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

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.

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 every reasonable person will 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.

Click to expand...

I simply cannot agree with this.

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.

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.

I simply cannot agree with this.

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.

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.. )

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".

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.. )

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.

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

Deleted User

Guest

i dont know

Well-Known Member

Techromancer

Deleted User

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

╰( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° )つ──☆*:・ﾟ

Well-Known Member

I'm here to steal memes and break dreams

GBAtemp MoNkEeE

Well-Known Member

Hail Mary

-

GBATemp's Resident Ghostbuster

Well-Known Member

-

Well-Known Member

Active Member

-

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum