What are the qualities of a bad person?

[miss fortune]

whatever! don't do that to yourself...no you're not.
i don't think a 'bad" person would even think to say it.

I did that to make a point- If I listed my sins here, I'd most definitley be judged a horrible person, unless you knew me.

You can't really judge someone as bad- we all have a good side and a bad side. You can't judge somebody because there's a chance in the end that you'd actually like them if you got to know them- and people generally don't consider thier friends to be bad people

 

[AOA]

In abit of a hurry, so forgive me if my posts (or intentions) don't make much sense, now...

Have we considered the possibility that good and bad are, apart from perception, feelings? So, good people are people that generally feel good or 'alive' whereas bad people are people that generally feel bad or 'degenerative' (dysfunctional, stupid, sick, or unimportant) and it's their coping ways that make them generally uncomfortable on their lives - and they might have a go on others for it. On the norm, most people (even the perpetrators of 'bad' things) know it's unacceptable and something should be done about it - but why don't they? Because they don't have the power to change somebody else's condition... seeing the nature of a bad person's condition is unknown. People, on the whole, worry about themselves (but that's a seperate issue if you'd call). Religion may be a socially acceptable 'coping' strategy as it makes awareness of a God that has the power to change conditions.

... otherwise, normally the concept of 'good and bad' is second to reality - we really want to get on with our lives, and achieve what we can. I believe a lot of people, whether bad or good or both, have the potential to do good things... but if bad people give you problems, why not sort them out yourselves?

 

[Hirsch63]

I don't like to use the words "good" an "bad" when I'm talking about people.

But after thinking about this for a couple of minutes I think I would describe a "bad" person as someone who consistently puts their own needs and interests ahead of anyone or anything else.

I agree with you here. As far as we know a "being" must exist in the context of it's environment....perhaps this environment includes other beings...perhaps not. I believe many interactions can be reduced to simple economic transactions. We need something, we should be willing to trade for it in some form. Mindless taking...intemperate consumption a lack of perspective on how one fits within the situation we find ourselves in seem "bad" to me. It is ingnorance to deplete the resources on which you and others ultimately depend.

If we're going to mention evil here well maybe that is best described as unbridled avarice with the certain knowledge that what you are doing ignores the immediate and long term needs of the environment you find yourself in. To take and waste or to determine that your right to do so overrides any other concern.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

You render the very definition of good and bad completely void by saying that. Everyone has photographed something. That doesn't make everyone a photographer. And by that definition we would all be good people too.

This is true in a sense, but I think it is more appropriate to say everyone is bad. Some might say that there is no good or bad, but the danger of this is that you might overlook bad behavior. The way I look at things I do not overlook bad behavior, but at the same time I don't see anyone as intrinsicly better than anyone else.

Yes, history is written by the victors. Would you say you often doubt that the serial killer caught by the police on the evening news is really guilty? The issue here isn't if the person really did those things or not, so much as it about whether, if you were certain he/she did, you would risk labeling that person moral superior/inferior when compared to you, judging by your standards.

I don't doubt that the serial killer is bad. I just don't think anyone else is any better.

In my opinion, a man is defined by his actions. Picking a fight with some fellow in a bar because you're pissed and gassing people are on different parts of the moral spectrum. Everyone might have unwarrantably picked a fight in his/her life, but not everyone murdered another person. Everyone has good and bad intentions, but it's what a person has the guts/nerv to do that counts in the end.

The problem with saying one type of bad behavior is worse than another is that each of us has a tendency to put our own bad behaviors in the "not so bad" column while putting other behaviors in the "really bad" column by comparison. The idea of moral superiority is something of a self-deception. Inevitably we will minimize the impact of our own misdeeds by comparing them to other misdeeds that we consider worse.

The most important person to hold accountable for bad behavior is ourselves. That is the person we have the most control over. Obviously if someone is doing something illegal or dangerous then you should take proper steps to remedy the situation. Overall though a person should be most concerned about their own morality rather than the morality of others. When we claim moral superiority we let ourselves off the hook.

 

[Athenian200]

A bad person is someone who disagrees with me and does things I don't like, of course.

 

[proteanmix]

A bad person is someone who disagrees with me and does things I don't like, of course.

In all honesty, that's most people's definition of what makes a bad person. It's not a very long and involved process.

 

[Mole]

A bad person is someone who disagrees with me and does things I don't like, of course.

And quite right too.

 

[anii]

What are the qualities of a bad person?

Willful ignorance is one.

 

[Mole]

Willful ignorance is one.

And invincible ignorance is another.

 

[Tiltyred]

I think a bad person is one who uses other people without regard to the feelings or consequences for the person being used.