats even more fun is, that we cant counteract an AIs prejudices, because we (by design, even before the general intelligence level) will never understand its decision process. So we'll have to look at the outcomes, and then try to counteract, if something like racism inadvertently has became part of a decision process. And we can (by design) only do it "after the fact", so after the process has been implemented. Which sounds like much fun, because at that point, you are up against people arguing economic, political, power motives against ethical rights. Which is a recipe for... ehem, pure bliss. Can't imagine what could go wrong there..  But don't you worry - China, currently just field tests a "universal social score" based society in a few large cities - so you'll see the results in approximately 10 years.  5 if there is a revolt. Also, come to speak of it, good or bad thing..  Their facebook (/wechat) accounts will be the best. Because if you optimize your profile, you'll also get better, higher paying jobs. Just think about that. 

And if you don't you wont be able to ever leave the province you were born in. Also, fact.

(Some of you used the "I don't have anything to hide" excuse, when, the NSA scandal broke, didn't you? Good or bad?)

edit: This just broke as news:
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-affects-childs-university-enrolment-2018-7

The social profile, AI driven world also means, that society never forgets. You were ok with this as well, werent you... Nothing to hide. Always trying to split the world into good and bad folks. Because it was easier for you to think along those lines. You were part of the good ones, of course. Always.

And all that you could think about was, that maybe someone should teach your children how to use the facebook privacy settings "correctly". (Those that where designed to not be used correctly in the first place.) You never wanted to know the entire extend of issues in your life. You wanted to work and live in a society, where things were managed, without you having to worry about them, in addition to what challenged your life. You never learned critical thinking, you never learned to research. You never paid for independent media. You only voted, because of "highly emotionally charged" issues, or to lower your taxes and all of it was supposed to work, because of an "invisible hand" corrective. You decided not to believe in science anymore, and that intelligence is overrated as a leadership principal (see, moderators, really should just come in to censor opinion, once you flaged a posting... its even in the name - moderator...), but then you turned around and opened a forum thread on if -

"Good and bad, actually exist as concepts". Because then you would stick to the good, and distance yourself from the bad. Everyone was allowed an opinion, like its now the norm - everywhere on the internet. And most people even had fun one sentence phrases about whats "good or bad" in their opinion.

It was magic. Everyone felt ensured in no time. The world was back on track. Everyone stopped worrying again.

(Thats the nihilism principle (see Kubrik: "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb") the reason it can be uphold is, because there are indefinite potential outcomes, so there cant be despair, because of a lack of being able to form a congruent image about the future.. 

Politics recognized this 30 years ago, and stopped telling "big narratives" since then. Everything is just managed on the spot, elections are won on personalities and "ad hoc promises" never being intended to be fulfilled.

Collective insanity is conjured up ("Build a wall", "lock her up", ... (all one syllable words, what a coincidence...), then simply ignored at your convenience.. 

Thats the callback to the "everyone creates their own realities, after the fact so there is no cognitive dissonance with their self images" motive. 

And thats the logic trail that leads to cynicism and escapism, so dont take it.  Take something else, do something better.  ))


----------



## CosmoCortney (Jul 19, 2018)

only bad people exist


----------



## notimp (Jul 20, 2018)

CosmoCortney said:


> only bad people exist


Can't be. 







Even this one, if you are not into conversational therapy.. 



One of the issues currently is rather, that people are very into portraying fake conservative picturebook identities (or worse), and forming opinions in echo chambers (on the internet everybody can find other people that think just like them). (Oh - and there is no Late Night talkshow host on air currently that actually can hold a conversation.  That'll pass.

Hopefully mass media will still be a thing when it does..  (For the sake of a common narrative.))


----------



## notimp (Jul 23, 2018)

Sacha Baron Cohen in Episode 2 of "Who is America".

"A message from the Georgia General Assembly"
https://streamable.com/qsoww

"Instagram because you care - about child soldiers"
https://streamable.com/k2qhb

Talking about the guy really driving home the point...

The person in the first video was hooked by authority, the instagram personality by being offered a lucrative advertising contract.

Smile.

#trollingisbadmkay

Also, here is your typical media reaction on the outrage of using real people to explain psychological principals to millenials.


How dare he.

edit: Maybe I should explain the current facebook/instagram information economy from a corporate perspective as well. Corporations advertising efforts before the personified "stroke of genius" that is Mark Zuckerberg, where limited by a gatekeeper principal, mainly - the media deciding if you could matter, and to what extent. There was a code of conduct in those operations, even a feeling of "grandiosity", because they decided what mattered ("fourth pillar of society").

So as long as you werent rich enough and inclined to found or buy an entire media outlet (which ideally would still have to be profitable for you to rectify the investment), influence - from corporate sponsors into the public sphere was limited.

This all changed with facebook, where most companies who could, in essence trippled their media budgets, and started to talk to people directly via conduits who werent schooled in any way to retain any integrity at all - so influencers simply became sellouts. And at the same time "brand awareness" skyrocketed. (Thats the 60% of millennials cant differentiate news from advertorials , and the "lets cake a selfie with our foods!" concepts.)

At that time "conventional media" saw this as well - while in a downward spiral (advertisment market for them was swept away by google and facebook ("we can micro target"), ad prices "ruined") - and identified it as "the thing that currently works", and started to become more trendy, more "recent news" focused and go with mostly blogs as sources (which ought to be excused, because newspapers are dying). (Most news outlets always went with "reputable sources", instead of doing investigative research and "what a reputable source was" changed in favor of "still mattering at all".)

As someone who wants to influence the news, nowadays, you just buy/set up two or three blogs, and get someone who knows how to gets stories trending, which is much easier, and much less costly than to "finance the equivalent of a NYT".

This is "fake news media".

(see: https://slate.com/technology/2018/0...ke-news-industry-report.html?via=gdpr-consent and youtube search for Ryan Holiday )


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 23, 2018)

I'm a _very_ bad girl


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 23, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I'm a _very_ bad girl


Everybody likes to think they have a have a bad side, however it is only when you _need_ to be bad that it counts.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 23, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Everybody likes to think they have a have a bad side, however it is only when you _need_ to be bad that it counts.


Honestly I am not a bad person, but I've had to do "bad" things to get by. I've had to smoke pot due to the nerve damage in my arms and back. I've had to resort to piracy because choosing between food, bills, and entertainment only left me with so few options. But these don't make me a bad person, I had/have to do what I had/have to get by. I am not saying these options were right nor did the circumstances make them right, but I was left with so few choices that they had to happen.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 23, 2018)

Why would smoking weed make you a bad person?


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 23, 2018)

If I were to adhere to one definition of "bad person", that would be the one given by osaka35.
That is, "I figure a good person is one who recognizes when they mess up and try to not do it again. Effort, intent, results. These make for a good person. Opposite for a bad person(no awareness, no desire to change or grow, no effort put in to not do bad things, etc)."

That definition depends a lot on feeling empathy. So I guess if one was born with a very abnormal sense of empathy, then he doesn't really decide to be a "bad person".
But for other people, it really is a choice, no matter your upbringing. It is you choosing making whatever makes you happy and comfortable aside, putting effort on thinking what are you making that hurts your environment and how to help it and yourself, and putting the effort to grow and change.
I want to state that under this definition bad people are usually lazy and really love to stay in their comfort zone, they are usually doing bad to others but mostly to themselves, but taking a moment to think how they do bad to themselves and how to change it is "too much of a hassle".

I think most people are bad people, but there are some good people too out there, a few.

PS: smoking pot definitively doesn't make you a bad person, unless e.g. you know your roommate needs to go to an interview in the morning and you again go smoking in the room, making all his clothes smell like weed and also not letting him have a good sleep and making him go stoned to the interview... that would be what a bad person does, i.e. no awareness, no consideration, no desire to change, too much effort.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Jul 23, 2018)

Definitely yes.
You're a bad person if you know what you're doing is wrong but you keep doing it.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 23, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> If I were to adhere to one definition of "bad person", that would be the one given by osaka35.
> That is, "I figure a good person is one who recognizes when they mess up and try to not do it again. Effort, intent, results. These make for a good person. Opposite for a bad person(no awareness, no desire to change or grow, no effort put in to not do bad things, etc)."
> 
> That definition depends a lot on feeling empathy. So I guess if one was born with a very abnormal sense of empathy, then he doesn't really decide to be a "bad person".
> ...



What is messing up though? If my moral character was rated against some hardcore fundamentalist literalist Islamic interpretation of the world I am sure I would be a complete and utter cunt. As far as general western values go (such as they are at all consistent and/or homogeneous) I am actually probably still a complete cunt but for very different reasons.

As far as the weed example then giving them a contact high might be said to be removing their agency and thus not cool but roll it back a step and assume that did not happen but the rest did. That still speaks to a societal judgement of some form.


----------



## Song of storms (Jul 23, 2018)

leafeon34 said:


> Are "good people" "good" by personal choice?


The very moment that a bad person is being told how bad they are with facts and proof, any bad behavior past that is a choice.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 23, 2018)

DFdDFdefefecAADDFAADFGE said:


> The very moment that a bad person is being told how bad they are with facts and proof, any bad behavior past that is a choice.


We could go again on relative things but that is getting boring. What I will say is that also ignores the possibility that the stressors that might have caused the "bad" behaviour are still in play. It also presumes no understanding of anything can be had beforehand which... most of human civilisation is an argument against.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 23, 2018)

I'm still trying to make sense of everything in this discussion but I've come to the following definition of a "bad" person.

_A bad person is somebody who intentionally harms others for unnecessary personal gain and has the mental capacity to control their behaviour._

Somebody who steals to eat is not a bad person. Somebody who steals to be able to afford luxuries is a bad person.

Somebody who's mental condition makes them incapable of controlling their behaviours is not a bad person. Somebody who can control their behaviour but chooses to do the "wrong" thing is a bad person.

I also think there's a big difference between an indifferent person and a "good" person but that's a discussion for another day.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 23, 2018)

What is a harm? My leading people away from religion in some places would make me public enemy number one and a complete arsehole (I mean an eternity of fire and flames and whatnot), in others it would be laudable behaviour (don't need those religious people getting in the way of good science and filling the heads of our youth with nonsense).

When you say steals to eat then you might need some qualifiers there -- if I am too bone idle to work despite having the necessary tools, time and talent but can subsist on stolen bread or something then what happens? Equally some might spread the net further and ask why a society allows someone to be in a position where stealing to afford life's necessities is a thing (I am sure the industrial food production capacity or money to do stuff with) of most first world countries is such that you can afford to give everybody, never mind just those that need it, a few thousand calories and other trace elements at a cost that would be a rounding error.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 23, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> What is a harm? My leading people away from religion in some places would make me public enemy number one and a complete arsehole (I mean an eternity of fire and flames and whatnot), in others it would be laudable behaviour (don't need those religious people getting in the way of good science and filling the heads of our youth with nonsense).
> 
> When you say steals to eat then you might need some qualifiers there -- if I am too bone idle to work despite having the necessary tools, time and talent but can subsist on stolen bread or something then what happens? Equally some might spread the net further and ask why a society allows someone to be in a position where stealing to afford life's necessities is a thing (I am sure the industrial food production capacity or money to do stuff with) of most first world countries is such that you can afford to give everybody, never mind just those that need it, a few thousand calories and other trace elements at a cost that would be a rounding error.


The harm I am talking about is related to empathy and is very flexible.
It is also related to emotional intelligence and being able to perceive what makes you feel like shit in the long term, and how you reach destructive behavior.
In this case it would be to be able to understand what makes other persons feel like shit, what do you do for that to happen, how to change to avoid that.
And also, what do you make yourself that makes you feel like shit in the long time, and how would you need to put effort to change that.
It is not so much related to morals, perhaps, but more to empathy. It changes according to the person, and it includes (in an empathy kind of way) the notion of respect.

I don't really think a religious person is good because of being religious, and also someone that follows the law perfectly can also be evil (in a D&D lawful evil kind of way). Religion and law are not really related to being a good person to me, empathy and effort in the other hand are.

Also, there is no white and black, you can say it is light gray (temporarily stealing to eat due to emergency) or dark gray (becoming a leech that doesn't put effort to change that "temporary emergency" status quo).


----------



## notimp (Jul 23, 2018)

leafeon34 said:


> Quote: _A bad person is somebody who intentionally harms others for unnecessary personal gain and has the mental capacity to control their behaviour._
> 
> Somebody who steals to eat is not a bad person. Somebody who steals to be able to afford luxuries is a bad person.


Essentially - entirely correct. In detail maybe not. 

Here we enter the realm of circumstance. For example... There comes the day in every conservatives life, where he/she sacrifices morals, over personal necessity.  (The reason why the catholic church instituted the concept of confession.  As a means of control..  They knew, that people are fallible.)

Story goes as follows. Capitalism is an entirely strange system, based on the believe, that people can be egocentric, driven by greed, and entirely selfcentered, and will still contribute to the common good. (I'll look up the references later, but the argument goes - you be Scrooge from the Dickens novel - and if you do your job well, the cost of the good you produce will come down, because you want to reach a wider market, and reap automation benefits, meaning - everyone can now afford your product, and everyones happy. Thats the core principal of capitalism without "oversight" (Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism). This is what every "economic liberal" believes in. When ever someone talks about free markets as the only "regulative" this is it.

If you've ever heard the statement, that shareholders should only and ultimately care about share price, this is the underlying economical principle.

Also - it is BS, but nevermind..  Returning to the initial point.

In the life of many people (in capitalism, but you could just as well neglect that..  ), comes the point, where they willingly discard altruism, in favor of personal benefit, or much more common, the benefit of their families.

(Basically: "You have to lie to earn more.")

There are only very, very, very few people in society, that decide to not do that in this circumstance.

("Peter Pan" is this principal novelized in the common narrative. Although he also murdered in the original novel, but thats beside the point..  )

There also is a common understanding about it. Which by the way is why the sicilian mob (back in the days) was structurally successful. "We care about our own (familiy) more" is the functional principle here.  And people agree.

Whats also interesting is, that "stealing" especially - regardless of "need" is only seen as a moral offense, if you can make people switch perspective, and put themselves in the shoes of the person that got robbed.

Otherwise the "Oceans 11" narrative triggers (which is much older than Oceans 11..  ), where in fact - everyone loves an ingenious thief..  (Look up Prometheus  )



leafeon34 said:


> I also think there's a big difference between an indifferent person and a "good" person but that's a discussion for another day.


Yes, maybe... But then you have the "chaotic good" archetype in AD&D...  ("You and I have been through that, but this is not our fate, ...." (Says the thief to the joker in the Dylan song..  )) So the people that choose nihilism, because everything else didnt work for them.

edit: Also the "you have to lie to earn more" principle then plays into a bunch of "control mechanisms". ("We all know enough about each other to wreck each others lives." kind of thing. *cough*Bonesmen*cough* But thats personal interpretation..  )


----------



## Meteor7 (Jul 23, 2018)

Well, the terms "good" and "bad" are determined by establishing a condition of desirability, so it's inherently subjective. They aren't going to exist at all, or be congruous between 2 or more parties, unless the same condition is agreed upon as desirable? For example: this program has been updated to launch more quickly. That's good, right? It's good because people generally don't enjoy spending time waiting for a program to launch. The less time spent waiting, the more desirable, so the change which facilitated the shorter launch time is "good", an improvement. If there were a certain person who, by circumstance or otherwise, wanted the program to boot more slowly, then this change would be called "bad" to them. It's incredibly pedantic to step through a simple concept like that, I know, but it's an easy way to illustrate the concept; that good and bad are inherently subjective by their definitions and usages alone.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 23, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> The harm I am talking about is related to empathy and is very flexible.
> It is also related to emotional intelligence and being able to perceive what makes you feel like shit in the long term, and how you reach destructive behavior.
> In this case it would be to be able to understand what makes other persons feel like shit, what do you do for that to happen, how to change to avoid that.
> And also, what do you make yourself that makes you feel like shit in the long time, and how would you need to put effort to change that.
> ...


Emotional Intelligence doesn't exist. That's made up pseudoscience to make people feel better about the fact that they have low IQ's. Because how do you define High Emotional Intelligence? They say being more cooperative is High EQ. So, are people that are less cooperative and more competitive less intelligent? Like CEO's, Surgeons and STEM workers. People known for working less with people. Especially Nerdy STEM people that have poor social skills but great Engineering skills. Are they less intelligent?

Personality Traits are actually separate from Intelligence and have their own categories that can be broken up to the Big 5 Personality Traits. And the different Personality Trait's depending on what direction you go in aren't necessarily bad. They all have their benefit's and disadvantages depending on the context of the situation. We need cooperative people as well as the opposite of cooperative which are competitive people. They both drive the economy.

Intelligence is different. It's your brains raw processing power to abstract and problem solve. And fun fact, the higher the IQ you have, the faster your reflexes are at pressing buttons. Since your brain send's information a lot faster and High IQ people are better at video games.


----------



## notimp (Jul 23, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Emotional Intelligence doesn't exist. That's made up pseudoscience to make people feel better about the fact that they have low IQ's. Because how do you define High Emotional Intelligence? They say being more cooperative is High EQ.


Yes and no. 

Yes, I agree that its mostly a made up pseudoscience. No, because I'm highly emotionally intelligent. 
More so than high IQ intelligent probably.. 

I go by this definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microexpression

And to counteract - here is the pseudoscience that follows, once you tell someone that "they have it"  :
http://www.eyesforlies.com/about/

Also, it can be heavily affected by mood and overinterpretation (whats the baseline?), but what individual decision process can not.

In a more practical sense - if you ever get in contact with a recruiter, or HR folks, those are trained to gain your trust within the first few minutes of an interview, because they are payed to actively look for inconsistencies, or lies in your statements - and just as with programmers, there are bad, and very, very good ones.. 

The good ones, also are faster, btw..  (And thats not "scientific intuition", because there is no such thing (those are simply prejudices..  ).)

So yes, character trait in a sense - on the other hand, I literally laugh out loud, when I see someone "working" on gaining my trust, because its just entirely displaced ("Wait for it... timing."  ) in the situation, and I can't watch 95% of TV drama, because of overacting. It actually kicks me out of the reception flow, and I register, "wrong, wrong, ..."  if the scene is set up to be highly "emotionally taxing.."  Thank god for method acting...


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 23, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Emotional Intelligence doesn't exist. That's made up pseudoscience to make people feel better about the fact that they have low IQ's. Because how do you define High Emotional Intelligence? They say being more cooperative is High EQ. So, are people that are less cooperative and more competitive less intelligent? Like CEO's, Surgeons and STEM workers. People known for working less with people. Especially Nerdy STEM people that have poor social skills but great Engineering skills. Are they less intelligent?
> 
> Personality Traits are actually separate from Intelligence and have their own categories that can be broken up to the Big 5 Personality Traits. And the different Personality Trait's depending on what direction you go in aren't necessarily bad. They all have their benefit's and disadvantages depending on the context of the situation. We need cooperative people as well as the opposite of cooperative which are competitive people. They both drive the economy.
> 
> Intelligence is different. It's your brains raw processing power to abstract and problem solve. And fun fact, the higher the IQ you have, the faster your reflexes are at pressing buttons. Since your brain send's information a lot faster and High IQ people are better at video games.


Look, I am not into the topic of cognitive science. So I won't go around the terminology, but the actual concept.
There's an actual quality of people that can deal better with their emotions and the emotions of their peers, keep them under control and avoid anxiety.
Call it whatever you like. But I am not talking about measuring IQs, who cares about that shit.
The thing is that some people deal better with logical problems and math, some people deal better with emotions, language, etc.
And yes, each one of those requires high levels of abstraction to solve them and thus they are different types of intelligence.
It is the way it is. Who cares who is more or less intelligence? This is not an e-peen competition. I am talking about the skills that you need to confront yourself in order to turn into a better person from my point of view.


----------



## Coto (Jul 23, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> I am talking about the skills that you need to confront yourself in order to turn into a better person from my point of view.


Truly important words there.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 23, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> Look, I am not into the topic of cognitive science. So I won't go around the terminology, but the actual concept.
> There's an actual quality of people that can deal better with their emotions and the emotions of their peers, keep them under control and avoid anxiety.
> Call it whatever you like. But I am not talking about measuring IQs, who cares about that shit.
> The thing is that some people deal better with logical problems and math, some people deal better with emotions, language, etc.
> ...


So what your talking about is being low in Neuroticism (Negative Emotions). And its regulated with serotonin function in your brain. Negative Emotions depending on context isn't bad. Anxiety can push you to do better. Neuroticism also makes you more self aware. Being Self Conscience is also being high in Negative Emotions. But highly stressful jobs does require you to feel less negative emotions. 

When someone feels high Anxiety about their actions then they make changes right. What about people that feel less negative emotions about their actions? They will be perceived as assholes wouldn't they? But wouldn't feeling less Anxiety make you a better CEO so you don't end up breaking down and cry when things get tough?

So how do you define a better person? Someone who feels high anxiety about their actions. And is more agreeable and nice. Or someone who has low Anxiety, doesn't give AF, and can easily fire people without feeling bad (something needed when your a CEO). People will say the guy that doesn't give AF has low people skills, but is that bad for certain careers? Does that make him evil and a worse person? Good or Bad person.

And is serotonin controllable like you say it is? Can emotions be controlled? Doesn't Anti Depressants exists so that it can help people control their emotions since they are unable to. How does one control emotions without drugs?


----------



## notimp (Jul 23, 2018)

In the traditional hierarchical organisational structures, this is correct. But the problem is, that none of them solved any of a large list of societal problems "correctly".

So in the near future, you can take your "high efficiency proposing CEO" and kick him right into the can, for quite a few years, because in effect, due to a lack of valid information, he's done nothing right.

And no matter how insanely horrid, their decisions were, they still were protected by organizational principles.

Lets take a look at the list, starting with -

- our good friends at the IMF,
- our good friends at Merrill Lynch and Wells Fargo
- our good friends in the political establishment, and some in congress
- our good friends in charge of social policies (just homeland population figures)
- our good friends in the military command
- our good friends in charge of the cyber with special props to Obama for defenitely not releasing stuxnet onto the world
- our good friends in world wide economic development
- our good friends "thinking about tha climate"
- our good friends in and around Palo Alto who definitely didn't just ruin democracy -
- our workforce after the AI "revolution"
- global peace and sustenance

There's something of a lingering truth, that in the last 20 years - NONE of the important issues without a playbook from the 60s actually got "solved" (world hunger, malaria - I note down with a "maybe"), and instead we are cultivating escapism, if we are not heavily into crisis hopping.

Also - funnily enough - in that climate "participatory leadership" all of a sudden became a buzzword, because all those fine organizations dont have a heck of a clue - how to react to movements that might consolidate at the ground level - where you have no time to get them into traditional organizational structures.

I understand that this conflicts with the notions of "social control" (implied, or "dreamed up") and "the 3 month Occupy event" that fizzled out into nothingness, after the festivities ended - but then I look at the list again... 

All that your efficient CEO types have achieved, was to shift blame and not caring about those externalities. And then the org covered up where they went wrong.

Thats actually a bone I have to pick with the "alpha" myth. Its very entising. Until you see how they handle personal failure. And the fact is - they dont. They get sweaty and scram.

Also - other types of people, dont "break down and cry" in high pressure situations, they react differently, but they certainly don't "poker as well".

That said, I could learn, to bet the house three times in a row, if my corp bails me out of all consequences, three times in a row. I think I'd manage...

On the other hand "firing people if they don't bring the results" - I could use a picture book alpha for that, any day. Buy him a suave three piece suit, fix him a nice office, ...



SG854 said:


> And is serotonin controllable like you say it is? Can emotions be controlled? Doesn't Anti Depressants exists so that it can help people control their emotions since they are unable to. How does one control emotions without drugs?


You can. But its hard.

On the other hand - we are approaching the point, where people don't want to live in societies anymore, that are only palpable while being on opioids. You must have noticed..  But then legalizing MJ also proved quite popular.. *snark*


----------



## Noctosphere (Jul 23, 2018)

https://twitter.com/cwthe100/status/979473250404114432


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 23, 2018)

Like others before me have said, "good" and "bad" are entirely subjective, and differ from person to person.  A few have even abdicated the model of good and evil entirely.  However, generally, I believe that it is generally agreed upon that the entire notion of "good" is associated with a level of decency and respect towards others (inherently human concepts that may not necessarily have a place among other beings or races), and that the notion of "evil" is associated with undeserved cruelty or disrespect towards others.  What necessarily dictates undeserved cruelty or disrespect towards others varies a _lot_ from person to person, though there does seem to be a baseline which all humans abide by when determining morality.

However, dismissing the more rational and subjective viewpoint for a moment, I believe that each person has an inherent alignment towards good or evil acts, determined by their birth conditions and upbringing, or perhaps their genes.  However, nothing is set in stone, and people can act in ways that go against their nature.  People with an inclination towards evil can be good people, and vice versa.  Ultimately, I believe that being good or evil is a choice, and that it's never too late to change your alignment.

Something worth mentioning are the beliefs of the Chinese philosopher Mencius, who believed in the inherent goodness of humans.  He likened human nature to a place called Ox Mountain, once lush with trees and vegetation, but by his time, was left barren.  He likened the lush, vegetative original state of Ox Mountain to human's inherent tendencies towards righteousness, and that going against said nature to commit bad or evil acts is similar to cutting down one tree on the mountain.  Doing it once or twice doesn't ruin the forest, but repeated practice will leave the mountain bare and lifeless.  Likewise, if one who once committed evil or immoral acts regularly turns to good, the forest would eventually grow back to its original state.  I guess that goes into the matter of self-reflection, with "good" people learning from their mistakes and trying to improve themselves and become better people as a result (a viewpoint I more or less agree with).

I could probably go into more detail about this, but a gaming forum is hardly an ideal place to have deep prolonged philosophical discussions.


----------



## notimp (Jul 24, 2018)

Noctosphere said:


> https://twitter.com/cwthe100/status/979473250404114432


Hunger games the sequel for the "fail fast generation", creating a new society one *lol*, *yolo* comment at the time.

I wish them all the best. And luck. 

( Also the series captured 0,5% of the target demographic at its peak...  )


----------



## Song of storms (Jul 24, 2018)

B_E_P_I_S_M_A_N said:


> Like others before me have said, "good" and "bad" are entirely subjective, and differ from person to person.  A few have even abdicated the model of good and evil entirely.  However, generally, I believe that it is generally agreed upon that the entire notion of "good" is associated with a level of decency and respect towards others (inherently human concepts that may not necessarily have a place among other beings or races), and that the notion of "evil" is associated with undeserved cruelty or disrespect towards others.  What necessarily dictates undeserved cruelty or disrespect towards others varies a _lot_ from person to person, though there does seem to be a baseline which all humans abide by when determining morality.
> 
> However, dismissing the more rational and subjective viewpoint for a moment, I believe that each person has an inherent alignment towards good or evil acts, determined by their birth conditions and upbringing, or perhaps their genes.  However, nothing is set in stone, and people can act in ways that go against their nature.  People with an inclination towards evil can be good people, and vice versa.  Ultimately, I believe that being good or evil is a choice, and that it's never too late to change your alignment.
> 
> ...


Please do. I like your interpretation the best so far!


----------



## Noctosphere (Jul 24, 2018)

DFdDFdefefecAADDFAADFGE said:


> Please do. I like your interpretation the best so far!


how do you do to remember that username? damn o.O


----------



## Song of storms (Jul 24, 2018)

Noctosphere said:


> how do you do to remember that username? damn o.O


It's easy if you know where it comes from. And you play a musical instrument


----------



## Noctosphere (Jul 24, 2018)

DFdDFdefefecAADDFAADFGE said:


> It's easy if you know where it comes from. And you play a musical instrument


oh its a song?
I see


----------



## notimp (Jul 24, 2018)

Ah, we've reached the realm of feels and metaphors - this makes people very excited!

"I feel, that good and bad is like a tree on a hill, and a garden, and spring, but with respect, and non-toxic, and if you are bad twice, you are out for life!"
Quote: Random millenials feels on the internet. (And this is, why we need representative democracy, and not democracy, in a nutshell.)

And I thought for a moment I overreacted in my statement regarding corporate selection criteria... 

This is whats so great about the interwebs and this topic - everyone can haz an opinion, no one can be told, that they are completely wrong.

You can post a CW promotional tweet (the channel that brought you Beverly Hills 90210) for a third rate scifi production in the middle of it, without any context at all, and you are still good.

Riveting.

Now let me tell you about religion and state philosophy.

It was only ever used as a control principal. It always ought to convince the common folk that restraint is a virtue, it never was funded enough to really matter (if the king/ruler was actually smart) - almost no one ever believed in it because of the teachings, but because of the big ruse surrounding it.

In the case of Confucius there are documented trips of the guy which took months, where he - out of his own volition - decided to visit several municipalities of the realm, altogether for several years, with his deciples - telling a "Lord" how wrong their behavior was, the Lord didn't care, and neither did the state or the emperor, so Kǒng Fūzǐ traveled on to the next one. Inspiring story isnt it?

The next part is even more inspiring. The teachings of Confucius became only ever "popular" on a "mass scale", once chinese leadership, made them state doctrine, well after his death. Today, in some chinese provinces his "teachings" are repeated in (rural) public broadcasts every day - and school children still have to memorize them as part of the curriculum.

Also nowadays there are saturday evening variety shows, that aim to make the teachings more 2018 - and people like them, because China.

In short - those stories, are always the same, and always end the same.

You could even ask Steve Jobs, how inspired he was after visiting his first indian yogi.

Why?

Because the methodology went as follows:

Proclaim divine superiority. Say that humans have lost it - and that they have to show a little effort, or else the devine ruler will never love them. But otherwise - never openly pick sides. Congratulations, you've been introduced to the institutional principal of a church.

Take a few good for nothing farmers children (mostly the second sons). Teach them how to read. But much rather teach them to read scripture out loud. Send them back into their villages. Profit from their never ending gratitude. But also tell them that they could never have children, so everything they have achieved - dies with them.

Gratitude for what? Well, you build temples. Which were buildings, where the common man for centuries saw:

- their first book
- their first statue
- their first thing made out of gold (uh, shiny!)
- their first "manufactured" music instrument
- and mostly grandiousity/design/splendor

then tell them, that all of this is because of your supreme knowledge, and the only way to obtain it is, to listen to your man second farmers son, who's really leaned so much during his time in the convent.

Then have people pay for learning virtues, and performing rituals. For the love of the devine being, and winning.

But also tell them, whenever they try to succeed - its a sin, and they have to tell you immediately.

Give a third of your profits to the poor. (This is what makes the king tolerate you/dont look at you too closely. Because he has no interest, and yet - he has interest. Perfect private/public cooperation opportunity.)

Even the king will love you, because it gives people a different "ruler/higher principle" to think about, that historically NEVER interferes in politics at all. And where they did - it wasnt very successful for long. Because as people that have actually to run anything other than an imagined empire - turns out, churches werent very proficient.

Sorry - secularism.

Just call the kettle black already, and talk straight about the intended control mechanisms. (Values, Virtues, devine law, ... (See, its written in that devine book, you know, its holy....))

Also - whats it with the western enthusiasm for eastern mysticism/religions? Its "normal" to laugh about your own religions, but as soon as someone talks about a tree on a hill, your middle of the road liberal finds that very interesting. And something that would for sure, enrich their lives.

Also - wanna see a cool monk?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/jun/18/thai-buddhist-monks-private-jet-video


----------



## notimp (Jul 24, 2018)

Lets take a look at the 10 commandments (christianity) at this point, why dont we?

I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
- Oh, Im so great -

Thou shalt have no other gods before me
- Let me be your only one -

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
- don't you dare drawing me (remember most of them couldnt write)-

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
- don't you dare say anything non PC about me -

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
- take one day out of your week, to do what the second farmers son in those strange cloths tells you -
--

Those are purely self serving constitutional principals - to make the whole thing work.

--

Honour thy father and thy mother
- listen to your elders, very popular with the elderly, which coincidentally - are also the most conservative people of your society -
In case you were wondering, Confucius says the exact same thing, how curious...

Thou shalt not kill
- Hey, its getting moral! Ok, but mostly don't kill anyone important for the current political state, if it comes to infidels, well hand you your sword, and give you white cloths sporting a cross on your chest - 

Thou shalt not commit adultery
- Dont fuck around, which coincidentally also pleases the most conservative elements in your society. Also, pay for your fuck permit, while you're at it (the institution of marriage) -

Thou shalt not steal
- Getting moral again! Also, have you already paid god today? -

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
- Now this is not exactly you should not lie. It is "you should not lie about your neighbour", which coincidently pleases the conservative elements in your society most, because - hey less hassle -

Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's house)
- less hassle -

Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's wife)
- less hassle -

Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's servants, animals, or anything else)
- less hassle, also in case you were, dont even think about a revolt because heaven or something -

--

Now all the shall principles are the ones they'd then be very interested in hearing you confessing about - because, they tell them whats actually going on in the community.

--


And god told moses, those are some mighty fine societal control principals I gave you, I even added two half moral ones, carry them in honor of my name, put them on a mountain, or something...


----------



## notimp (Jul 27, 2018)

We cant end there though.. 

Historically, this is what followed in the west:
(Again, just using a short, simple to understand text.  )



> *Reason:* Enlightenment philosophers believed that rational thought could lead to human improvement and was the most legitimate mode of thinking. They saw the ability to reason as the most significant and valuable human capacity, according to PBS. Reason could help humans break free from ignorance and irrationality, and learning to think reasonably could teach humans to act reasonably, as well. Enlightenment philosophers saw reason as having an equalizing effect on humanity, because everyone's thoughts and behavior would be guided by reason.
> 
> Enlightenment intellectuals thought that all human endeavors should aim to increase knowledge and reason, rather than elicit emotional responses. They advocated for universal education and secularized learning, said Abernethy.
> 
> ...


src: https://www.livescience.com/55327-the-enlightenment.html

That movement then was integrated into the traditional bourgeoisie in the 19th century. Rationality became the leading principle from then on. (Replaced the need for "good and bad" (doctrine) to a certain extent.)


----------



## matthi321 (Jul 27, 2018)

i will say a bad/evil person is someone who will hurt other people for pleasure. or for non basic human requirement needs. like for example you would kill an person just to get their phone


----------



## notimp (Jul 27, 2018)

> Rainbow Rare Earths (LON:RBW), which had a spectacular debut on the London Stock Exchange in January, has cut the ribbon at its Gakara mine in Burundi, and said it expects to start producing and selling rare earth concentrate from it before year-end. Gakara, which operated for 30 years until 1978, holds some high-grade rare earth elements, including lanthanum, cerium and neodymium, which are expected to become essential for the manufacturing of batteries, magnets and electric vehicles. It is also a very cheap project — with only $2.23 million of required capital expenditure and low production costs.


http://www.mining.com/new-african-rare-earth-mine-start-production-year-end/

Hurting others for pleasure, can also be done consensually, just ask an entire generation 50 shades of grey fanatics.

So i guess the "_A bad person is somebody who intentionally harms others for unnecessary personal gain and has the mental capacity to control their behaviour." _statement also is only an approximation.


----------



## GensokyoIceFairy (Jul 27, 2018)

Of course. There are some people (like many of the ones with power) that are corrupted and manipulative, this makes them bad people...


----------



## kumikochan (Jul 27, 2018)

It all has to do with nurture + nature.  Nurture being how you're raised, environment, family, friends etc and nature being your genes etc. That is what creates you in the end, just nature + nurture. Basic psychology and one of the first lessons you get when you study development psychology. Empathy, social skills, lack of emotions, being dominant or submissive, attachment issues are all created by nature and nurture. Most of what you are in the end is created before the age of 3 seeing everything below that age is critical what makes you, ''you'''. Most people don't realize that the age between give or take 0 - 4 is the most critical time in a human his/her development


----------



## GBCTEMP (Jul 27, 2018)

I believe so, people who take pleasure in inhumane acts can be considered bad from anyones perspective.


----------



## smilodon (Jul 27, 2018)

Since morality is a social construct, you can't say something is plain good or plain bad, you have to add a context.


----------



## notimp (Nov 22, 2018)

Here is context. 

Watch if you want to find out who created the first ever spreadsheet, or why intermediating activities might be theft (value extraction activities passing for value creation activities). 



(This is basically a quite in depth rundown of how the current economic world and the public sector work.)


----------



## PersonThatLikesGames (Nov 25, 2018)

In my opinion, I think good or bad people don’t exist since everyone has a good and bad side.
Edit: This means that sometimes a good person can have a bad side and a bad person can have a good side.


----------



## Beerus (Nov 25, 2018)

yeet good and bad exist


----------



## notimp (Nov 25, 2018)

So I guess, we don't want to extend this to what current economic/political developments could be considered good or bad, then.. 

Eh, worth a try.. 

(yt video is still worth to be watched, imho.  )


----------



## CMDreamer (Nov 26, 2018)

IMO, there's not such thing as "good" or "bad" people, there are only people.
We, in a diferent level and under certain circumstances, can be "good" or "bad".
Doing "good" or "bad", is a matter of decisions and circumstances, and our human development since childhood, can, in some degree predispose us to think that being "good" or "bad" is the correct way to go. So we do what we see being done as we grow up, and that way is the correct way, because we haven't been shown the opposite.

"Good" or "bad", is simply a matter of socially determined (conceptually speaking) behaviour. What is "good" for some, can be "bad" for others and viceversa.


----------



## notimp (Nov 26, 2018)

Thats close to deterministic (as in born with, or grown up as) group identities again.  ("I can do nothing about my convictions on whats good or bad.") Which should be avoided, imho.

It neglects concepts like ethics, morals, major consensus narrative (which can be formed as well..  ) - that can develop over longer periods of time.  Some are even subject to what you could call societal trends.

Some are changed by social movements.

The list goes on.  Only "what you grew up with" - is a cop out - that lets everyone retract to their default position of "everyone can be correct on this, because their feelings are right". 

(As you might imagine, I'm not very fond of this position.  )

But yes, childhood development plays a role as well.


----------



## Noctosphere (Nov 26, 2018)

notimp said:


> Thats close to deterministic (as in born with, or grown up as) group identities again.  ("I can do nothing about my convictions on whats good or bad.") Which should be avoided, imho.
> 
> It neglects concepts like ethics, morals, major consensus narrative (which can be formed as well..  ) - that can develop over longer periods of time.  Some are even subject to what you could call societal trends.
> 
> ...


First thing I notice is that you are smiling a lot
Let me read your post now...


----------



## notimp (Nov 26, 2018)

Have to reduce smilie quota again.


----------



## Noctosphere (Nov 26, 2018)

notimp said:


> Have to reduce smilie quota again.


haha dont worry
I use lot of smiley and "..." as well 
Just... not that much smiley...


----------



## smf (Nov 26, 2018)

notimp said:


> But yes, childhood development plays a role as well.



Everything plays a part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism


----------



## VinsCool (Nov 26, 2018)

There is a unique nature to each person, but to be able to tell what is "good" and what is "bad" is ultimately subjective.

It really depends on the point of view itself, and the person's own beliefs to judge, based on peer pressure, mostly. This is pretty much how society norms appear to be different from a community to another.


----------



## weatMod (Nov 26, 2018)

leafeon34 said:


> Are "good people" "good" by personal choice? Did they make the right decisions growing up? Were they lucky enough to be born into a loving family? Were they lucky enough not to suffer from mental illness? Were they lucky enough to have enough food on the table? Were they blessed with altruistic genes?
> 
> EDIT: As I posted on the second page



i don't know OP , you tell me


Spoiler: graphic content


----------



## bi388 (Nov 26, 2018)

I believe in an inherent objective morality that does not come from a higher being but is just a fact of the universe. I cant prove it exists obviously but I think it does. whether or not someone can be objectively bad based on that though i am not quite sure.


----------



## notimp (Nov 26, 2018)

@weatMod:

This should be moderated. :/ As its most likely propaganda.

Here is why:
There is no news source attached to it.
It is written in an agitative and non descriptive manner.
Personality rights are violated left and right - those images couldnt be published unredacted - there are laws against that.
There is no objective distance. The "matter of fact'ism" even shouting from the title (where is the "allegedly", where are the actual legal terms, if this is a report about a case in court) is disturbing.

The hook for the baited outrage is in the first line of text "a new mexican mother did nothing". You'd never open like this, if this was a report.

This is the creation of a disturbed mind - and/or someone involved in riling up some manufactured outrage for a reason.

--

Brings us to another excellent point though. Welcome to Facebook. Where stuff like this gets traction - because there couldnt even be theoretically enough people to screen all content that gets published.

Also welcome to your new all fancy tech job created by this innovation miracle that is social media - of looking at stuff like that for 8 hours a day, if you are living in the Philippines or a neighboring country. Because labor is cheap there. We certainly dont self police our discussion communities anymore. Let them do it... :/

Also media literacy. I take one look at this story and get what this is. Others might not. I've learned that stuff though.. :/

edit: Image in question seemingly originated on 4chan:
http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/194646897


----------



## Subtle Demise (Nov 26, 2018)

notimp said:


> @weatMod:
> 
> This should be moderated. :/ As its most likely propaganda.
> 
> ...


Thankfully the image and story seem fake. At first it seemed like some sort of anti-drug fear mongering, reefer madness style. Being from 4chan though, I expect it was made to shock and disturb people.  Hopefully the person who made it only had shock as a goal, and don't actually fantasize about this. Worse yet, the story is true and they are or know one if the people in the story and posted their names and likenesses in spite of the legality.

Anyway, does anyone else think that using drugs makes one a bad person? Assuming that you aren't harming or endangering anyone else with your behavior.


----------



## notimp (Dec 10, 2018)

Here is the 80 IQ version with them industrial beats for easy feeling of yeah this is hip and happening of the previously posted video:



Its the launch video of the Bernie Sanders/Yanis Varoufakis initiative called DiEM25 that was publicly presented two days ago.

edit: They have set up a youtube channel already.  Look for DiEM25.

"Internationalists against globalists and fashists" in Varoufakis' own words. 

They also - like the centrists movement, are very much into "the green economy" to solve all the issues.  (Primarily savings not being invested into initiatives, that would actually grow economies.)

Still - we could discuss this in here... But then, I could also divert to the politics forum and have FUN discussions about how proper egality and the green economy are for the future of the planet (I'm mocking those people, if you havent caught it..  ).

I'm just putting this here, so people can not use the "how would I be a good person/try not to be a bad persion" discussion to entertain some form of escapism from the reality surrounding them. 

"Well its all how you grew up, nature and nurture -" is very comforting - but also entirely lethargic. As people are stuck at the "well can't do anything about it" stage. Thats BS.


----------



## GaaraPrime (Dec 10, 2018)

leafeon34 said:


> Are "good people" "good" by personal choice? Did they make the right decisions growing up? Were they lucky enough to be born into a loving family? Were they lucky enough not to suffer from mental illness? Were they lucky enough to have enough food on the table? Were they blessed with altruistic genes?
> 
> EDIT: As I posted on the second page



Well, what do you call people who tried to rob my dad and uncle and in the process *murdered both of them*?  Good?  Bad?

I would definitely say they are "bad" people and among the worst scum on earth.


----------



## notimp (Dec 10, 2018)

Yep, and thanks to facbook, we can all social graph them and put them into a place called Australia like the British did way back when. Problem solved. Scum of the earth Ossies. (Now to explain to them millennials, the last sentence I dont mean, I just posted to provoke.)

Social score - chinese government style. Vote for it. If you still can.

(Issues: "grouping people based on their potential future behavior", "giving them labels, they can never get rid off".)

Sorry for your loss.


----------



## mattytrog (Dec 10, 2018)

Quote: 
*Do "good" and "bad" people actually exist?*

Well... I`m not sure...

I wouldn`t call Jimmy Savile, Ian Huntley, The Manson Family, Jeffrey Dahmer good people. Would you?

*What a STUPID QUESTION.*


----------



## notimp (Dec 10, 2018)

Why do you find the need to group them together under a label anyways? 

I mean, you have a molester, a cannibal, amongst them three murderers, and a pseudo religious leader -

that for the most part have most in common, by all being featured once in a while on nightly US reality scare-sploitation television formats.

Then we all watch Silence of the Lambs, and speak out loud the Hannibal Lector lines, we remember. Then we made Dexter one of the most popular shows ever. Loved true detective. Then we cheer, when OJ got free. 

Those publicly visible stories of true evil basically serve the purpose of a public exorcism. There is a concept in the performing arts, where we look at things, to "feel them through - f.e a leading character", so we dont have or get the feeling to look for those situations for real. Its the cathartic moment we are after. The "I'd never even.... - I'm still a better person/this is still a better world".

There is another thing all of those public "real evil" stories have in common - they (their bad guys) only ever affected usually two dozen people at most. Because if its getting more, its starts to feel less like it could affect us personally. Its strange.

As soon as they affect more people, it becomes harder to use them as "picturebook excamples of real evil".

Jimmy Savile we all agree on. The internal policy of the catholic church to insist on adhering to "church law" and not common law in dealing with their molestation cases - which were much more wide spread, and prolonged because of that - all of a sudden not so evil anymore.

The Huntley guy (whose case I didnt come across before) murdered two girls, which is about a third of the usual civil casualties number of a drone strike gone wrong. The first one personified evil, the socond one - a what do you know - necessary force. Bad Karma.

Its funny how that works...

If you only take the common narrative stories that are there to put your moral outrage into them, and then feel better as a human being afterwards - its easy to fingerpoint and say "those are bad people". Yes, thats what those moral tales are for.
(In germany we still have a tradition called "Kasperltheater", where a funny/chaotic/goodguy usually tries to hunt a robber, sockpuppet style. This whole happening has a very important act in it. Namely sometime in the middle of the play the Kasperl (good guy), and the robber are on the same "screen". And the Kasperl doesnt see the robber, and he ask in a fourth wall breaking dialog with the audience, where the robber could be, and if they see the robber - and the entire audience (children) gets basically 'freaking mad' (in a good way)  shouting where he is to the Kasperl, fingerpointing, footstomping and everything.  When the Kasperl finally gets to the place where the audience guides him to, the robber is gone already. Thats catharsis.  The children successfully identified the evil, and got four minutes of "oj weh", collective lamentment, and the lived in hope, that if they just shouted loud enough at the time, the Kasperl will catch the robber, then and there and good will prevail.  Its a fascinating thing.  )

But thats the easy way out. They (public common moral outrage narratives) almost don't count.  Much more interesting to look at stuff without the "everyone universally agrees" label on it. 

(Philosophy is more an art than a science btw, which results in some funny moments, when algorithmic design tries to tackle moral problems scientifically. As in - thats not really possible. As in - it depends on the moral philosophy you are following... )

Also - its interesting, that we automatically deviate towards the "bad" part of the dichotomy.

I have yet to see one person stepping forward to say - look at that persons behavior, thats obviously a good person - how can we even question that. We are much too afraid, of what that person might do in the next moment.  They better be old and set in their ways... (Mother Theresa, ...  )

So the spectrum is weighted it seems..


----------



## mattytrog (Dec 10, 2018)

I should have kept my mouth shut. I forgot I was replying to Mr. Wall-Of-Text.

Not difficult to understand, no matter what inspired intellectual eloquent spin you put on it.

People like those I mentioned, have forfeited their humanity. Therefore they are no better than vermin. And should be shot as such.

You can no longer call yourself a part of "humanity" to commit such acts. Therefore, it is free-for-all.

Quote...
_The Huntley guy (whose case I didnt come across before) murdered two girls, which is about a third of the usual civil casualties number of a drone strike gone wrong._

So what? There will be casualities in war. Hence the name. War.

Your logic seems to dictate that (I`m paraphrasing here) "A nonce murdered two girls... So what? How many have died in drone strikes?"

People die. All day, every day. It`s how we get there is the interesting bit.

That "bad" person murdered them girls. I judge someone as bad by the actions they have done. As proved in a court of law in this example.

Depends on your definition of a bad person.

For example... A cheat.

A man cheats on his wife. Not a very nice thing to happen at all to the wife. But does that really place him in league with the monsters I mentioned? Does it make him a "bad" person? Course not. Just one persons definition of bad.

But there are universally accepted criterion of "bad" in the examples above.

So... for the NT;DR (notimp; didn`t read) out there... Yes bad people exist. And they are beyond redemption. And should be exterminated like the vermin they are. You leftists don`t like it? Suck it up you bunch of panzies.


----------



## spiderman1216 (Dec 10, 2018)

Veho said:


> The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevant. It is what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are.


Except they  aren't the circumstances of one's birth usually determine what they will do in the future assuming no one helps them.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Dec 11, 2018)

I don't believe there is such a thing as good or evil. Everything is based on certain morals and values of every individual, culture, or country.
What may be a good thing to you may be a seriously heinous thing to me.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 11, 2018)

Yes bad people exist at Hollywood


----------



## PanTheFaun (Dec 11, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Yes bad people exist at Hollywood


What makes them bad?


----------



## Noctosphere (Dec 11, 2018)

PanTheFaun said:


> What makes them bad?


I think he meant in movies


----------



## SG854 (Dec 11, 2018)

PanTheFaun said:


> What makes them bad?


----------



## PanTheFaun (Dec 11, 2018)

SG854 said:


>



I don't like that stuff either but to them it is right if they like it. They are wrong to us and we are wrong to them for telling them it's wrong.


----------



## notimp (Dec 11, 2018)

mattytrog said:


> People like those I mentioned, have forfeited their humanity. Therefore they are no better than vermin. And should be shot as such.


Or simply imprisoned, in the 75% of countries that dont have the death penalty anymore ('merica f*ck yeah).

Also - my point being that your average US Army drone pilot, or catholic church bishop simply carouselling sex offenders around to other municipalities and hiding them from the law are morally really not any better off than the murderers and molesters, that are paraded for your enjoyment on late night television programs.

Then I explained, that being engulfed by common moral outrage narratives ("It could happen to you!") really serves the purpose of "getting you off" (catharsis) on moral superiority grounds. Probably while liking your gorefest horror flix, just as much as the next guy, but not acting on those notions.

The guy killing those two girls, that "moral monster", likely was a mental case, that now gets paraded around by TV producers for your enjoyment. And the next school shooter - somehow will be seen as less morally appalling, because even though no one mentions it (for good reasons, because you have to make monsters out of those cases), every one can imagine a history of abuse - that came beforehand.

And then you all look up and put a hand over your heart, when the national anthem plays, and one of your presidents holds a war speech. ("Dear fellow americans, ...") Or your financial industry ruined the worlds economy again. Or some embargo of yours also affects refugee camps.

Or sheer neglect made sure, that more people died from the clean up work of 9/11 (cancer mostly) than from the terrorist attacks on that day.

So the guys killing two people because they are mentally deranged, those are your TV presentable monsters, and the rest, mostly is fate - or something youd rather not think about.

And to be honest thats not even a moral beatdown, thats just how humans work. They are afraid of what they can imagine. They are fascinated by every gory detail. Nothing sells papers as well as a bad news story. Their movie blockbusters are sponsored by army and navy. And they have learned to differentiate between morally good killings, and bad ones (the bad ones are gory, the good ones are clean - except when the world refuses to sell you your tested death penalty drugs any longer, then things become murky... (oh the humanity, on that one...)). Then they watch baseball on the weekends.

- Also, please dont take youtube videos with the words "Proof that..." seriously. As you might have noticed, there is no quality control on youtube or social media. Every persons output is just as "interesting" to the algorithm (sorting by popularity) as the next ones, as long as it draws views. As a society you had years of fun with selling people on the Bigfoot myth.  Thats nothing new either.

- Also, sorry for the 'merica bashing, but I actually live in a country that doesnt start wars, or kills other humans for revenge, so its just easier to give those examples - with american (news) stories. Everyone knows them and people can relate.

edit: This (the grotesque evil stuff is mainly out there for catharsis purposes, and because people are interested in those stories, while other "bad" stuff is seen as strangely normal in our societies) touches on a concept called "The banality of evil". Hannah Arendt (public intellectual) famously disected in the 1960s - if you want to read up on it: https://aeon.co/ideas/what-did-hannah-arendt-really-mean-by-the-banality-of-evil

Once you come to the conclusion, that the potential for "evil" is actually all around you, as is the potential for good - the notion of "some people being categorically so - without the propensity to change, or the impact of the situation (as in predetermined)" becomes actually quite scary. As in - it could even be someone you know.

And we are better off to drive those "monster" narratives, so people have definite social guidelines. And go for integration efforts on everyone else.

But the difficult questions of there being such a thing as good and bad, doesnt take place at the "those are the social outcast monsters for your late night enjoyment" level. They usually take place in your every day life. Which is why "I know - those are the bad people!" is such a cop out.

Which is also, why everyone in here avoided to touch on any political, societal or economic problems - because those are hot issues. (Its not decided yet.)

Which is also why law, and public opinion, are distinctly different things on purpose. And also why we as western societies have stoped using good and bad as guidelines for any public action. Its just that not everyone has caught up yet.

(Moral outrage can drive social movements, which can drive political action, but thats a process, that has you specifically not setting up witchhunts on day two of the thing catching traction. Its almost like, people thought about that... Or did that in the past.)


----------



## Koulucky (Dec 25, 2018)

I believe that morality is subjective, and also that everyone has the potential for good or evil inside them.


----------



## LizzieNya (Jun 25, 2019)

I believe we're all "bad" in some way shape or form on the inside. How one chooses to present themselves shows if someone is a "good" or "bad" person.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jun 25, 2019)

leafeon34 said:


> Are "good people" "good" by personal choice? Did they make the right decisions growing up? Were they lucky enough to be born into a loving family? Were they lucky enough not to suffer from mental illness? Were they lucky enough to have enough food on the table? Were they blessed with altruistic genes?
> 
> EDIT: As I posted on the second page



Huh ? Thats your belief!

To my understanding, we are all corrupted and we are not perfect.


----------



## Iamapirate (Jun 26, 2019)

I don't think people are wholly good or evil. Even Hitler himself was a vegetarian and a dog person.

I think some people might be more inclined towards evil (genetically, environmentally or a combination of the two) but I generally think most people have a capacity for good and evil.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Jun 27, 2019)

All human beings came and come "neutral" to this world.Should one think so...

The NINE months in Mama´s belly "shape" this innocent,little creatures into whatever Mama want (or maybe NOT):

- Smartphone Junkies
- Drug Dealers
- Alcoholics
- mentally "unstable" people
- Incureable creatures
- ruthless Killers
- (you can go on with the list if you want......)

BUT ALSO:

- Music Lovers
- Food "wizards"
- people who cares about others
- empathetic Characters
- Intellectual "masters"
- sporty Ones
- (again you can go on with the list...)


GOOD or BAD people ?  You always get what you make of it.


----------



## RedTomato (Jul 12, 2019)

not in real life


----------



## morvoran (Jul 12, 2019)

The concept of being "good" or "bad" is a social construct and is determined by the laws or morals of a community.  In order to say someone is "good" determines on your outlook of what is good vs bad to you and your peers.
For example, one community might say it is bad to kill animals and use their flesh for food where another community says it is good because the act feeds people.  Who determines which side is really good or bad in this scenario?  One might say that it depends on a majority of societies in the world, where another will say it depends on which side you are raised.  Either way, are you good or bad for eating meat and encouraging other to do the same?  Are you good or bad for not eating meat and not wanting others to do the same?

If we were to remove every thing, action, or language in the world that we perceive as "bad", what will be used to determine what is good and vice versa?  Because human nature always sees the good and bad in everything, the truth is that good and bad cannot exist without the other.  If we stopped all murder, rape, theft, and assaults in the world, we would always find something to put people in jail.  The next capital offenses may be jaywalking, skipping jury duty, or spitting gum on the ground.  Even if you do not see these things as horrible crimes today, if they were the worst criminal offenses, you would think the people as evil.


----------

