what constitutes a good person.

[open mind]

???

[Praetor]

A straight, white, rich Christian man.

/Republican.

[Animalhill]

I don't feel like there are a list of qualities out there that can define a, "good person". There are tens of thousands of possible variations.

[Regards]

I don't feel like there are a list of qualities out there that can define a, "good person". There are tens of thousands of possible variations.
Curious... but does that make those tens of thousands people wrong for having variations?

[Animalhill]

Curious... but does that make those tens of thousands people wrong for having variations?
Not at all. No one is a good person their entire life. Everyone does dispicable, selfish things, but it comes down to a few defining moments in their life, and how they react, in my opnion, defines what kind of person he/she is.

[Regards]

Not at all. No one is a good person their entire life. Everyone does dispicable, selfish things, but it comes down to a few defining moments in their life, and how they react, in my opnion, defines what kind of person he/she is.
I think you misunderstood the question.

In respsonse to your's

I don't feel like there are a list of qualities out there that can define a, "good person". There are tens of thousands of possible variations.

Does it make them wrong in having those variations. ie having a moral standard of right and wrong, or is it all subjective?

[Animalhill]

I think you misunderstood the question.

In respsonse to your's



Does it make them wrong in having those variations. ie having a moral standard of right and wrong, or is it all subjective?
OH ok- haha my brain is fried, far too early and I'm at work.
That is an interesting question, and I would really have to say subjective. I feel like at the end of someones life, they can really be the only judge of whether or not they were a good person (opposed to checking off a list of general characteristics) . You may respond with, "But isn't that a biased judgement?" Yes it is, in terms of how they may describe themselves to others, but I feel lthat deep down everyone knows whether or not they have lived as a, "good person".

[loveisdead]

Is it how other people view one's life that makes it good or bad, or how a person views their own life that makes it good or bad?

[the_martyr]

a Christian.

[yves.]

a Christian.

I hope you're joking

[lfdfforever]

someone who practices service to others before service to self.

[the_martyr]

I hope you're joking

why would I be joking? because we should be all forced to think like you? is it mind boggling to you that someone can still think for themselves with their God given brain?

[Machu505]

why would I be joking? because we should be all forced to think like you? is it mind boggling to you that someone can still think for themselves with their God given brain?
Holy irony Batman. Yves is the one wanting everyone to think like her when you're in here saying that being a Christian makes you a good person.

[yves.]

why would I be joking? because we should be all forced to think like you? is it mind boggling to you that someone can still think for themselves with their God given brain?

because you can only be a good person if you're a christian? obviously there are christian people who are good, but there are also christians who are bad. would you call a murderer who is christian a good person only because he is christian? and are all the other people in the world who aren't christian but could still be considered good, honest people bad people only because they aren't christians? what about someone like the dalai lama, who spends his life working for peace and charities all over the world? he isn't a christian. maybe you should start thinking outside of your closed-minded 'god-given' brain and think that there are other people in this world who do good things and lead good lives.

[the_martyr]

because you can only be a good person if you're a christian? obviously there are christian people who are good, but there are also christians who are bad. would you call a murderer who is christian a good person only because he is christian? and are all the other people in the world who aren't christian but could still be considered good, honest people bad people only because they aren't christians? what about someone like the dalai lama, who spends his life working for peace and charities all over the world? he isn't a christian. maybe you should start thinking outside of your closed-minded 'god-given' brain and think that there are other people in this world who do good things and lead good lives.


we are all christian. because we are all gods children. we all do good things(because we are made from god) and bad things(because we are corrupted by sin)

its in our forgiveness for ourselves and others that sets us apart.

[yves.]

we are all christian. because we are all gods children. we all do good things(because we are made from god) and bad things(because we are corrupted by sin)

its in our forgiveness for ourselves and others that sets us apart.

we aren't all christians, get your head out of your ass.

[the_martyr]

we aren't all christians, get your head out of your ass.

you are a child of God. you can try to fight that all you want, but life will never make sense to you until you accept reality.

[yves.]

you are a child of God. you can try to fight that all you want, but life will never make sense to you until you accept reality.

people like you are what is wrong with the world.

[Alou]

Of course someone brought religion into this....

To the original post, define good.

[Praetor]

you are a child of God. you can try to fight that all you want, but life will never make sense to you until you accept reality.
This is why people hate Christians.

[lfdfforever]

god is an alien

[paper halo]

you are a child of God. you can try to fight that all you want, but life will never make sense to you until you accept reality.

This guy is hilarious.

[Regards]

Ah geez. (palm to forehead smily here)

[GeeBee]

you are a child of God. you can try to fight that all you want, but life will never make sense to you until you accept reality.

If I'm a child of the Christian god, then I'm suing for emancipation. Dude's a douche.

[Praetor]

If I'm a child of the Christian god, then I'm suing for emancipation. Dude's a douche.
bahahahahahahaha best post you have ever made

[GeeBee]

bahahahahahahaha best post you have ever made

I've found myself agreeing more and more with the stuff you've been posting, too.
What was it we disagreed on?

[Praetor]

I think it was me complaining about how implicit atheism is a useless term which I still think is right, haha

[yves.]

If I'm a child of the Christian god, then I'm suing for emancipation. Dude's a douche.

:appl:

[GeeBee]

I think it was me complaining about how implicit atheism is a useless term which I still think is right, haha

Ahh, right. All semantics in the end, I guess. It looks as though we pretty much agree on everything else.

[Alou]

Blonde hair, Blue Eyes? This forum needs a hardcore Nazi...

[J.C.]

I'm glad we've gotten the retard portion of this thread out of the way early.

I don't think there are any certain traits that make a good person. Even the most douchiest of people can have some good characteristics.

Generally speaking though, I appreciate selflessness and the ability to empathize. Obviously the kinds of things/people you empathize with can skew that though so this simple question requires a much more complex answer than I'm capable of giving.

[bung]

A good person is one who tries to better themselves in every possible way at all possible times. A great person is one who, in addition to bettering themselves, tries to better society.

[sayyes]

I'm glad we've gotten the retard portion of this thread out of the way early.

I don't think there are any certain traits that make a good person. Even the most douchiest of people can have some good characteristics.

Generally speaking though, I appreciate selflessness and the ability to empathize. Obviously the kinds of things/people you empathize with can skew that though so this simple question requires a much more complex answer than I'm capable of giving.

I agree with this mostly.

[Alou]

I'm glad we've gotten the retard portion of this thread out of the way early.

I don't think there are any certain traits that make a good person. Even the most douchiest of people can have some good characteristics.

Generally speaking though, I appreciate selflessness and the ability to empathize. Obviously the kinds of things/people you empathize with can skew that though so this simple question requires a much more complex answer than I'm capable of giving.

I hate selfless people. It's like they don't have their own lives to make happy. It is just creepy.. Sorry random.

[J.C.]

I hate selfless people. It's like they don't have their own lives to make happy. It is just creepy.. Sorry random.

That was much more stupid than it was random.

[Praetor]

There is no truly selfless act.

Discuss.

[saysmydoctor]

a Christian.
We're looking for examples of good people who are good because they want to be good not because they prescribe to some scripted ideology. There is nothing good about that, they are just living a rigid lifestyle.
you are a child of God. you can try to fight that all you want, but life will never make sense to you until you accept reality.
Weren't you just getting angry because you thought we were trying to prescribe you to our school of thought only to have you force us to prescribe to your school of thought? Irony.
If I'm a child of the Christian god, then I'm suing for emancipation. Dude's a douche.
:rotfl:

[Nevuk]

There is no truly selfless act.

Discuss.
Agreed. Most altruism is either a product of guilt, a superiority complex, or someone wanting to feel good about themself.

[Concrete&&Water]

loyalty. for sure.

[Nevuk]

loyalty. for sure.
Loyalty can be taken way too far. It is more loyal to kill someone when told to, but just because you are loyal doesn't make that action automatically right.

[thespearkid]

We're looking for examples of good people who are good because they want to be good not because they prescribe to some scripted ideology. There is nothing good about that, they are just living a rigid lifestyle.

Not to turn this into another religious debate thread but I disagree. If a person is good because the Bible tells them to (I'm not saying all Christians are good people are that all good people are Christians) I don't see why you should have a problem with this. :shrug:

Anyway, like someone above said, I think a good person needs to understand that it is better to serve than to be served.

[GeeBee]

Not to turn this into another religious debate thread but I disagree. If a person is good because the Bible tells them to (I'm not saying all Christians are good people are that all good people are Christians) I don't see why you should have a problem with this. :shrug:

Anyway, like someone above said, I think a good person needs to understand that it is better to serve than to be served.

You don't understand why being genuine is better than being fake? As far as I'm concerned, if you're being nice just because an old book told you to, I'd rather you just be yourself.

[thespearkid]

You don't understand why being genuine is better than being fake? As far as I'm concerned, if you're being nice just because an old book told you to, I'd rather you just be yourself.
:shrug:

[J.C.]

Agreed. Most altruism is either a product of guilt, a superiority complex, or someone wanting to feel good about themself.

If you wish to take it to that level, then you could just as easily argue that there are no real good people, just those who wish to be fondly thought of/remembered.

I have no issue with someone feeling good about themself after doing a good deed for another. I think that comes inherently anyway. Even if you want to reduce it to a purely selfish motive, the nice deed still has an additional beneficiary besides the individual. There are plenty of ways to act selfishly that don't serve/benefit the interests of anyone else therefore I would draw a distinction between 'selfish' acts that are for the betterment of others and selfish acts that only positively affect one's life.

[Nevuk]

If you wish to take it to that level, then you could just as easily argue that there are no real good people, just those who wish to be fondly thought of/remembered.

I have no issue with someone feeling good about themself after doing a good deed for another. I think that comes inherently anyway. Even if you want to reduce it to a purely selfish motive, the nice deed still has an additional beneficiary besides the individual. There are plenty of ways to act selfishly that don't serve/benefit the interests of anyone else. I would draw a distinction between 'selfish' acts that are for the betterment of others and selfish acts that only positively affect one's life.
I would agree with this statement.

[Josh Weinstein]

you are a child of God. you can try to fight that all you want, but life will never make sense to you until you accept reality.

Did you know Jesus was a Jew?

[whataclush]

A straight, white, rich Christian man.

/Republican.

YES!

[bung]

There is no truly selfless act.

Discuss.

Incorrect. It is true that when one is happy, they are more likely to commit altruistic deeds. It is also true that committing altruistic deeds tends to increase happiness. However, it is false to assume that happiness, or feeling good about oneself, is always (or even most of the time) the sole motivator for altruism. In fact, regardless that an act of altruism may invariably increase personal well-being or give one a feeling of superiority from doing a "good" deed, personal gain is often never even considered.

Rather, many acts of altruism are grounded in empathy and a sense of what is just and morally right (sometimes even what is morally required). For example, someone notices a small child that is drowning in a nearby lake. It is presumptuous, even somewhat silly, to assume that the person is motivated to save the child because, a.) they will feel bad if they don't, b.) they will feel good about themselves knowing they saved a life or, c.) they expect some kind of external reward for doing so.

Yes, it is true they will feel good if they do save the child, and they will probably feel bad if they don't. Hell, they may even be rewarded afterward. However, none of these things acts as an intrinsic motivator in deciding to save the child.

The person decides to save the child because they are in minimal danger toward themselves, so to simply let the child die would be morally wrong. They recognize the value of human life, the value this child certainly feels toward his or her own life, and the value any friends or family feels toward the child's life. Thus, the act of saving transcends any sense personal gain, and instead rests upon a moral obligation toward human life. Many acts of altruism have nothing to do with personal gain--only what a person feels is right.

[stayforawhile]

a Christian.
Haha are you kidding? Being Christian means nothing , an Athiest could be a better person than a Christian.

[bung]

You don't understand why being genuine is better than being fake? As far as I'm concerned, if you're being nice just because an old book told you to, I'd rather you just be yourself.

:shrug:

Indeed. Authenticity is something that deserves a lot of discussion. I've only recently started getting into the subject, but Taylor's The Ethics of Authenticity is a good place to start.

[ohLOOKitsLEAH]

A straight, white, rich Christian man.

/Republican.

Win.

[stayforawhile]

Indeed. Authenticity is something that deserves a lot of discussion. I've only recently started getting into the subject, but Taylor's The Ethics of Authenticity is a good place to start.
It's indeed a great book. I never read it fully but I hope to eventually.

[deanster321]

god is an alien
I thought he was an astronaut.

[jwicklun]

honest, hard-working, kind, sensible
there could be more, but granted thats what usually makes a person "good"

[zion the lion]

There's no such thing as a good person. That whole "good" and "evil" bullshit was made up to make certain people feel superior, and the rest feel like theyre worthless. The morals myth is then spread out into society where people then look to their peers to see who they are and play into that character early on in life.

We all start on the same level on the morality scale, we all die on that exact level, and throughout the course of our lives, we all stay on that same exact level as each other on the inside. The only difference is how well we hide our true motives.

[iheartmusic043]

In regards to the_martyr, I think your beliefs show the exact parts I hate about being Christian. Jus because you are Christian/Catholic and you go to church, etc doesn't neccesarily make you a good person. I know girls who go to church every weekend and are total sluts. Then again I know atheists who are some of the nicest people you'll ever meet. I don't think that if follow a Christianity you are always good. I think being a "good" person consists of not being judgemental, not being a hypocrite, and to act selfless (even though nobody is 100% selfless). I think if you want to argue you're opinion, at least back it up with more than just the bible tells me this and that. If you really want to act godly, don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, ageist, and all the other adjectives for people who discriminate against a certain group because "God loves all".

[lfdfforever]

I thought he was an astronaut. ben koller is god

[bung]

There's no such thing as a good person. That whole "good" and "evil" bullshit was made up to make certain people feel superior, and the rest feel like theyre worthless. The morals myth is then spread out into society where people then look to their peers to see who they are and play into that character early on in life.

We all start on the same level on the morality scale, we all die on that exact level, and throughout the course of our lives, we all stay on that same exact level as each other on the inside. The only difference is how well we hide our true motives.

So no action is genuinely better, morally speaking, than any other action? If this were truly the case, then all moral advancement and moral decline of a society would be completely meaningless, as there would be no independent criteria for thinking one way of doing things is in any way better than another way.

The civil rights movement, then, did not make society any better when analyzed within a moral framework--it only changed society, but did not make it any better or worse. The same could be said about women's rights, homosexual rights, or any other movement.

It also implies (wrongly) that we can never evaluate one person to be morally superior to another person. That being said, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Jesus, Gandhi, and the Buddha were all morally equivalent. None of them were morally better or worse than one another, they were just different. Hitler's actions, then, are no more condemnable than Gandhi's, and the ways of the Buddha cannot be given any more reverence than the ways of Mao.

It's utterly inane to promote these ideas of yours.

It's indeed a great book. I never read it fully but I hope to eventually.

I know it can be kind of laborious to read in certain parts, but it's barely 100 pages! Get on that shit!

[thespearkid]

Indeed. Authenticity is something that deserves a lot of discussion. I've only recently started getting into the subject, but Taylor's The Ethics of Authenticity is a good place to start.
So if I credit my being a good person to the teachings of other parties, I am no longer a good person?

[zion the lion]

So no action is genuinely better, morally speaking, than any other action? If this were truly the case, then all moral advancement and moral decline of a society would be completely meaningless, as there would be no independent criteria for thinking one way of doing things is in any way better than another way.

The civil rights movement, then, did not make society any better when analyzed within a moral framework--it only changed society, but did not make it any better or worse. The same could be said about women's rights, homosexual rights, or any other movement.

It also implies (wrongly) that we can never evaluate one person to be morally superior to another person. That being said, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Jesus, Gandhi, and the Buddha were all morally equivalent. None of them were morally better or worse than one another, they were just different. Hitler's actions, then, are no more condemnable than Gandhi's, and the ways of the Buddha cannot be given any more reverence than the ways of Mao.

It's utterly inane to promote these ideas of yours.

Theres no difference (deep down inside) between any of those people.

Since you brought up Jesus, I'll just throw out there that God says that no sin is worse than the other, so a liar or a gossip queen is no different than a rapist or a murderer.

What I'm trying to say is that there is no such thing as a "good" person, and there are really no qualifications for such a person. I think we are all on the same level, and again, what makes us different is how well we hide our motives and our very natural selfish instincts.

[Concrete&&Water]

Loyalty can be taken way too far. It is more loyal to kill someone when told to, but just because you are loyal doesn't make that action automatically right.


well, i meant loyalty without being a dumbfuck.

[thespearkid]

Theres no difference (deep down inside) between any of those people.

Since you brought up Jesus, I'll just throw out there that God says that no sin is worse than the other, so a liar or a gossip queen is no different than a rapist or a murderer.

What I'm trying to say is that there is no such thing as a "good" person, and there are really no qualifications for such a person. I think we are all on the same level, and again, what makes us different is how well we hide our motives and our very natural selfish instincts.
Are you saying that, in your opinion, no person is ever really good is judged solely on each individual action in that person's life?

[bung]

So if I credit my being a good person to the teachings of other parties, I am no longer a good person?

I didn't say that. I am saying, however, that a person is far more authentic and on a higher plain of morality if they do things because they truly believe them to be good, versus them doing things because someone else says they must do them to avoid punishment.

Theres no difference (deep down inside) between any of those people.

Since you brought up Jesus, I'll just throw out there that God says that no sin is worse than the other, so a liar or a gossip queen is no different than a rapist or a murderer.

What I'm trying to say is that there is no such thing as a "good" person, and there are really no qualifications for such a person. I think we are all on the same level, and again, what makes us different is how well we hide our motives and our very natural selfish instincts.

How in the world do you have any insight at all about what goes on "deep down inside" a person? You have none. There are no differences between those people? Uh, what? There is tons of evidence that all those people have different ideas of morality, yet virtually none that they are essentially all the same. You also failed to address ANY of the points I brought up.

I could care less if the god of Christianity says no sin is worse than any other sin. It's obvious that a rapist is morally a far worse person than one who gossips.

There are tons of qualifications for what constitutes a good person. Kantian ethics, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics all attempt to provide just that. But since you aren't familiar with any of them, I wouldn't expect you to know.

Also, you say that people work to hide their natural selfish instincts. However, that is wrong. People don't work to hide them so much as they work to abolish them. Of course, you also fail to mention that altruism is a natural instinct to many animals, and it has been observed in the wild in many non-human animals.

[thespearkid]

I didn't say that. I am saying, however, that a person is far more authentic and on a higher plain of morality if they do things because they truly believe them to be good, versus them doing things because someone else says they must do them to avoid punishment.

Hm. I can't speak for all Christians, but I believe there is a spot for me in paradise since I've accepted Christ into my life. Typically, when I do "good things", it is not with a fear of punishment in mind (since I've already escaped the punishment) but with Christ's teachings in mind. In your opinion, would this make me a good person or would that still be on the lower plain of morality?

I'm not being argumentative, by the way. I'm just interested in the discussion. I had to take an entire class on nobility/morality my first semester at college so the subject matter is still fresh in my mind.

[bung]

Hm. I can't speak for all Christians, but I believe there is a spot for me in paradise since I've accepted Christ into my life. Typically, when I do "good things", it is not with a fear of punishment in mind (since I've already escaped the punishment) but with Christ's teachings in mind. In your opinion, would this make me a good person or would that still be on the lower plain of morality?

I'm not being argumentative, by the way. I'm just interested in the discussion. I had to take an entire class on nobility/morality my first semester at college so the subject matter is still fresh in my mind.

Well, it's really hard to evaluate someone like this. Authenticity is a concept that, while possible for an outsider to use in analyzing a person, can really only be sought through introspection, since only the person actually performing a given behavior knows how they truly feel and what they truly believe. It's also a really, really convoluted topic and can lead to hours and hours of discussion.

However, I think that if the teachings of Jesus truly fit what you, personally, feel to be the morally correct way of behaving, and the source of believing this to be true wasn't gained through some fear of eternal damnation or by a societal pressure to be a good Christian, but was instead came to by weighing the many moral and ethical problems humans face, and finding Christ's teachings to be the best answer to these problems, then I would consider you authentic.

So, to maintain authenticity, a line of thought can never be, "I'm going to do this because that's what Christ says to do. And I believe in Christ." Rather, for you personally to maintain authenticity, it must be, "I'm going to do this because I truly believe it the right thing to do. And it just so happens that it follows Christ's teachings."

With that said, an authentic person is not necessarily a morally good person or vice versa. So someone may value moral behavior more than they do authenticity, and thus choose to be moral rather than authentic. The problem, although, becomes deeper if one chooses to recognize authenticity as a moral obligation to oneself, putting it into the realm of morality. So then authenticity and behavior in relation to others would both be questions of morality, making the problem of reconciling the two either far harder or far easier, all depending on the person's unique disposition.

[zion the lion]

How in the world do you have any insight at all about what goes on "deep down inside" a person? You have none. There are no differences between those people? Uh, what? There is tons of evidence that all those people have different ideas of morality, yet virtually none that they are essentially all the same. You also failed to address ANY of the points I brought up.

I could care less if the god of Christianity says no sin is worse than any other sin. It's obvious that a rapist is morally a far worse person than one who gossips.

There are tons of qualifications for what constitutes a good person. Kantian ethics, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics all attempt to provide just that. But since you aren't familiar with any of them, I wouldn't expect you to know.

Also, you say that people work to hide their natural selfish instincts. However, that is wrong. People don't work to hide them so much as they work to abolish them. Of course, you also fail to mention that altruism is a natural instinct to many animals, and it has been observed in the wild in many non-human animals.

I did bring up your other points (the ones that I thought were of any value of course) but I put it in a blunt sentence in the hopes that it would sink into your brain and swim past all of that useless shit you call knowledge and actually mean something to you. Alas, I was wrong.

You brought up Jesus Christ, so I brought up what Jesus' ruler has said. And what I was trying to fucking say (which apparently went way over your head) is that NO GOD DAMN SIN IS WORSE THAN ANOTHER, so a rapist is just as bad as gossiper. I know its a very hard fucking concept for someone like you to get since you are sooooo very in love with this altruism bullshit but for a second see what I'm trying to say ok?

Now about this altruism you keep mentioning...it goes against the very laws of your existence. From the very second you are born, you are nothing but selfish, you are taught to love, and you are taught how to care for others, and even then you'll put yourself first. Its how the world works, its how evolution works, it's survival of the fittest. So everything you do (no matter how much you try to convince yourself otherwise) is actually motivated by your own selfishness. And as you grow older you are taught to hide your selfishness in the hopes that one day that hiding it will eradicate it.

As for you somehow being a psychic and a mind reader who somehow knows what I am and am not familiar with, get your head out of your very conceited ass for three seconds and start observing your own species. Once you have done this, notice how very easily these "morals" are perverted to fit the needs of your leader, or how vastly different they are from person to person, country to country, and religion to religion. Thats because they arent real, they are something you are taught, so that you did what you were told without disturbing anybody else. Take murder for example, now every single war hero has probably done it, and yet so have a lot of serial killers. What seperates them? So again, think about what I was saying. There is no universal good and no universal bad. There is no actual scale to measure what is good and what is bad because theyre so relative. If they vary from person to person, then there is no concrete meaning, and if there is no concrete meaning, then we are all on the same level. Do you understand?

[open mind]

i expected to get a bunch of "wrong forum" and "isn't this obvious?" replies so thank you all (excluding the nutty christian troll) for pleasantly suprising me.

here's one of the the follow up questions i had in mind when starting this thread.

what actions (aside from the over the top and thus obvious) can make a good person a bad person?

[bung]

I did bring up your other points (the ones that I thought were of any value of course) but I put it in a blunt sentence in the hopes that it would sink into your brain and swim past all of that useless shit you call knowledge and actually mean something to you. Alas, I was wrong.

All my points were of value. BTW, I'm going to absolutely demolish your foolish, juvenile, naive ideas.

You brought up Jesus Christ, so I brought up what Jesus' ruler has said. And what I was trying to fucking say (which apparently went way over your head) is that NO GOD DAMN SIN IS WORSE THAN ANOTHER, so a rapist is just as bad as gossiper. I know its a very hard fucking concept for someone like you to get since you are sooooo very in love with this altruism bullshit but for a second see what I'm trying to say ok?

This is your argument here: The god of Christianity says that all sins are equal. Therefore, all actions are equal. That is the whole of your argument. It is circular reasoning. I only brought up Jesus as a person because he has contributed significantly to morality, and so I could compare him to some seemingly amoral dictators. I didn't bring him up because I endorse his dad's ideas.

I did bring up your other points (the ones that I thought were of any value of course) but I put it in a blunt sentence in the hopes that it would sink into your brain and swim past all of that useless shit you call knowledge and actually mean something to you. Alas, I was wrong.
Now about this altruism you keep mentioning...it goes against the very laws of your existence. From the very second you are born, you are nothing but selfish, you are taught to love, and you are taught how to care for others, and even then you'll put yourself first. Its how the world works, its how evolution works, it's survival of the fittest. So everything you do (no matter how much you try to convince yourself otherwise) is actually motivated by your own selfishness. And as you grow older you are taught to hide your selfishness in the hopes that one day that hiding it will eradicate it.

Once again, altruism is as natural to a person as is selfishness. This is observed in many species of animals, including humans. Even though people do have to be taught ethics, many altruistic tendencies are innate. This has been proven by observing non-human animals. However, even though people aren't born wholly altruistic, the fact that you have to teach people to be good to each other does not mean that one can never be a good person. It just means that it's hard and takes time. In fact, it seems to me that everything, except for what's instinctual, must be taught to a person. And these things that people must be taught, do you not believe they can eventually develop, after much learning and practice, to be good at them?

And about evolution--survival of the fittest is a term used to describe the evolutionary process of animals in the wild. Survival of the fittest, in any civilized country (yes, even America), does not exist. That is social darwinism, which is completely separate from natural selection. If social darwinism were to exist no one could support socialism, welfare, unemployment, universal health care, aid for natural disasters, private donations, or basically anything that helps someone in need, and people would be in favor of systematically killing off anyone considered weak.

Also, just because something is a part of human nature does not mean people shouldn't go against it, or can't go against it, or never successfully go against it. Tons of examples support this: Rape is a part of human nature, but people go against it. Males aren't meant to be magnanimous, but many males go against that. Violence is a part of human nature, but many people go against that. People have the will to survive, and yet there are martyrs, etc.


As for you somehow being a psychic and a mind reader who somehow knows what I am and am not familiar with, get your head out of your very conceited ass for three seconds and start observing your own species. Once you have done this, notice how very easily these "morals" are perverted to fit the needs of your leader, or how vastly different they are from person to person, country to country, and religion to religion.

You can't be serious. People have far more in common than differences concerning morality. Murder, rape, theft, vandalizing, slavery, fraud, extortion, assault--all illegal virtually everywhere. These are illegal because they are such easy cases, and people can clearly see why they are wrong. It is impossible to argue against any of them successfully because they are all so obviously ethically and morally wrong. Merely because there are differences among the hardest of moral questions does not support the case for moral relativism. All it does is show that some people have missed the mark, or refuse to recognize something as ethically wrong because they benefit from it. Disagreements between two stances does not mean that they are both equally wrong or equally right. Going back to evolution, there are still some people who don't support it. That doesn't mean that it is as equally right or as equally wrong as intelligent design. It's not just "what a person believes to be right is right to them." Someone here is actually right, and someone here is actually wrong.

The fact that people even debate ethical issues, such as abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, etc, is yet another reason against ethical relativism. If people really thought that these things were relatively right and/or relatively wrong, there would be no debates because everyone would have to fall back on, "Oh, it's right for them but it isn't right for me." Yet, people continue to give independent reasons for why something is wrong or why something is right. People wouldn't do this if morality was truly subjective.


Thats because they arent real, they are something you are taught, so that you did what you were told without disturbing anybody else. Take murder for example, now every single war hero has probably done it, and yet so have a lot of serial killers. What seperates them?

Wow, are you actually asking what separates a serial killer from someone killing in war? Ever hear of justifiable homicide? Well, for starters, serial killers kill innocents at random. In war, soldiers kill other soldiers in self-defense and work to minimize civilian casualties. A serial killer has no cause he is killing for and a soldier does. A soldier kills because if he doesn't kill, he will be killed by the enemy. A serial killer kills for his own gratification.


So again, think about what I was saying. There is no universal good and no universal bad. There is no actual scale to measure what is good and what is bad because theyre so relative. If they vary from person to person, then there is no concrete meaning, and if there is no concrete meaning, then we are all on the same level. Do you understand?

There does not need to be an "actual scale" to measure good and bad. This is philosophy, and in this subject we give reasons to support our claims. We don't develop scales. We come up with convincing reasons to believe one thing over another. Take slavery, for example. There is absolutely, positively, without a doubt, no way to justify slavery. It can't be done. Slavery is universally wrong. But when slavery was in the process of being abolished, people certainly had differences of opinion concerning its morality. It doesn't mean that it was an ok thing to do before it was abolished, and that it's not an ok thing to do now because it's illegal. All it means is that people were too stupid to recognize how terrible it is because they benefited so enormously from it.

Once again, a difference of opinion concerning morality does not mean that morality is relative.

[SLOWPOKE LOPEZ]

Since you brought up Jesus, I'll just throw out there that God says that no sin is worse than the other, so a liar or a gossip queen is no different than a rapist or a murderer.


i think bung sufficiently tore apart your latest post, but im taking issue with this.
where exactly did god say that all sins are equal?
in the laws given to ancient israel, there were different sacrifices required to atone for different sins. some were minor, some were much more involved. wrong actions were never lumped together under one all-encompassing term of 'sin'. they were never considered equal.
likewise, jesus taught his followers of greater commandments (love your neighbor etc..) commandments more important than others. so as a natural extension of that thought, somebody NOT following the greater commandments would be committing a greater sin than the others.
again, at no point did 'god say that no sin is worse than the other'.

i'm not sure if you're a christian, or a believer in god at all, but whatever you believe, get your facts straight before you start lumping all christians together with your stupid generalizations.

[BryterJonah]

http://blogs.theage.com.au/entertainment/house.jpg
End of discussion.

[thefaceless]

i expected to get a bunch of "wrong forum" and "isn't this obvious?" replies so thank you all (excluding the nutty christian troll) for pleasantly suprising me.

here's one of the the follow up questions i had in mind when starting this thread.

what actions (aside from the over the top and thus obvious) can make a good person a bad person?

i think this question is really hard to answer. There are too many actions (some that contradict each other) that help determine this. there isn't one SINGLE action that necessarily determines whether we've been a good person our entire life, but i think the same exact decisions can be made with both "good" and "bad" intentions.

[SLOWPOKE LOPEZ]

im not sure if any specific actions make somebody good or bad. i can give all my money to poor children but rape nuns in my spare time.
when i think of being a good person, i ask:
is the world or the people around me made better by my life?

[BryterJonah]

when i think of being a good person, i ask:
is the world or the people around me made better by my life?
You likely just made that up on the spot.

And people who make a thing of giving to the poor are only thinking of their own superiority.
Rational actions that lead to positive occurrences should be a basis for a majority of what we do.
But to say all these made up virtues really define anything is complete dribble. Why is a less fortunate man necessarily where the karma points are at? Because most would shed a tear for him? Then all it turns into is us trying to suppress those emotions by throwing some coins at him.

[SLOWPOKE LOPEZ]

You likely just made that up on the spot.

wtf does that even mean?
no, no, your wrong, i wrote that post months ago hoping someone would ask this question someday.

if you're trying to be a douchebag, thats fine. just make sense when doing it.

[BryterJonah]

You've never heard anyone describe somebody else as having done something "on the spot"?
As far as sayings go, "on the spot" is far from out there.

[SLOWPOKE LOPEZ]

You've never heard anyone describe somebody else as having done something "on the spot"?
As far as sayings go, "on the spot" is far from out there.
my god you're dense. of course i know what 'on the spot' means. what i dont get is why you decided to say it after my post.

[BryterJonah]

Because you don't really have that question stowed away in your head for moments when you are asked to sum up what it means to be a good person.

[The Personist]

If I'm a child of the Christian god, then I'm suing for emancipation. Dude's a douche.

I laughed.

We're looking for examples of good people who are good because they want to be good not because they prescribe to some scripted ideology. There is nothing good about that, they are just living a rigid lifestyle.

Weren't you just getting angry because you thought we were trying to prescribe you to our school of thought only to have you force us to prescribe to your school of thought? Irony.

:rotfl:

I agree that doing it because someone said so is retarded, but I would go further and say that not all Christianity is as rigid as that particular lunacy, and there are definitely aspects of Christianity that make it a positive force for doing good. Again, though, there are people who just completely distort it and screw it up. Like the person you quoted.

Hm. I can't speak for all Christians, but I believe there is a spot for me in paradise since I've accepted Christ into my life. Typically, when I do "good things", it is not with a fear of punishment in mind (since I've already escaped the punishment) but with Christ's teachings in mind. In your opinion, would this make me a good person or would that still be on the lower plain of morality?

I'm not being argumentative, by the way. I'm just interested in the discussion. I had to take an entire class on nobility/morality my first semester at college so the subject matter is still fresh in my mind.

I think what makes one a good person in the bounds of religion is knowing that they would do the same things even if they knew that everything in the New Testament was completely false. If you knew that Jesus never lived, that God didn't exist, etc., and you still comported yourself in the exact same caring way towards others, then that would be the sign of a good person. I mean, there would obviously be differences--no church, etc.--but to have the same concern and compassion for humanity regardless of whether or not it is in the name of God is what I think is important.

http://blogs.theage.com.au/entertainment/house.jpg
End of discussion.

This times a million.

[thespearkid]

I think what makes one a good person in the bounds of religion is knowing that they would do the same things even if they knew that everything in the New Testament was completely false. If you knew that Jesus never lived, that God didn't exist, etc., and you still comported yourself in the exact same caring way towards others, then that would be the sign of a good person. I mean, there would obviously be differences--no church, etc.--but to have the same concern and compassion for humanity regardless of whether or not it is in the name of God is what I think is important.

Ah, that makes sense, I suppose. I still think a good person should be judged on their actions, even if they had some type of personal motivation in mind (whether it be for getting a good feeling, or avoiding divine punishment, or gaining favor in an election).

[zion the lion]

You can't be serious. People have far more in common than differences concerning morality. Murder, rape, theft, vandalizing, slavery, fraud, extortion, assault--all illegal virtually everywhere. These are illegal because they are such easy cases, and people can clearly see why they are wrong. It is impossible to argue against any of them successfully because they are all so obviously ethically and morally wrong. Merely because there are differences among the hardest of moral questions does not support the case for moral relativism. All it does is show that some people have missed the mark, or refuse to recognize something as ethically wrong because they benefit from it. Disagreements between two stances does not mean that they are both equally wrong or equally right. Going back to evolution, there are still some people who don't support it. That doesn't mean that it is as equally right or as equally wrong as intelligent design. It's not just "what a person believes to be right is right to them." Someone here is actually right, and someone here is actually wrong.

The fact that people even debate ethical issues, such as abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, etc, is yet another reason against ethical relativism. If people really thought that these things were relatively right and/or relatively wrong, there would be no debates because everyone would have to fall back on, "Oh, it's right for them but it isn't right for me." Yet, people continue to give independent reasons for why something is wrong or why something is right. People wouldn't do this if morality was truly subjective.



Wow, are you actually asking what separates a serial killer from someone killing in war? Ever hear of justifiable homicide? Well, for starters, serial killers kill innocents at random. In war, soldiers kill other soldiers in self-defense and work to minimize civilian casualties. A serial killer has no cause he is killing for and a soldier does. A soldier kills because if he doesn't kill, he will be killed by the enemy. A serial killer kills for his own gratification.



There does not need to be an "actual scale" to measure good and bad. This is philosophy, and in this subject we give reasons to support our claims. We don't develop scales. We come up with convincing reasons to believe one thing over another. Take slavery, for example. There is absolutely, positively, without a doubt, no way to justify slavery. It can't be done. Slavery is universally wrong. But when slavery was in the process of being abolished, people certainly had differences of opinion concerning its morality. It doesn't mean that it was an ok thing to do before it was abolished, and that it's not an ok thing to do now because it's illegal. All it means is that people were too stupid to recognize how terrible it is because they benefited so enormously from it.

Once again, a difference of opinion concerning morality does not mean that morality is relative.

I'm in a hurry so for now I'm just point out some of the more obvious things with your post.

Aileen Wuornos had a reason to kill the men she killed, what makes her different from a war hero who kills blindly. A soldier is told to kill, they dont know their targets from adam. For all a soldier knows, their victim might just be a hard working father who's in a war so that he can support his children. Take for instance, the hijackers in 9/11, they were fighting in their own war when they flew those planes into the buildings. You could say they killed, so that they wouldnt be killed in the hands of someone else.

There are reasons that slavery would be good, in fact if they werent, so many civilizations wouldnt have used it for thousands of years.

As for the scale thing, I was trying to explain how someone might measure people based of their morality. Like you (I would assume) would put Pol Pot at the bottom of that "scale" while Siddhartha Guatama would be at the top of your scale. I'm saying that I think theyre at the same level, and in fact there is no good or bad, because it is so subjective. With all of those untouched civilizations, they have their own morality where slavery, rape, infidelity, murder, and abuse might be just fine, while in our civilization, it is wrong. While what you might think about morality is the absolute truth to you, it's not to me or anybody else.

The fact that the meaning of good and bad change from person to person mean there isnt a concrete meaning, there isnt a concrete set of qualifications for what makes a man good or evil. As for jesus, I'm not using him as the base of my argument, I'm saying that even the gods say that no sin is worse than another.

Now I could argue about this until the cows come home, but in all honesty your posts are all looking the same to me, as I'm sure mine are to you. In your reality what youre saying is the absolute truth, while in mine, what I'm saying is the absolute truth. I'm not going to change your mind, and you arent going to change mine. I'm sorry for belitting you earlier, that was harsh. And if it seems like I'm trying to say things like slavery and murder are ok, I'm not.

i think bung sufficiently tore apart your latest post, but im taking issue with this.
where exactly did god say that all sins are equal?
in the laws given to ancient israel, there were different sacrifices required to atone for different sins. some were minor, some were much more involved. wrong actions were never lumped together under one all-encompassing term of 'sin'. they were never considered equal.
likewise, jesus taught his followers of greater commandments (love your neighbor etc..) commandments more important than others. so as a natural extension of that thought, somebody NOT following the greater commandments would be committing a greater sin than the others.
again, at no point did 'god say that no sin is worse than the other'.

i'm not sure if you're a christian, or a believer in god at all, but whatever you believe, get your facts straight before you start lumping all christians together with your stupid generalizations.

I said "god" said these things, that was what I was taught in 14 years of sunday school, its what I know.
I'll look it up later but it says it in matthew and james some where.
I didnt lump all christians together, all I mentioned was god. In my opinon most christians dont even know what christianity is, so before you start insulting me, try to look at what I said, and realize that I didnt mean to mention christians at all if I did. No I am not a christian, I dont believe Jesus was the messiah, and I dont believe 90 percent of what the bible even says. If I wanted to lump everyone together and make a generalization I would have said that Humans in general are worthless sacks of shit who are only good for being narcissistic assholes and putting themselves before everyone else. But I didnt say that.

[Adeniz19]

if i'm going to give a generic as possible answer to this, i would just say a person who tries to follow the golden rule.

[Nevuk]

if i'm going to give a generic as possible answer to this, i would just say a person who tries to follow the golden rule.
The golden rule is terrible. Do unto others as you wish them to do unto you - is extremely arrogant. It operates on the premise that everyone wants to be treated the same, when that's not true at all. I'm sexually attracted to people who are violent towards me, does that mean that I should do that to other people with no indication that is what they wish?

[The Personist]

Ah, that makes sense, I suppose. I still think a good person should be judged on their actions, even if they had some type of personal motivation in mind (whether it be for getting a good feeling, or avoiding divine punishment, or gaining favor in an election).

I agree, to an extent, but I think a good action doesn't necessarily a good person make. If religion didn't exist at all, some people would have no reason to behave the way they do and therefore the good actions don't make them good people because they aren't motivated by genuine concern for others, but by selfish means to a selfish end (some kind of salvation). What turned me away from faith initially in the past was not the idea of caring for others and loving them, but the idea of damning things like homosexuality and suppressing/subjugating women. At the end of the day, true compassion is true compassion, whether it comes from following in Jesus' example or not.

[Adeniz19]

The golden rule is terrible. Do unto others as you wish them to do unto you - is extremely arrogant. It operates on the premise that everyone wants to be treated the same, when that's not true at all. I'm sexually attracted to people who are violent towards me, does that mean that I should do that to other people with no indication that is what they wish?thats why i said if i was to give a generic answer it would be that. of course there are exceptions to everything and you aren't going to answer this question without breaking it down into full detail. you have to sort of use common sense too and not just take it as literally as possible.

[Nevuk]

thats why i said if i was to give a generic answer it would be that. of course there are exceptions to everything and you aren't going to answer this question without breaking it down into full detail. you have to sort of use common sense too and not just take it as literally as possible.
Yeah, the common thread really is that no one is this thread is capable of defining this, all everyone is doing is giving a generalization and then going "well, if you don't take it too far obviously."

[GeeBee]

:shrug:

Or in other words..."sorry, that's how my jerk of a god rolls."

[The Personist]

Or in other words..."sorry, that's how my jerk of a god rolls."

I disagree. I find meaning in religion but I would be nice if I didn't believe in God. On the other hand, believing in God hasn't gotten rid of my almost insatiable lust for academic arguments or criticisms and I'm a tiny bit arrogant and a little bit of a prick sometimes.

But then again, we all sin, I s'pose.

[GeeBee]

I disagree. I find meaning in religion but I would be nice if I didn't believe in God. On the other hand, believing in God hasn't gotten rid of my almost insatiable lust for academic arguments or criticisms and I'm a tiny bit arrogant and a little bit of a prick sometimes.

But then again, we all sin, I s'pose.

A tiny bit? A little bit? ;-) JK, buddy.

I'm simply saying that judging a person solely on their "actions" is missing a huge part of the picture. Most intelligent people don't want to be patronized or part of some pretense. For instance, being nice to people of other races, even though you are inwardly very xenocentric...that's still racism. Voting for gay rights while still harboring feelings that homosexual sex is somehow inferior or more "sinful" than straight sex...that's still homophobic.

And blaming views that conflict with your OWN sense of right and wrong on your particular cosmic overlord...that's just absurd.

[The Personist]

A tiny bit? A little bit? ;-) JK, buddy.

I'm simply saying that judging a person solely on their "actions" is missing a huge part of the picture. Most intelligent people don't want to be patronized or part of some pretense. For instance, being nice to people of other races, even though you are inwardly very xenocentric...that's still racism. Voting for gay rights while still harboring feelings that homosexual sex is somehow inferior or more "sinful" than straight sex...that's still homophobic.

And blaming views that conflict with your OWN sense of right and wrong on your particular cosmic overlord...that's just absurd.

I agree with that statement.

[thespearkid]

Or in other words..."sorry, that's how my jerk of a god rolls."
:shrug:

[GeeBee]

:shrug:

I get it. You can't think for yourself. Shrug it off.

[thespearkid]

I get it. You can't think for yourself. Shrug it off.
Jesus loves you.

[Love As Arson]

Too many Platonic connotations.

[BryterJonah]

Jesus loves you.
I don't believe in unconditional love, no offense.

[thespearkid]

I don't believe in unconditional love, no offense.
write an album about it.

[Nevuk]

Jesus might love me, but I certainly don't love him.

[thespearkid]

cool story, brah.

[Praetor]

Rather, many acts of altruism are grounded in empathy and a sense of what is just and morally right (sometimes even what is morally required). For example, someone notices a small child that is drowning in a nearby lake. It is presumptuous, even somewhat silly, to assume that the person is motivated to save the child because, a.) they will feel bad if they don't, b.) they will feel good about themselves knowing they saved a life or, c.) they expect some kind of external reward for doing so.

Yes, it is true they will feel good if they do save the child, and they will probably feel bad if they don't. Hell, they may even be rewarded afterward. However, none of these things acts as an intrinsic motivator in deciding to save the child.

The person decides to save the child because they are in minimal danger toward themselves, so to simply let the child die would be morally wrong. They recognize the value of human life, the value this child certainly feels toward his or her own life, and the value any friends or family feels toward the child's life. Thus, the act of saving transcends any sense personal gain, and instead rests upon a moral obligation toward human life. Many acts of altruism have nothing to do with personal gain--only what a person feels is right.
What are morals but things you can pat yourself on the back about? If saving that child for some reason would have made that person feel bad, and would have provided no gain in (whether it be monetary or in the form of recognition) that person wouldn't have done it.

I guess we just have a fundamentally different worldview.

[Duexy]

we are all christian. because we are all gods children. we all do good things(because we are made from god) and bad things(because we are corrupted by sin)

its in our forgiveness for ourselves and others that sets us apart.


no, bitch

[iheartmusic043]

There's no such thing as a good person. That whole "good" and "evil" bullshit was made up to make certain people feel superior, and the rest feel like theyre worthless. The morals myth is then spread out into society where people then look to their peers to see who they are and play into that character early on in life.

We all start on the same level on the morality scale, we all die on that exact level, and throughout the course of our lives, we all stay on that same exact level as each other on the inside. The only difference is how well we hide our true motives.

I agree. No one is 100% good or 100% evil. People aspire to be better people by trying to outweigh the bad things they do with good acts but they are not perfect. No one is.

[&IllBeTheReason]

I seem to have taken the question in a different direction than everyone else. I automatically thought about the Humanists and self-actualization; besically, someone with really good mental health, in terms of agreeableness, conscientousness, and so on. Being at peace with yourself and your direction in life would be a good start to becoming that 'good person'.

[open mind]

last question.

what actions need to be taken for a bad person to become a good one?

[My Broken Fever]

Bad and good, good and evil are completely subjective things that differ per culture and person. There are no absolutes, any answer you'll get is so completely subjective it's irrelevant.

All that matters and what you can judge people on is where their morals lead them.

[open mind]

Bad and good, good and evil are completely subjective things that differ per culture and person. There are no absolutes, any answer you'll get is so completely subjective it's irrelevant.

All that matters and what you can judge people on is where their morals lead them.

i'm looking for subjective answers.

[GeeBee]

last question.

what actions need to be taken for a bad person to become a good one?

Accept Billy Mays as your personal savior, and be baptized in a vat full of Oxyclean. Renounce all evil and shun the ShamWow.

[Animalhill]

Accept Billy Mays as your personal savior, and be baptized in a vat full of Oxyclean. Renounce all evil and shun the ShamWow.
hahahahaha

[open mind]

Accept Billy Mays as your personal savior, and be baptized in a vat full of Oxyclean. Renounce all evil and shun the ShamWow.

funny, but a serious answer would be appreciated.

[shubh]

The way of behaving, analyzing, thinking and working. A person should be professional but he shouldn’t forget his social duties too.

[The Personist]

Accept Billy Mays as your personal savior, and be baptized in a vat full of Oxyclean. Renounce all evil and shun the ShamWow.

I'M BILLY MAYS, AND TODAY WE'VE GOT SOMETHING REALLY GREAT FOR YOU. FOR THREE PAVEMENTS OF JUST 19.95--THAT'S NINE TEEN NINETY FIVE--YOU CAN HAVE YOUR SOUL SAVED AND LITERALLY CLEANED OFF IN THIS VAT OF OXYCLEAN! BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE! CALL IN THE NEXT FIVE MINUTES, AND YOU GET A SPARE SOUL, ABSOLUTELY FREE. AN ETERNAL VALUE, YOURS ABSOLUTELY FREE. KILL SOMEBODY? WHO CARES? JUST GRAB YOUR BACKUP SOUL AND YOU'RE A SAINT AGAIN BEFORE ANYONE KNOWS IT.

/obnoxious Saturday boredom

[GeeBee]

I'M BILLY MAYS, AND TODAY WE'VE GOT SOMETHING REALLY GREAT FOR YOU. FOR THREE PAVEMENTS OF JUST 19.95--THAT'S NINE TEEN NINETY FIVE--YOU CAN HAVE YOUR SOUL SAVED AND LITERALLY CLEANED OFF IN THIS VAT OF OXYCLEAN! BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE! CALL IN THE NEXT FIVE MINUTES, AND YOU GET A SPARE SOUL, ABSOLUTELY FREE. AN ETERNAL VALUE, YOURS ABSOLUTELY FREE. KILL SOMEBODY? WHO CARES? JUST GRAB YOUR BACKUP SOUL AND YOU'RE A SAINT AGAIN BEFORE ANYONE KNOWS IT.

/obnoxious Saturday boredom

:lol:

[GeeBee]

funny, but a serious answer would be appreciated.

A serious answer as to what constitutes a good person?
Hm. Sorry. I don't have one.

[The Personist]

:lol:

I contemplated making the font bigger when he yelled the price and some other stuff, because really, how can you quote Billy Mays without doing so in all capital letters?

[GeeBee]

I contemplated making the font bigger when he yelled the price and some other stuff, because really, how can you quote Billy Mays without doing so in all capital letters?

Precisely.

[YourGreatestSin]

A good person is someone who chooses to do things only if they do not harm other people.
A good person is unselfish and takes the feeling of others,not just themselves,into consideration before doing something.

[the_martyr]

You don't understand why being genuine is better than being fake? As far as I'm concerned, if you're being nice just because an old book told you to, I'd rather you just be yourself.

so we should not be nice? like you?

[paper halo]

so we should not be nice? like you?

You bumped a two month old thread to say this?

[zach]

A+ thread. Would read again.

[ted is lying]

A good person owns a ShamWow

[yves.]

A good person owns a ShamWow

there is an "as seen on TV" store at the mall I work at and I really want to get a sham wow :(

[zach]

I was introduced to the sham wow buy a jolly Cape Bretoner after he knocked my drink over while demonstrating to my room mate the jig he would do while my room mates mother would play a jaunty tune on the piano at the local whore house when he was a lad.

[ted is lying]

It will have you saying wow this sucks every time.

[GeeBee]

so we should not be nice? like you?
You should be nice. Keep it classy, for chrissakes.
I'll still be mean, though. Since I don't give a fuck.

[Burn That Shit]

There's no universal set of morals, you'll never find the answer to this question.

[saysmydoctor]

Burn That Shit just Machiavelli'd us.

[ZzyzxScarecrow]

Is it how other people view one's life that makes it good or bad, or how a person views their own life that makes it good or bad?
I'm so humble and selfless. Gosh, I just can't stop thinking of what a good person I am. I mean, if everyone was like me, world peace wouldn't be such an insurmountable goal.

Does that anwer your question?

[Nevuk]

So today my roommate told me how awesome he was for like 15 minutes. Not even bothering to dress it up, he just kept saying "I'm so awesome because I did this, I wasn't even trying very hard. I'm a clever son of a bitch". It was sad.

[Josh Weinstein]

I'm a good person because I studied hard throughout high school and college. Upon graduating, I got a great paying job, met a woman, got married and have three children. I use my income to buy a huge house, purchase many items (hence stimulate the economy), save money to put my children through college, and make myself and my family very happy. Religion has no role in my happy life.

[GeeBee]

I'm a good person because I studied hard throughout high school and college. Upon graduating, I got a great paying job, met a woman, got married and have three children. I use my income to buy a huge house, purchase many items (hence stimulate the economy), save money to put my children through college, and make myself and my family very happy. Religion has no role in my happy life.

Then FUCK you!

/sarcasm.

[jawstheme]

A good person likes all of the below:

Led Zeppelin
The Beatles
Radiohead

[jawstheme]

There's no universal set of morals, you'll never find the answer to this question.

I don't agree with this entirely. There is a universal set of right of right and wrong, such as don't kill, rape, or steal.

[GeeBee]

A good person likes all of the below:

Led Zeppelin
The Beatles
Radiohead

I'm 2/3 a good person, because I'm ok with Zepp and Radiohead. That 2/3, however, is negated by how insanely and profusely I hate the Beatles.

[bung]

That 2/3, however, is negated by how insanely and profusely I hate the Beatles.

How is that.. even possible?

[Burn That Shit]

I don't agree with this entirely. There is a universal set of right of right and wrong, such as don't kill, rape, or steal.

The world is filled with hypocrisy and double standards. Most people who are pro-life will at the same time be for the death penalty. There are no universal morals.

[GeeBee]

How is that.. even possible?

While I recognize the impact of their music and their influence on rock...I put their songs in the same compartment as disney theme-park music and Sesame Street singalongs. Hate them.

[bung]

While I recognize the impact of their music and their influence on rock...I put their songs in the same compartment as disney theme-park music and Sesame Street singalongs. Hate them.

Sony just re-released all their albums. A perfect time to get into them!

[jawstheme]

The world is filled with hypocrisy and double standards. Most people who are pro-life will at the same time be for the death penalty. There are no universal morals.

Would you say that don't rape or kill the innocent is universally moral?

[Burn That Shit]

Would you say that don't rape or kill the innocent is universally moral?

No, remember Hitler? I'm sure the world thought the Jewish people living in Germany were innocent, but many nazis were convinced they weren't. Perspective, there's no universal morals.

[jawstheme]

No, remember Hitler? I'm sure the world thought the Jewish people living in Germany were innocent, but many nazis were convinced they weren't. Perspective, there's no universal morals.

Exactly. If they thought the Jews were innocent they couldn't have gone through with it.

[Burn That Shit]

Exactly. If they thought the Jews were innocent they couldn't have gone through with it.

Right, but what constitutes innocent is completely subjective and relies on perspective, which means there's no universal set of morals, in my opinion.

[Dymytry Vance]

Right, but what constitutes innocent is completely subjective and relies on perspective, which means there's no universal set of morals, in my opinion.
This.

[jawstheme]

Right, but what constitutes innocent is completely subjective and relies on perspective, which means there's no universal set of morals, in my opinion.

I agree

[GeeBee]

Sony just re-released all their albums. A perfect time to get into them!

I'd sooner light a blowtorch into my ears.

[bung]

No, remember Hitler? I'm sure the world thought the Jewish people living in Germany were innocent, but many nazis were convinced they weren't. Perspective, there's no universal morals.

All this proves is that the Nazis were wrong.

[Burn That Shit]

All this proves is that the Nazis were wrong.

....

[bung]

....

About the reply I was expecting.

[Machu505]

While I recognize the impact of their music and their influence on rock...I put their songs in the same compartment as disney theme-park music and Sesame Street singalongs. Hate them.
Are you implying that Sesame Street singalongs aren't good music?

[Burn That Shit]

About the reply I was expecting.

I was hoping I wouldn't have to spend the extra time and characters in that message to get the point across to you that everyone else seemed to understand. Nazi's were killing jews, and from their standpoint they were correct, which proves that morals aren't universal and based on culture and perspective. I could've used other examples, there are plenty of empires and terrible people throughout history who have done terrible things but believed that they were doing the right thing.

[bung]

I was hoping I wouldn't have to spend the extra time and characters in that message to get the point across to you that everyone else seemed to understand. Nazi's were killing jews, and from their standpoint they were correct, which proves that morals aren't universal and based on culture and perspective. I could've used other examples, there are plenty of empires and terrible people throughout history who have done terrible things but believed that they were doing the right thing.

Yeah, I knew that's what you were implying, but it's wrong.

Nazis thought they were doing the right thing. Were they actually doing the right thing? Obviously not. The fact that people adhere to different moral systems throughout history and across cultures, or that people commit heinous acts, isn't an argument against moral universality. All it supports is that, a.) many people have not been enlightened as to the correct way to treat human beings, b.) the advancement of political agendas often trumps morality, and c.) immoral behavior can easily be justified in one's brain if the benefits are great enough. In fact, as far as morality goes, the easy cases are overwhelmingly shared across culture--ie; murder, rape, betrayal, fraud, etc. It's only the hard cases where people differ (abortion, euthanasia, etc) because they are such difficult moral problems to solve.

There are arguments that can be used to support the subjectivity of morals, but that isn't one of them. It's been debunked a thousand times over. There's a gigantic difference between someone believing something to be right and it genuinely being right.

[Burn That Shit]

Nazis thought they were doing the right thing. Were they actually doing the right thing? Obviously not.

Morals are created by the culture. The culture that was dominant at the time were doing what they thought was right, so to them it was right. I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you before you understand it. It's only not the right thing to you, because those are the morals that you asborbed from your culture.


The fact that people adhere to different moral systems throughout history and across cultures, or that people commit heinous acts, isn't an argument against moral universality.

Actually, it is.

All it supports is that, a.) many people have not been enlightened as to the correct way to treat human beings,

Which is again, subjective and requires perspective. If I tell you that These Arms Are Snakes is a very good band, and you think they're not, we're both correct.

b.) the advancement of political agendas often trumps morality,

morality is typically defined by political agendas, that has to do with culture.

and c.) immoral behavior can easily be justified in one's brain if the benefits are great enough.

Of course. Some kid steals electronics from a store and sells them to friends, he's aware it's immoral.

In fact, as far as morality goes, the easy cases are overwhelmingly shared across culture--ie; murder, rape, betrayal, fraud, etc. It's only the hard cases where people differ (abortion, euthanasia, etc) because they are such difficult moral problems to solve.

You're not looking at this in a larger picture, which is probably the reason we're not agreeing.

[ted is lying]

Charles Nelson Reilly

[bung]

Morals are created by the culture. The culture that was dominant at the time were doing what they thought was right, so to them it was right. I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you before you understand it. It's only not the right thing to you, because those are the morals that you asborbed from your culture.

This relies on the fallacy of large numbers, in that if the majority of a culture supports a given moral stance then it's the correct one. It's like saying slavery used to be right because most cultures allowed it and people supported it. But now it's not right because we can see it's clearly a violation of human rights. It was always wrong, and it will always be wrong, because there is absolutely no ethical argument that can justify its implementation. A difference of opinion does not, in any way, shape, or form, mean that both parties are right. It means someone is wrong.

Of course a person is subjected to the general morality of the culture in which they live, but we have this thing now called reason and argument. If what you're saying is true, there would be no debates over abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, or any moral issue for that matter. Since it's all subjective, it would merely be a difference of opinion, and all argument would be futile.

It also negates the idea of moral advancement within a society. If morals were really subjective in the sense that you're using the term, then something like the American civil rights movement could not, from a moral standpoint, have made society any more better. It would have only changed society, since moral subjectivity assumes we have no independent, objective criteria in which to judge an action to be right or wrong, better or worse. If you think civil rights didn't make society morally better, than you're a fool.

Actually, it is.

Fallacious statement is fallacious.

Which is again, subjective and requires perspective. If I tell you that These Arms Are Snakes is a very good band, and you think they're not, we're both correct.

This isn't a moral question, so it's not at all relevant to the discussion.

morality is typically defined by political agendas, that has to do with culture.

Certain moral actions and/or problems often have a political endorsement, but morality itself is not defined by politics. It can be influenced by it on a superficial level, but to say it is defined by it is simply a statement made by someone with their head in the clouds.

Of course. Some kid steals electronics from a store and sells them to friends, he's aware it's immoral.

Not necessarily.

You're not looking at this in a larger picture, which is probably the reason we're not agreeing.

Oh, look at you! You're so worldly you have an immaculately keen sense as to just what "the larger picture" entails.

The reason we're not agreeing is you're wrong and I'm right.

[The Personist]

Bung, you're an idiot. Morality is subjective; not everyone believes morality is subjective; therefore, there are debates over the morality of the issues you keep flaunting. If morality were objective, we would have no debates, because killing would be wrong and therefore the death penalty and war would be wrong, as would abortion. Also, how can you know that something is wrong and something else is right? What determines the good and bad in your moral code? You don't believe in GOd, so you can't use that bullshit moral objectivist argument...how, then, do we know what's right and what's wrong? Are you the arbiter of right and wrong? Who is? What is?

[bung]

Bung, you're an idiot. Morality is subjective; not everyone believes morality is subjective; therefore, there are debates over the morality of the issues you keep flaunting. If morality were objective, we would have no debates, because killing would be wrong and therefore the death penalty and war would be wrong, as would abortion.

On the contrary, the objectivity of morality is precisely why these debates takes place. We debate in order to find out what is just and unjust. You're equating morality with questions like, "What's your favorite color?" and "Where do you like to vacation?" One cannot be said to be "wrong" about any answer to those questions because it is purely preference. Morality is a little more than one's "preference."

Also, your examples are moot because you've equated killing with murder, when they aren't the same thing.

Also, how can you know that something is wrong and something else is right? What determines the good and bad in your moral code? You don't believe in GOd, so you can't use that bullshit moral objectivist argument...how, then, do we know what's right and what's wrong? Are you the arbiter of right and wrong? Who is? What is?

Reason is the arbiter of right and wrong to be very general about it. The good and bad is determined by drawing upon moral theory, using logic, reason, and argument to provide justification to believe one thing is bad or good. Why is slavery wrong, murder and rape? Do you really want me to give you an argument against those things?

Have you ever heard of utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics? Yeah, well they're the three most popular moral theories today and are completely independent of metaphysical objectivism. And they all espouse moral universality/objectivity.

[The Personist]

On the contrary, the objectivity of morality is precisely why these debates takes place. We debate in order to find out what is just and unjust. You're equating morality with questions like, "What's your favorite color?" and "Where do you like to vacation?" One cannot be said to be "wrong" about any answer to those questions because it is purely preference. Morality is a little more than one's "preference."

Also, your examples are moot because you've equated killing with murder, when they aren't the same thing.




Reason is the arbiter of right and wrong to be very general about it. The good and bad is determined by drawing upon moral theory, using logic, reason, and argument to provide justification to believe one thing is bad or good. Why is slavery wrong, murder and rape? Do you really want me to give you an argument against those things?

Have you ever heard of utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics? Yeah, well they're the three most popular moral theories today and are completely independent of metaphysical objectivism. And they all espouse moral universality/objectivity.
It's ironic that this whole post in defense of objectivity is rife with subjective terms like good and bad. You've proven nothing except that you believe reason is paramount.

[bung]

It's ironic that this whole post in defense of objectivity is rife with subjective terms like good and bad. You've proven nothing except that you believe reason is paramount.

LOL. You know nothing about ethics. At all. All you do is stick to what dead existentialists said because it runs parallel with the stupidity which brims from each character you type.

[The Personist]

LOL. You know nothing about ethics. At all. All you do is stick to what dead existentialists said because it runs parallel with the stupidity which brims from each character you type.
Again, this is ironic because you find merit in the writings of Ayn Rand and criticize my own philosophical leanings. Can you please indicate for me where I can read about the objectivity of good and evil?

[GeeBee]

LOL. You know nothing about ethics. At all. All you do is stick to what dead existentialists said because it runs parallel with the stupidity which brims from each character you type.

Dude, I'm sorry...but objectivity is utter bullshit.

[GeeBee]

Again, this is ironic because you find merit in the writings of Ayn Rand and criticize my own philosophical leanings. Can you please indicate for me where I can read about the objectivity of good and evil?

I'll give you 5 guesses about which book Fateful Goodbye would point you to...

[bung]

Again, this is ironic because you find merit in the writings of Ayn Rand and criticize my own philosophical leanings. Can you please indicate for me where I can read about the objectivity of good and evil?

I find merit in her writings? I have no respect for her philosophy, but I enjoyed reading the Fountainhead.

As for objectivity in ethics, I would suggest Aristotle, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and any modern writers on the subjects of utilitarianism and virtue ethics.

And it isn't so much that I criticize your philosophical leanings as it is how much idiocy you display by refusing to entertain any notion that doesn't fit into the neat little box you call existentialism.

[Burn That Shit]

This relies on the fallacy of large numbers, in that if the majority of a culture supports a given moral stance then it's the correct one. It's like saying slavery used to be right because most cultures allowed it and people supported it. But now it's not right because we can see it's clearly a violation of human rights. It was always wrong, and it will always be wrong, because there is absolutely no ethical argument that can justify its implementation. A difference of opinion does not, in any way, shape, or form, mean that both parties are right. It means someone is wrong.

Of course a person is subjected to the general morality of the culture in which they live, but we have this thing now called reason and argument. If what you're saying is true, there would be no debates over abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, or any moral issue for that matter. Since it's all subjective, it would merely be a difference of opinion, and all argument would be futile.

It also negates the idea of moral advancement within a society. If morals were really subjective in the sense that you're using the term, then something like the American civil rights movement could not, from a moral standpoint, have made society any more better. It would have only changed society, since moral subjectivity assumes we have no independent, objective criteria in which to judge an action to be right or wrong, better or worse. If you think civil rights didn't make society morally better, than you're a fool.



Fallacious statement is fallacious.



This isn't a moral question, so it's not at all relevant to the discussion.



Certain moral actions and/or problems often have a political endorsement, but morality itself is not defined by politics. It can be influenced by it on a superficial level, but to say it is defined by it is simply a statement made by someone with their head in the clouds.



Not necessarily.



Oh, look at you! You're so worldly you have an immaculately keen sense as to just what "the larger picture" entails.

The reason we're not agreeing is you're wrong and I'm right.

I was going to pick this apart and respond to each and every thing that I found wrong because what you're saying is a bunch of bullshit, but I'll save you and me the time of repeating ourselves over a million times.

[bung]

I was going to pick this apart and respond to each and every thing that I found wrong because what you're saying is a bunch of bullshit, but I'll save you and me the time of repeating ourselves over a million times.

You are talking about a subject in which you know nothing. I know this because you chose the weakest argument one could possibly choose for ethical relativism. There are some strong ones, but you picked the weakest.

[Burn That Shit]

You are talking about a subject in which you know nothing. I know this because you chose the weakest argument one could possibly choose for ethical relativism. There are some strong ones, but you picked the weakest.

But I'm still right and you're wrong, it doesn't matter which argument I chose to present. You're trying to argue objectivity in something that is, essentially, completely subjective. Wrroooonnnngg.

[GeeBee]

You are talking about a subject in which you know nothing. I know this because you chose the weakest argument one could possibly choose for ethical relativism. There are some strong ones, but you picked the weakest.

You're the one touting moral/ethical objectivity. You've yet to provide any evidence for such beyond the musings of historical thinkers. Just because an idea can be HAD does not automatically make it valid.

[bung]

But I'm still right and you're wrong, it doesn't matter which argument I chose to present. You're trying to argue objectivity in something that is, essentially, completely subjective. Wrroooonnnngg.

You don't even know any other arguments. Because you're uneducated on the subject.

You're the one touting moral/ethical objectivity. You've yet to provide any evidence for such beyond the musings of historical thinkers. Just because an idea can be HAD does not automatically make it valid.

Have you read this thread? I've presented plenty of evidence.

[The Personist]

I find merit in her writings? I have no respect for her philosophy, but I enjoyed reading the Fountainhead.

As for objectivity in ethics, I would suggest Aristotle, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and any modern writers on the subjects of utilitarianism and virtue ethics.

And it isn't so much that I criticize your philosophical leanings as it is how much idiocy you display by refusing to entertain any notion that doesn't fit into the neat little box you call existentialism.
Well, when that box includes subjectivism, of course I won't entertain a notion that requires an objectivist epistemology. That would be insipid, wouldn't it? I think objectivity is retarded, especially considering the fact that it all boils down to perception and how we interpret and understand the world. There is no way to know if something is objective or not because we are constantly perceiving. Perception is the lens through which we construct reality, and we base our morality on our perceptions and conceptions that stem from said perceptions. An objective morality would imply that everyone perceives the world the same way, which is an assertion so outlandish that not even you could make it in good conscience.

You are talking about a subject in which you know nothing. I know this because you chose the weakest argument one could possibly choose for ethical relativism. There are some strong ones, but you picked the weakest.
You're pretty ignorant about it yourself. Tell me: what is objectively good and what is objectively bad. You have yet to do this.

[GeeBee]

Have you read this thread? I've presented plenty of appeals to authority. I've blurred the lines between "possibility" and "plausibility"
Fixed.

[bung]

Well, when that box includes subjectivism, of course I won't entertain a notion that requires an objectivist epistemology. That would be insipid, wouldn't it? I think objectivity is retarded, especially considering the fact that it all boils down to perception and how we interpret and understand the world. There is no way to know if something is objective or not because we are constantly perceiving. Perception is the lens through which we construct reality, and we base our morality on our perceptions and conceptions that stem from said perceptions. An objective morality would imply that everyone perceives the world the same way, which is an assertion so outlandish that not even you could make it in good conscience.

We base ethics on reason and logic, not perception. Everyone need not perceive the world in the same way for our ethical conclusions to be congruent.

You're pretty ignorant about it yourself. Tell me: what is objectively good and what is objectively bad. You have yet to do this.

Haha, wow. Only someone who seriously does not understand the field of ethics (and more specifically objectivity in ethics) would ever frame a question like this. First, research the difference between ethical universalism and ethical absolutism. I'm an ethical universalist. Then you'll see that the question you pose means nothing to me.

[bung]

Fixed.

k.

[GeeBee]

We base ethics on reason and logic, not perception.
A claim you can't possibly back up conclusively.

[bung]

A claim you can't possibly back up conclusively.

k.

[GeeBee]

k.

Amusing how your argument boils down to the same monosyllabic response given by my buddies who share your pseudo-libertarian, faux-idealistic views.

[bung]

Amusing how your argument boils down to the same monosyllabic response given by my buddies who share your pseudo-libertarian, faux-idealistic views.

k.

[macabre]

It also negates the idea of moral advancement within a society. If morals were really subjective in the sense that you're using the term, then something like the American civil rights movement could not, from a moral standpoint, have made society any more better. It would have only changed society, since moral subjectivity assumes we have no independent, objective criteria in which to judge an action to be right or wrong, better or worse. If you think civil rights didn't make society morally better, than you're a fool.


Nobody directly addressed this but I completely agree. How does one reconcile the idea that society has progressed with moral subjectivity?

[GeeBee]

Nobody directly addressed this but I completely agree. How does one reconcile the idea that society has progressed with moral subjectivity?
How does one prove moral objectivity?

[macabre]

How does one prove moral objectivity?

That's not what I was asking. I only have a cursory understanding of moral philosophy so I'd like to know if a moral subjectivist is committed to denying that society has progressed or if there are other alternatives.

[The Personist]

Nobody directly addressed this but I completely agree. How does one reconcile the idea that society has progressed with moral subjectivity?
How does one contend that we've actually progressed? Racism, sexism, homophobia, and bigotry are everywhere. Just because the law says so doesn't mean we fixed it.

[macabre]

How does one contend that we've actually progressed? Racism, sexism, homophobia, and bigotry are everywhere. Just because the law says so doesn't mean we fixed it.

Progress need not mean solving a problem outright. Moving from a bad state of affairs to a less bad state of affairs is still progress.

[The Personist]

Progress need not mean solving a problem outright. Moving from a bad state of affairs to a less bad state of affairs is still progress.
My question to you, then, is how you reconcile moral progress with the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan to end WWII.

[GeeBee]

Progress need not mean solving a problem outright. Moving from a bad state of affairs to a less bad state of affairs is still progress.
And further and further down the rabbit hole we go in an attempt to get to a logical conclusion to how the fuck moral objectivity makes any sense. Again blurring the lines between "possibility" and "plausibility".

[macabre]

My question to you, then, is how you reconcile moral progress with the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan to end WWII.

War is a terrible thing and much progress hasn't been made in that area. However, there have been steps in the right direction with the establishment of the IAEA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency) as well as numerous international treaties and charters. I admit there's a long way to go, mainly a stronger UN, but that doesn't deny the fact that there has been progress.

[macabre]

And further and further down the rabbit hole we go in an attempt to get to a logical conclusion to how the fuck moral objectivity makes any sense. Again blurring the lines between "possibility" and "plausibility".

I believe we're drifting closer and closer to an objective standard, however incremental the pace may be. What's so absurd about that?

[GeeBee]

I believe we're drifting closer and closer to an objective standard, however incremental the pace may be. What's so absurd about that?

It's absurd to think there's an objective standard in the first place. Who made that standard? How can we measure it? What rubric do you use?

I get what you and Bung are arguing here...except it cannot ever reach a logical conclusion.

[Animalhill]

It's absurd to think there's an objective standard in the first place. Who made that standard? How can we measure it? What rubric do you use?

I get what you and Bung are arguing here...except it cannot ever reach a logical conclusion.
THIS

[macabre]

It's absurd to think there's an objective standard in the first place. Who made that standard? How can we measure it? What rubric do you use?

I get what you and Bung are arguing here...except it cannot ever reach a logical conclusion.

Practically all cultures recognize that certain activities such as murder, rape, theft, and incest ultimately reduce the inclusive fitness of their group and thus they are outlawed. There may be disagreement over gray areas and that's where I believe a subjective element comes into play but other than that, many of the commonalities between moral codes can be described through evolutionary theory. Regardless of whether morality is objective or subjective, we are moving toward a global moral standard; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an example of this. If we ever reach a point where all cultures subjectively agree on basic human rights, I'll be happy nonetheless.

[GeeBee]

Practically all cultures recognize that certain activities such as murder, rape, theft, and incest ultimately reduce the inclusive fitness of their group and thus they are outlawed. There may be disagreement over gray areas and that's where I believe a subjective element comes into play but other than that, many of the commonalities between moral codes can be described through evolutionary theory. Regardless of whether morality is objective or subjective, we are moving toward a global moral standard. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an example of this. If we ever reach a point where all cultures subjectively agree on basic human rights, I'll be happy nonetheless.

"The Lucifer Principle" by Howard Bloom. Enjoy.

In the meantime, I'd say I'll join you in your happiness. But "objective" doesn't necessarily mean "widely accepted".

[macabre]

"The Lucifer Principle" by Howard Bloom. Enjoy.

In the meantime, I'd say I'll join you in your happiness. But "objective" doesn't necessarily mean "widely accepted".

But why are these acts outlawed in nearly every culture? I find it difficult to believe that all these cultures came to the same conclusion while creating their moral codes out of thin air.

[GeeBee]

But why are these acts outlawed in nearly every culture? I find it difficult to believe that all these cultures came to the same conclusion while creating their moral codes out of thin air.

a) you give way too much credit to the similarities in morality between cultures. It's not that cut and dry.
b) Objectivity means a standard exists independently. It doesn't mean that consensus has been reached.

[macabre]

a) you give way too much credit to the similarities in morality between cultures. It's not that cut and dry.
b) Objectivity means a standard exists independently. It doesn't mean that consensus has been reached.

A) Murder, rape, incest, and theft are outlawed in nearly every culture; that's a fact. It may not be cut and dry for murder, cultures that engage in cannibalism come to mind, but those differences seem to arise when individual fitness is valued over inclusive fitness due to environmental factors.

B) That's precisely what I'm arguing. These moral codes haven't been created but instead have been discovered throughout the course of our evolution.

[GeeBee]

A) Murder, rape, incest, and theft are outlawed in nearly every culture; that's a fact. It may not be cut and dry for murder, cultures that engage in cannibalism come to mind, but those differences seem to arise when individual fitness is valued over inclusive fitness due to environmental factors.

B) That's precisely what I'm arguing. These moral codes haven't been created but instead have been discovered throughout the course of our evolution.

How the hell do you "discover" morality? Who put it there? Who created it? How will we know when we've fully "gotten there"?

Moral codes are as a result of evolution, not the endgame thereof.

[bung]

It's absurd to think there's an objective standard in the first place. Who made that standard? How can we measure it? What rubric do you use?

I get what you and Bung are arguing here...except it cannot ever reach a logical conclusion.

This is the wrong way to think about it. There is no disembodied thing outside ourselves that sets up some standard, good and bad, moral and immoral. Objectivity is reached through argument until it can be assumed beyond reasonable doubt that some act or process is universally moral or immoral everywhere, regardless of context. It's very similar to arguing for someone's guilt. Although it's often impossible to be conclusively certain of someone's guilt, it is possible to arrive at a point beyond reasonable doubt. Sure, we could be wrong in some cases, but other cases are blindingly obvious (not a perfect analogy, but it will do). For many ethicists, although disagreement does exist, that is objectivity--though it is a kind of practical objectivity, as opposed to the objectivity you'll get by adding 2 and 2.

Kant argues by using something called the "categorical imperative," which would be one type of standard, but I think it's a bit different from the way you're using the term. Utilitarianism holds that the action or rule which produces the greatest utility (where "utility" could be happiness, pleasure, or a Greek concept called eudaimonia, or maybe something else) for the greatest number of people is the moral act or rule. Those are two examples, but it does some disservice to the theories to just refer to them as "objective standards," as that almost implies that the questions they're trying to answer are easy to reach, that some theorist can neatly place moral and immoral in two separate boxes.

As a side note, eudaimonia is a very interesting concept in itself, even if you're not specifically interested in ethics.

Slavery is the easiest example of an objectively immoral action. No reasonably convincing argument has ever existed for its implementation, and based upon what we currently know about human rights, dignity, freedom, etc. it's very likely no such argument will ever be formed. The arguments against slavery, however, are towering and incredibly convincing, so it's reasonable to assume it's objectively wrong everywhere at all times. Yes, we may be wrong, and it could be that slavery is actually fine and moral, but it's highly, highly unlikely that that will ever be the case.

Questions about creating measures and rubrics would be problems for psychologists, not ethicists. However, such things are often unnecessary to accept a particular school of philosophical thought as convincing and usually only serve as a type of confirmation. But I'm a little unsure as to what you're proposing be "measured."

[GeeBee]

This is the wrong way to think about it. There is no disembodied thing outside ourselves that sets up some standard, good and bad, moral and immoral. Objectivity is reached through argument until it can be assumed beyond reasonable doubt that some act or process is universally moral or immoral everywhere, regardless of context. It's very similar to arguing for someone's guilt. Although it's often impossible to be conclusively certain of someone's guilt, it is possible to arrive at a point beyond reasonable doubt. Sure, we could be wrong in some cases, but other cases are blindingly obvious (not a perfect analogy, but it will do). For many ethicists, although disagreement does exist, that is objectivity--though it is a kind of practical objectivity, as opposed to the objectivity you'll get by adding 2 and 2.

Kant argues by using something called the "categorical imperative," which would be one type of standard, but I think it's a bit different from the way you're using the term. Utilitarianism holds that the action or rule which produces the greatest utility (where "utility" could be happiness, pleasure, or a Greek concept called eudaimonia, or maybe something else) for the greatest number of people is the moral act or rule. Those are two examples, but it does some disservice to the theories to just refer to them as "objective standards," as that almost implies that the questions they're trying to answer are easy to reach, that some theorist can neatly place moral and immoral in two separate boxes.

As a side note, eudaimonia is a very interesting concept in itself, even if you're not specifically interested in ethics.

Slavery is the easiest example of an objectively immoral action. No reasonably convincing argument has ever existed for its implementation, and based upon what we currently know about human rights, dignity, freedom, etc. it's very likely no such argument will ever be formed. The arguments against slavery, however, are towering and incredibly convincing, so it's reasonable to assume it's objectively wrong everywhere at all times. Yes, we may be wrong, and it could be that slavery is actually fine and moral, but it's highly, highly unlikely that that will ever be the case.

Questions about creating measures and rubrics would be problems for psychologists, not ethicists. However, such things are often unnecessary to accept a particular school of philosophical thought as convincing and usually only serve as a type of confirmation. But I'm a little unsure as to what you're proposing be "measured."

I agree with pretty much everything you've stated. I think the true disagreement comes with the usage of the word "objectivity". It connotes (at least for me), some kind of metaphysical standard. In my view, it also makes very redundant the idea that consensus in our era on moral vs. immoral actions can be reached.

I hate to tout a certain book again, but I think it's a valid point...

[GeeBee]

In addition...you earlier discredited the "Fallacy of large numbers". Couldn't objectivity in regards to morality be construed as just that? Who's to say murder, pillaging, and plundering...aren't inherently good?

[bung]

In addition...you earlier discredited the "Fallacy of large numbers". Couldn't objectivity in regards to morality be construed as just that? Who's to say murder, pillaging, and plundering...aren't inherently good?

I'd be willing to entertain the notion of those things as good if someone presents a quality argument, but I'm not sure that would be possible.

[The Personist]

WTF is Kant doing in this thread? The categorical imperative is insipid.

[GeeBee]

I'd be willing to entertain the notion of those things as good if someone presents a quality argument, but I'm not sure that would be possible.
And this sentence isn't an admission of morals being subjective...why?
WTF is Kant doing in this thread? The categorical imperative is insipid.
I was going to say...1st year philosophy students can shoot down half of Kant's ramblings.

[bung]

And this sentence isn't an admission of morals being subjective...why?

Because there's no argument or reason for those things to be considered morally good or permissible. But there's plenty of reason to consider them immoral.

Do you really think a statement like "Murder is immoral" is essentially equivalent to "Chocolate tastes bad"?

I was going to say...1st year philosophy students can shoot down half of Kant's ramblings.

I don't like Kant at all, but he should be mentioned. He's influential and the categorical imperative has some inherent merit, if only because it would be logically impossible to imagine a society in which it is always being violated. Like, for example, lying violates the categorical imperative and says it should never be done--but if lying was ever considered good, desirable, moral, and permissible and employed in all circumstances society could not function. The problem with his stance is that it's absolute and uses terms like "always" and "never" which cannot account for circumstance.

[GeeBee]

Because there's no argument or reason for those things to be considered morally good or permissible. But there's plenty of reason to consider them immoral.

Do you really think a statement like "Murder is immoral" is essentially equivalent to "Chocolate tastes bad"?



I don't like Kant at all, but he should be mentioned. He's influential and the categorical imperative has some inherent merit, if only because it would be logically impossible to imagine a society in which it is always being violated. Like, for example, lying violates the categorical imperative and says it should never be done--but if lying was ever considered good, desirable, moral, and permissible and employed in all circumstances society could not function. The problem with his stance is that it's absolute and uses terms like "always" and "never" which cannot account for circumstance.

Murder is "immoral" because advanced societies have deemed it as such. They deemed it as such because we're social animals who have interdependency and higher cognition. However, it's not "immoral" in certain instances. Meaning any claims to objectivity are bunk. I don't mind killing someone who invades my home, hurts my family, etc. It's still a HUGE question as to how you could even DEMONSTRATE the claim of objectivity, let alone prove it. The categorical imperative never exits the realm of hypotheticals, hence is logically inconclusive, hence not all that valid.

[bung]

Murder is "immoral" because advanced societies have deemed it as such. They deemed it as such because we're social animals who have interdependency and higher cognition. However, it's not "immoral" in certain instances. Meaning any claims to objectivity are bunk. I don't mind killing someone who invades my home, hurts my family, etc. It's still a HUGE question as to how you could even DEMONSTRATE the claim of objectivity, let alone prove it. The categorical imperative never exits the realm of hypotheticals, hence is logically inconclusive, hence not all that valid.

Seriously, you think murder is immoral because advanced societies have simply deemed it as such and, what, you've been brainwashed into believing it's true, too? Don't ya think it's always been a little frowned upon, considering evolution and all, and maybe now we have some reasons in addition to evolution as to why murder isn't so desirable? And you don't mind killing someone who hurts your family? What is your ethical stance, an eye for and eye and then some?

You still don't even know what objectivity in ethics entails nor what the difference between absolutism and universalism is.

Killing a human being is always wrong and immoral = Kantian ethics (an objective absolutist view which relies on the categorical imperative)
Killing a human being is morally permissible if the situation warrants it = act utilitarianism and/or virtue ethics (objective universalist views)

You're arguing for ethical subjectivism. To you ethical questions about killing, stealing, and rape are no different than questions about what foods you like or don't like. You have provided absolutely no evidence whatsofuckingever to support ethical subjectivism in any way at all.

[GeeBee]

Seriously, you think murder is immoral because advanced societies have simply deemed it as such and, what, you've been brainwashed into believing it's true, too? Don't ya think it's always been a little frowned upon, considering evolution and all, and maybe now we have some reasons in addition to evolution as to why murder isn't so desirable? And you don't mind killing someone who hurts your family? What is your ethical stance, an eye for and eye and then some?

You still don't even know what objectivity in ethics entails nor what the difference between absolutism and universalism is.

Killing a human being is always wrong and immoral = Kantian ethics (an objective absolutist view which relies on the categorical imperative)
Killing a human being is morally permissible if the situation warrants it = act utilitarianism and/or virtue ethics (objective universalist views)

You're arguing for ethical subjectivism. To you ethical questions about killing, stealing, and rape are no different than questions about what foods you like or don't like. You have provided absolutely no evidence whatsofuckingever to support ethical subjectivism in any way at all.

I'm not making the argument. You are. And I'm rejecting it, due to COMPLETE lack of evidence of an "objective moral standard". End of story. I'm pretty done with this argument. Also, the fact that you think I'm "brainwashed" pretty much tells me all I need to know about you. Put your tinfoil hat back on.

[bung]

I'm not making the argument. You are. And I'm rejecting it, due to COMPLETE lack of evidence of an "objective moral standard". End of story. I'm pretty done with this argument. Also, the fact that you think I'm "brainwashed" pretty much tells me all I need to know about you. Put your tinfoil hat back on.

I'm making the argument that they're objective, and not only are you denying it, but positing that they are, in fact, subjective. You're asserting your own claim as well.

I said brainwashed as a joke. I obviously don't think you've been brainwashed. I've provided tons of evidence in favor of ethical objectivity and you simply fail to respond. Complete failure on your part. All conveniently waved aside. You fail, utterly.

[The Personist]

I'm making the argument that they're objective, and not only are you denying it, but positing that they are, in fact, subjective. You're asserting your own claim as well.

I said brainwashed as a joke. I obviously don't think you've been brainwashed. I've provided tons of evidence in favor of ethical objectivity and you simply fail to respond. Complete failure on your part. All conveniently waved aside. You fail, utterly.
What evidence have you provided other than the fact that most cultures share a set of values? That doesn't make it objective; it just means we value similar things.

EDIT: that is to say, there are general things that different groups of people will look upon and assess similarly; however, that doesn't mean there's objectivity. It just means we tend to agree on things. How can you say "this is good and this is bad objectively" if your evidence is based in perception?

[bung]

What evidence have you provided other than the fact that most cultures share a set of values?

The fact that we have reason to believe some actions are better than others. We can argue on the basis of avoiding needless suffering or pain, achieving a fulfilling life, promoting happiness, respecting human rights, etc. They give us independent criteria to judge the rightness or wrongness of a given action. The implications of subjectivity itself, in fact, are enough to reject the stance flat-out. To say that the views of a racist, for example, hold just as much weight and are supported by just as much reason as that of someone who believes it's inherently wrong to treat someone on the basis of their skin color is ludicrous. It's saying we have absolutely no way to determine why one way of behaving is paramount to another, and that's false.

That doesn't make it objective; it just means we value similar things.

But why do people and cultures value similar things? It's certainly not coincidence. They don't value them because they're bad--they value them because they have proven themselves to be inherently desirable and good.

EDIT: that is to say, there are general things that different groups of people will look upon and assess similarly; however, that doesn't mean there's objectivity. It just means we tend to agree on things. How can you say "this is good and this is bad objectively" if your evidence is based in perception?

Evidence of this type is based in reason, not perception. Morality isn't biting out of an apple, perceiving the taste, and deciding you like the fruit. Nobody can seriously tell the fruit-eater, "Sorry, no. You don't like that," because there is nothing to argue since it is solely based upon how they perceive the taste. Morality transcends this notion of simple preference for a number of reasons, one being that the way we act can and often does have dire implications, whereas our taste for a particular food is usually pretty negligible.

[GeeBee]

The fact that we have reason to believe some actions are better than others. We can argue on the basis of avoiding needless suffering or pain, achieving a fulfilling life, promoting happiness, respecting human rights, etc. They give us independent criteria to judge the rightness or wrongness of a given action. The implications of subjectivity itself, in fact, are enough to reject the stance flat-out. To say that the views of a racist, for example, hold just as much weight and are supported by just as much reason as that of someone who believes it's inherently wrong to treat someone on the basis of their skin color is ludicrous. It's saying we have absolutely no way to determine why one way of behaving is paramount to another, and that's false.



But why do people and cultures value similar things? It's certainly not coincidence. They don't value them because they're bad--they value them because they have proven themselves to be inherently desirable and good.



Evidence of this type is based in reason, not perception. Morality isn't biting out of an apple, perceiving the taste, and deciding you like the fruit. Nobody can seriously tell the fruit-eater, "Sorry, no. You don't like that," because there is nothing to argue since it is solely based upon how they perceive the taste. Morality transcends this notion of simple preference for a number of reasons, one being that the way we act can and often does have dire implications, whereas our taste for a particular food is usually pretty negligible.

You're again arguing the POSSIBILITY...not the PROBABILITY. Sure, based on what you've given, it's POSSIBLE, but it certainly provides no air-tight case of PLAUSIBILITY.

[The Personist]

Also, how do you explain people who think killing is morally right? How can you say with 100% certainty that they're wrong, especially if they have a rational means of coming to that conclusion?

[Kaleidoscope]

Also, how do you explain people who think killing is morally right? How can you say with 100% certainty that they're wrong, especially if they have a rational means of coming to that conclusion?

Some people will say it's wrong no matter what. I don't know though. If something thinks killing is morally right, they have other issues. Perhaps killing isn't always wrong, but its not morally right.

[bung]

You're again arguing the POSSIBILITY...not the PROBABILITY. Sure, based on what you've given, it's POSSIBLE, but it certainly provides no air-tight case of PLAUSIBILITY.

I'll discuss this more later--having too much fun tonight and just stopping in my room for sec. But no, it's not at all simple possibility. The word you bolded, reason, is what moves us into the realm of probability. We have reason to believe one thing is not just possible, but quite probable

Not only do you continue to fail to address specific points, but you continue to make vague, over-arching generalizations that cannot adequately be responded to for the simple fact that you refuse to clarify your position.

From what you just said, it sounds as if you don't even understand the nature of philosophy as a discipline.

[GeeBee]

I'll discuss this more later--having too much fun tonight and just stopping in my room for sec. But no, it's not at all simple possibility. The word you bolded, reason, is what moves us into the realm of probability. We have reason to believe one thing is not just possible, but quite probable

Not only do you continue to fail to address specific points, but you continue to make vague, over-arching generalizations that cannot adequately be responded to for the simple fact that you refuse to clarify your position.

From what you just said, it sounds as if you don't even understand the nature of philosophy as a discipline.

I understand the nature of discourse, which demands evidence for an assertion. You've yet to provide anything BUT "vague, over-arching generalizations that cannot be responded to for the simple fact that you refuse to clarify your position".

But, alas, I don't give a shit about ethics.

[ted is lying]

Ted Mosbey architect

[GeeBee]

Ted Mosbey architect

Why do you keep doing this shit?

[ted is lying]

Why do you keep doing this shit?
Boredom

[GeeBee]

Boredom

You'll bore yourself onto everyone's ignore list, so cut it out.

[ted is lying]

You'll bore yourself onto everyone's ignore list, so cut it out.
Well see. Yup.

[Charles777]

I guess doing good things makes you a good person. Or, NOT doing BAD things.

[PunkRocks]

I've read most of this thread, but I have so many things running through my head that I wanted to go ahead and post some of them before I forgot. Expect me to make some edits/updesat once I finish reading, and please feel free to let me know if I'm simply being redundant or anything.

First off, with the whole "a christian" response or any response invloving religion as the answer, its key to keep in mind that religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Humanity existed before established religion, and therefore some 'good' things must have been done for humanity to survive and advance. While many religions have great advice on how to keep your morals straight (in the generally world-wide view of human rights) while also encouraging you to do 'good' in your daily life, just because you believe that doesn't mean you'll practice it. And while it is not my intention at all to bash religion, it is ironic that "christian" was the answer to being a good person. Do multiple christian religions not have times of "confession" where the point is to admit your sins, thus undenably revealing that you are not a good person?

Now, the "we're all children of God" comment is really the one that helped me decide to get involved in this discussion. I'm going to put aside my non-belief in God, and play your game for a bit. Lets assume that we all are children of God. Every child is created under his blessing and guidance. So lets say that a woman is raped and impregnated by her assailant. A new child is born, and God is over-joyed to have a new child. Does this mean that God condoned, and even took delight in that rape? And if so, does that mean that neither rapist nor women who give birth out of wedlock (which are both condemned by the Bible) are bad people?

As for selfishness vs selflessness, I believe neither are really valid points in the discussion of 'good.' It's not possible to be selfish and refrain from interfering negatively with another person. Whereas a completely selfless person could actually end up making the point of their existance completely futile, or, beknownst or unbeknownst to them, end up helping a 'bad' person achieve an immoral goal. Also, many religions suggest that selflessness is the key to salvation, and encourage selflessness in order to gain access to heaven. But if you're being selfless just so you can go to heaven when you die, is that not actually motivated by selfishness?

The brief discussion that happened about the Golden Rule wasn't quite enough, I feel. While someone brought up a good point about different people wanting different things, I think its the actual phrasing of the 'rule' that misleads so many people about the intention. Everyone hears "Do unto others as you would have them do to unto you." Just because "do unto others" comes first in the sentence doesn't mean you should put yourself first in the situation. What it really means is "Don't do something to someone else that you wouldn't want them to do you." It doesn't mean that you like people to be violent with you that you should be violent to others. It's not a free pass like that. Instead, it means that if you DON'T like people to be violent with you, then you should grant them the same respect if that's their wish.

Edit: Now I've gotten to the point where the conversation has changed drastically. I feel really late to the discussion now.

Edit #2: Ok, the rest of this thread mainly seems to be vague and answerless questions being tossed back and forth without much being achieved. It seems this thread has deviated from a discussion on what it takes to be a good person, and is now more of a "who decides what is or isn't good." A lot of moot points are being thrown around.

In my opinion there is a proper, universal definition for good and morality. However, humans are too proud, infantile, and segregational to ever realize it. No one can discuss this topic without first bringing in their own ego and prejudices. Everyone in the world thinks they're right, and that they have all the answers. While I'm guilty of this too, I still try to remind that I don't know shit but that I can always better myself by remaining logical, respectful of others and accepting of new information.

The best way that I can think of that a human can come remotely close to being good is to not strive just to do things that benefit yourself or another person, but devoting everything you do to the benefit and enhancement of humanity as a whole. Of course, the caveat to this is that any actions taken must not be at the expense of any other. Many people have claimed to have this goal, yet have been unable to overcome that caveat.

[TheZeroKid]

Be good, don't do bad.