Good/bad people or good/bad deeds...

[The Ü™]

So what's your outlook on people?

• Are people good and do bad things?
• Are people bad and do good things?

Answer my poll and get a free cookie.

Explain your vote and get another one free.

 

[Valiant]

I basically hate people. Sometimes

 

[The Ü™]

Free cookies for YLJ...and anyone else who votes (like I promised):

 

[cafe]

I think each person contains potential for bad and good and the choices they make move them toward one side or the other on the sliding scale making them predominantly neutral, bad, or good.

Primarily people are just self-interested, which I think of as kind of neutral since it's a default and understandable, but I guess for the purposes of the poll, I'll call it bad.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I think this is an interesting topic, but I did not vote because none of the options represents my opinion.

I think that people are born neither good or bad. I think people are born with value-neutral instincts that can be put toward good or bad ends. For example, we're born with survival instincts; we can use those to rob people that have more than we do, or we can use them to provide responsibly for ourselves and our families. I think we have a balance of selfish interest and community interest (conscience?) that struggles to find equanimity, and whether we're good or bad depends on how we maintain that balance. I also think that generally good people can do bad things and generally bad people can do good things, which suggests more of a continuum than an either/or situation.

 

[Atomic Fiend]

There's no middle road?

 

[The Ü™]

There's no middle road?

I was considering a middle road as one of the options, but I feared that it would screw the entire poll up. I wanted the answers to be diverse, and so the best way to approach is to look at things in terms of black and white.

 

[nemo]

Okay, I've thought about this before and have a weird way about reasoning through this:

I don't think there's any real objective definition of good and bad.

I think that, at the very least, for a society to be successful and not self-destruct, it must possess mechanisms by which its members are socialized into behaving in non-dysfunctional ways.

Many of these "non-dysfunctional" values seem to be universal (e.g. don't kill everyone). Whether or not they're human nature is a question I'm not willing to come to any conclusion on. They may very well be, but, as I said above, at the very least most people are socialized to have them.

But since something like "don't kill people" ** seems pretty universal, aside from a few dysfunctional serial killers, it would appear that, by and large, a human trait is that we don't like to kill one another recklessly; and even if it's not an innate attitude, it is a value ubiquitous enough that it might as well be.

So I even though I technically don't believe in any objective definition of good or bad, I purposely limit myself to a framework of "What sorts of behavior would destroy society?" and evaluate good/bad as what I think is universally required for societies to persist. I do this for practical reasons; I think anything beyond that framework, frankly, is pedantic and a waste of time.

And yes, I think these "good" qualities are, at the very least, socialized into most people; and, at the very most, are human nature.

So I voted that (most) people are basically good. Sort of.

** Things like war are a major discrepancy here; but war is usually justified internally within a society as vital for its self-preservation, so I don't really see a contradiction. On the other hand, I'm not prepared to say that the willingness to kill over ridiculous tribal divisions (no matter how sophisticated they've become) is a value that's universally required for a society to function, so I don't think wars are necessarily moral. Thus, otherwise good people do bad things, etc.

 

[The Ü™]

Thus far, I am seeing that most of the pessimists are J and the optimists are P.

 

[Seanan]

Well, discussion continued huh? Good for you!
and us.

I didn't choose one either because I think they hit the world pretty much neutral (blank slates) and, then, based on what they're taught or what they experience and how they deal with it.. what they see as working for them... will determined which direction they go in. And I don't think whatever they become, at that point, is a constant because education and experience never stop. So, yes, a formerly "bad" one can become a "good" one and vice versa. And, as Farmer said, good ones do bad things and vice versa but, as Aristotle said: We are what we repeatedly do, meaning we're making the same kinds of choices over and over again... not just a one or few time choice "error" until we learn something different works for us. We've either decided we like doing good or bad. Its a matter of preponderance. For example: The mafia boss or hitman who donates to the church or gives to the needy. A bad person doing good deeds that in no way offset the preponderance of bad actions. Those good deeds, in their comparatively inferior weight, do not a good person make. Another example: The man or woman who cheats on their spouse/mate once or twice compared to the one that continues doing so over and over for years. One is a good person making a bad choice and the later is just a bad person.

Well, thanks Ube... I didn't get to say this on the other thread.

 

[Totenkindly]

I can't pick any of these.

Growing up in conservative Christianity, of course, you're taught that people are inherently evil even if someone does good things.

I think I struggled with that for a long long time, the more experiences with people I had. Yes, people are flawed and imperfect. But inherently evil?

At this point of my life (and I noted this shift in myself in the last 1-2 years as it occurred), I tend to not even think in such general terms of good/evil.

People are flawed creatures. Whether they're inherently good or evil seems to be a philosophical question, not a practical one. Sometimes they make bad decisions because they're selfish at the moment. Sometimes they do it for what seems to be survival to them. And sometimes they make good decisions because it was what they were brought up to do, and other times make good decisions out of pure desire to do the "right thing" as they see it or out of real love for others.

I think I am more interested in the narrative of people's lives and choices at this time in my life -- the entire path, both high points and low points -- and less interested in figuring out how they balance on the scales. It just seems so irrelevant to have to reduce them to "good" or "evil."

 

[Maverick]

To answer the OP, I think most people are neutral and do good deeds. Few people are "good" or "bad". Few people do bad deeds.

 

[The Ü™]

Whether they're inherently good or evil seems to be a philosophical question, not a practical one.

'Tis why I put it in the philosophy forum.

 

[The Ü™]

I'm having a revelation. I think that it will end up like this:

• NF Temperament
  • xNFJs will more likely be pessimists.
  • xNFPs will more likely be optimists.
• NT Temperament
  • xNTJs will more likely be pessimists.
  • xNTPs will more likely be optimists.
• SJ Temperament
  • xSTJs will more likely be pessimists.
  • xSFJs will more likely be optimists.
• SP Temperament
  • xSTPs will more likely be pessimists.
  • xSFPs will more likely be optimists.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

I'm a moral relativist and my type is continuously in question, so I can't answer either part of your poll. I think people have the potential to be unselfish, though. If you call that good, er... great. I like to think I can see the relative goodness in people.

 

[heart]

I can't pick from the two options given. I think Evil is ego driven behavior. People can learn to grow beyond the temptations of the ego or they can chose not to learn. Sometimes people are born with less than a full deck of cards and they cannot understand. It is a really complicated subject.

 

[The Ü™]

I seem to have forgotten how many P's exist in the world...

People are generally all the same -- is it really that hard?

 

[heart]

I seem to have forgotten how many P's exist in the world...

People are all the same -- is it really that hard?

How many P's exist...Meaning?

I definately believe that there are good and evil acts, but I think that baring organic mental illness of some sort, it is a choice each of us makes to express either the bad or the good side of ourself.

People are not all the same.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

I seem to have forgotten how many P's exist in the world...

Peas are divided into two categories: those with edible pods and those without them.

Green Pea, English Pea, and Garden Pea, all fall into the category of the peas with pods not to be eaten. As to specific varieties, most commercial peas are either called garden or English peas.

But, Uber, petit pois are not a variety of peas but merely green peas that have been picked before full maturity. Since they are picked early, they are smaller than normal green peas.

Keep in mind that snap peas look like miniature versions of the green pea pods, except the snap pea pods are edible.

Sugar Snap and Sugar Daddy are the two varieties of snap peas. The Sugar Daddy is actually a cross between the green pea and the snow pea, and is a string-less sugar snap pea. You don't have to necessarily remove the strings form Sugar Snap peas before cooking.

And finally, snow peas used to be seen only in Chinese restaurants, but they're now available almost everywhere. The pale green, edible pods are flat and wide, with the outlines of little peas visible throughout the pod. There are often strings, but again, they need not be removed. Snow peas are also called Sugar Peas, China Peas, and Mangetout, which in France means, "eat it all."

And that, my dear Uber, is how many peas there are in the world.

 

[The Ü™]

How many P's exist...Meaning?

Oh, nothing, that was just my response to the ones who couldn't make up their mind on what to vote for. I was just surprised at how many J's couldn't make up their mind, either. I thought it was a simple enough poll.

(And Octavia Caesar's vote made my hypothesis null and void. Dammit!)

Peas are divided into two categories: those with edible pods and those without them.

Green Pea, English Pea, and Garden Pea, all fall into the category of the peas with pods not to be eaten. As to specific varieties, most commercial peas are either called garden or English peas.

But, Uber, petit pois are not a variety of peas but merely green peas that have been picked before full maturity. Since they are picked early, they are smaller than normal green peas.

Keep in mind that snap peas look like miniature versions of the green pea pods, except the snap pea pods are edible.

Sugar Snap and Sugar Daddy are the two varieties of snap peas. The Sugar Daddy is actually a cross between the green pea and the snow pea, and is a string-less sugar snap pea. You don't have to necessarily remove the strings form Sugar Snap peas before cooking.

And finally, snow peas used to be seen only in Chinese restaurants, but they're now available almost everywhere. The pale green, edible pods are flat and wide, with the outlines of little peas visible throughout the pod. There are often strings, but again, they need not be removed. Snow peas are also called Sugar Peas, China Peas, and Mangetout, which in France means, "eat it all."

And that, my dear Uber, is how many peas there are in the world.

Speaking of which, I have to P. BRB.