In your opinion, are people basically
- Thread starter tlatchaw
- Start date
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I voted Morally Indifferent, but had I heard the radio remark, I would have agreed with it. Context is everything.
To say someone is basically 'good', to me means more than they don't kill, injure, or steal. It means they make some modest *effort* to be good - to be charitable, kind, generous, hospitable. It means being a good person when no one's gonna notice the good you do. I do think a lot of people are like that, but not as many as those referred to as a "good person".
I think people are slightly better than Morally Indifferent, but mainly because being *Bad* carries consequences that many realize are simply not worth it. Call it karma, if you will - there's simply some very practical reasons for NOT being bad. Even if you think you'll probably get away with it, some part of you realizes that one way or another, you won't. If nothing else, you'll erode your own chracter and lose self-respect.
But I also mentioned Morally Indifferent because I know a lot of people that I like very much - but their definition of what makes someone good usually is redefined to what they do most of the time. They make allowances for their own failings, and when they allow room for more 'badness' in their life, they accommodate THAT also as an acceptable level for someone who is good. C.S. Lewis makes this argument in a similar fashion to declare the existence of an understanding of 'good' - people rarely argue over the moral LOW ground. They always want to reassure themselves that what they were doing was, in fact, *right*.
But people are always arguing over who is 'right', and the only rational explanation is that most people redefine 'right' as being their own behavior. They only back off when logic, evidence and experience make their reasoning obviously false.
I haven't, however, found evidence that people are basically BAD. Maybe it's just the people I know.
To say someone is basically 'good', to me means more than they don't kill, injure, or steal. It means they make some modest *effort* to be good - to be charitable, kind, generous, hospitable. It means being a good person when no one's gonna notice the good you do. I do think a lot of people are like that, but not as many as those referred to as a "good person".
I think people are slightly better than Morally Indifferent, but mainly because being *Bad* carries consequences that many realize are simply not worth it. Call it karma, if you will - there's simply some very practical reasons for NOT being bad. Even if you think you'll probably get away with it, some part of you realizes that one way or another, you won't. If nothing else, you'll erode your own chracter and lose self-respect.
But I also mentioned Morally Indifferent because I know a lot of people that I like very much - but their definition of what makes someone good usually is redefined to what they do most of the time. They make allowances for their own failings, and when they allow room for more 'badness' in their life, they accommodate THAT also as an acceptable level for someone who is good. C.S. Lewis makes this argument in a similar fashion to declare the existence of an understanding of 'good' - people rarely argue over the moral LOW ground. They always want to reassure themselves that what they were doing was, in fact, *right*.
But people are always arguing over who is 'right', and the only rational explanation is that most people redefine 'right' as being their own behavior. They only back off when logic, evidence and experience make their reasoning obviously false.
I haven't, however, found evidence that people are basically BAD. Maybe it's just the people I know.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Agreed. Most accounts of rudeness and otherwise ignorant behavior are far more easily attributed to *stupidity* than malice.ptbrien said:
I always give that consideration, but I don't necessarily excuse it. But people are far more likely to be stupid than malicious.
The thing about stupidity is, that over time, it's willful ignorance. Ever hear the expression "there's no fool like an old fool?". There's no one as invincibly ignorant as someone who chooses to be stupid after plenty of chances to do otherwise.
Today, on the shuttle, a woman got on with tons of baggage, sat up front and blocked the aisle with all her debris. I know this woman - she gets off at the last stop. This means that EVERY PERSON who got off that shuttle had to wait for her to move her baggage just to get off the bus. If it was convenient for her to block everyone, I'd just call it laziness; but it was INCONVENIENT for her (and everyone else). For some reason, every time she said "oh, I'm sorry, let me move my stuff" it simply never dawned on her to NOT BLOCK the aisle the *next* time.
That's just first-class, grade A, grand prize stupid.
Studies have actually shown that *children*, just as your mother always thought, actually DO need to be told about a hundred times to remember to do something such as covering a sneeze or to wash their hands before dinner. But adults shouldn't need to be taught common courtesy.
sleuth
Livin' Like Thanksgivin'
I think most people are selfish.
But then I think that's good, so long as your selfishness doesn't come to the point of greed or ruthlessness.
I'm selfish and proud of it. Everything I do, including the stuff I do for other people, is because I think it will make me happier and wealthier.
When I do something for someone else, I do it because that person's happiness is imperative to my own, even if for just a few moments.
But then I think that's good, so long as your selfishness doesn't come to the point of greed or ruthlessness.
I'm selfish and proud of it. Everything I do, including the stuff I do for other people, is because I think it will make me happier and wealthier.
When I do something for someone else, I do it because that person's happiness is imperative to my own, even if for just a few moments.
Last edited:
J
justhangn
Guest
sleuth said:I'm squeeky and proud of it. Everything I do, including the stuff I do for other people, is because I think it will make me wealthier.
Don't we know it......
People are self serving and do very little for the good of each other without some kind of kickback............
I agree that 99.9% of the American public are good people, if you define "good" as "not bad".
So that tells me that someone probably DID try and teach them nice manners, and the offending person is simply inconsiderate.
I'd like to think that adults who thumb their nose at our social customs were never taught nice manners as children. Unfortunately, I've seen time and again people being asked to observe a particular nicety (cover your mouth when you cough, go get a tissue, dont stink up a public restroom, chew with your mouth closed) and they refuse. Oh, they might do it when asked, but they're right back at it next time.SamSpade said:
So that tells me that someone probably DID try and teach them nice manners, and the offending person is simply inconsiderate.
sleuth
Livin' Like Thanksgivin'
You miss my meaning.justhangn said:Don't we know it......
People are self serving and do very little for the good of each other without some kind of kickback............
What I mean is... the reason I do things for other people is because that person's happiness is something that makes me happy.
When you make a donation to charity, why do you do it?
Is it because it gives you a warm fuzzy? Can you truly say that you've ever done anything that didn't involve a little kickback, no matter how small, for yourself?
Fruitcake Lady
Who the Hell Cares?
So your always in it for yourselfsleuth said:
Fruitcake Lady
Who the Hell Cares?
That's where I find you Morally indifferent.sleuth said:Yes. It's the American Way.
It's taking the concept of capitalism to a whole new philosophical level.
If I don't find value in doing something, then I don't do it.
This what's in it for me attitude is lazy and selfish. No wonder why there are all of these problem kids. I think that attitude sucks and is a huge downfall to our falling society.
Last edited:
sleuth
Livin' Like Thanksgivin'
Find me what you want.Fruitcake Lady said:
I don't know anyone who doesn't think the same way.
The question is not whether we are morally good, bad, or indifferent, because as you've all pointed out rather successfully, morality is defined differently by everyone.
The more important question is "what do I value"? To me, that's what defines how good you are. I value love, family, friends, creativity, ambition, talent, loyalty, and trust, to name a few, above all other things. And if that makes me "morally indifferent", so be it, but I know very few people with those same values that most would not view as a "good" person.
There are a lot of stupids out there, for sure. I don't consider you, personally, stupid. You might not know everything, but that doesn't make you stupid. You might make mistakes, but that doesn't make you stupid either.ptbrien said:
To me, the definition of stupid is knowing better, and doing it anyway. Repeatedly. Even though every time you do that particular action, you get bad results.
There is a BIG difference between good and "not bad". I think the majority of people in the United States are morally indifferent. They don't really care what others do as long as it does not effect them. No one is truly good. Since this is in the Religion forum I don't think this is inappropriate.
or
sleuth
Livin' Like Thanksgivin'
Here's the thing... I think the word "selfish" turns you off. You're thinking of it in the simplest form.Fruitcake Lady said:
Am I selfish for wanting my family and significant other to be happy? Yes.
It is important to me that they be happy. If they are happy, then I am happier for it.
Selfishness in this form is the most basic of human nature. We eat because if we don't, we die. One of our most basic needs, aka values, is not being satisfied. It is selfish to eat.
It is selfish to breathe. If I don't breathe, my most basic value is not being satified and I die. It is selfish to find a companion. If I don't have companions in life, friends, lovers, etc., then my most basic value (not to be alone, which is Biblical) is not being satified, and I die inside.
For the sake of argument, let's say the people I come into contact with in life are my "companions". By doing things for them, ensuring that they are cared for and happy, I am sustaining one of my basic values or needs.
What I think you're referring to is not selfishness, but greed. It is satisfying your desires at the expense of your values or other people's values.
Last edited:
I disagree. People are motivated to do great works by "what's in it for them". In fact, I'd bet there's not a single person in the history of the world that did something beneficial without there being some kind of payback, even if it was just the satisfaction of doing the right thing and being able to sleep at night.Fruitcake Lady said:
I think that's what Sleuth meant.
You just said it shorter.
That is the problem. There is an absolute Truth, but most people choose to ignore it because it does not fit in with their selfishness.sleuth said: