Do you believe that the good in this world outweighs the bad?

[Octarine]

That's what makes the question worth asking in the first place, if it where as simple as the poll makes it appear there'd be nothing to talk about.

Asking a specific question doesn't mean that people won't have opinions. Besides, all we've had so far are mostly one line replies.

 

[Lord Guess]

Well, if by "good" and "bad" we mean "what is beneficial" and "what is harmful", then I would say there is more good than bad in the world, simply because there is much in the world that I would be able to turn to my own benefit. If we are going by the traditional "good vs evil", then there is more evil than good, because people find it more beneficial to be evil, though not without cause. People who aim to be good usually end up dead or disappointed; people who aim to be evil, are in reality full of self-hatred, as they consider their natural state to be aberrant. People who aim to serve their own purposes without concern for either, tend to be the most fulfilled.

 

[Octarine]

People choosing to see more good vs bad.. Is it just a case of confirmation bias/optimism though? Out of sight, out of mind?

Most people for example choose not to examine things like the rate of species decline, or even consider the impact of incurable disability on quality of life, to pick less common examples (common examples would include third world poverty, high reported rates of depression/anxiety etc).

Are we even capable of making an objective judgement on good vs bad?

 

[Stigmata]

I dont think so, there's objective good and evil the same as there's objective natural laws besides what man thinks of them, gravity doesnt go away because you dont believe in it, its not generated by the human mind or suspended by it. The same goes for good and evil. The best value systems have sought to discover the good and evil that exist and teach accordingly, not to invent either or suppose they are inventions.

The problem I have with the concept of morality in relation to objectivity is that it requires a living component as the framework. I'll use your gravity example to illustrate my point: Sure, can exist whether or not anyone or anything else is there to interpret its presence, yet how can morality exist without something living to provide the definition and context? Gravity can exist independent of anything else, whereas morality cannot. Morality requires living creatures to provide its definition, making its principles elastic and fluid as opposed to fixed and concrete.

However, I will agree what I think you're saying(If I'm interpreting it wrong, I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify) that all living things have some inherent sense of good and and evil, no matter the variance in its definition or conflicting it may be in comparison to another. Yet even while I think some level or type of morality exists within everything living, survival is key as we're naturally wired to prolong our own existence however possible, and being morally just is not always conducive to survival.

 

[ICUP]

IDK, I guess "good" and "bad" are too relative for me to answer. Define "good" and "bad".

 

[Lark]

The problem I have with the concept of morality in relation to objectivity is that it requires a living component as the framework. I'll use your gravity example to illustrate my point: Sure, can exist whether or not anyone or anything else is there to interpret its presence, yet how can morality exist without something living to provide the definition and context? Gravity can exist independent of anything else, whereas morality cannot. Morality requires living creatures to provide its definition, making its principles elastic and fluid as opposed to fixed and concrete.

However, I will agree what I think you're saying(If I'm interpreting it wrong, I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify) that all living things have some inherent sense of good and and evil, no matter the variance in its definition or conflicting it may be in comparison to another. Yet even while I think some level or type of morality exists within everything living, survival is key as we're naturally wired to prolong our own existence however possible, and being morally just is not always conducive to survival.

I actually do think that evil and good exist independent of any living thing to define them, like gravity, although I appreciate its not widespread any longer.

I also think its exaggerated in extremis the self-preserving component of living things hard wiring, I think it comes about as a result of the prevalence of the Dawkins and others thinking, history is full of lots of examples where selfish genetics theories fails and as a result he had to invent an entirely new theory, memetics, to explain why his earlier theory was contra the evidence, providing an additional opportunity to bash religion by relegating it to the category of viral infection in the process. See that inventing theories to explain why your original theories arent in evidence, I dont think that's very valid, not your point but I think it is something about Dawkins which isnt considered really very often.

 

[Ginkgo]

in terms of self -- i am a glass half full type of person. the good will always outweigh the bad in the long run, and i see myself as a very lucky individual in many ways.

in terms of like the world.. i'd say there are way more negatives than positives (neg human interference on the planet in general and neg human influence on one another).

You managed to speak from a personal point of view, unlike many who've answered. Finally.

 

[Hawthorne]

Good question. Should I? Should it?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

from a humanist perspective, yes. From a meta, bigger picture, universal frame of reference, I believe there is no good or bad. Those become labels that simply place value on organisms' thoughts and actions on an insignificant chunk of rock in a remote corner of a galaxy.

 

[Chrysanthe]

Well I'd at least believe that good intentions prevail over the bad, which personally is enough for me to think positively of humanity.

 

[Virtual ghost]

If we take classic definitions of good and bad: Bad is getting stronger and stronger over the years and we have probably went into the zone when it is stronger force.

I don't want to brake someones idealism but the world as a whole is falling apart.

 

[Lark]

I've encountered more bad than there is good but when I do it just makes me think that I must be the actual good that I'm looking for and must continue to be so until I can find it anywhere else in the world.

 

[Lark]

If we take classic definitions of good and bad: Bad is getting stronger and stronger over the years and we have probably went into the zone when it is stronger force.

I don't want to brake someones idealism but the world as a whole is falling apart.

I'm a short term pessimist and a long term optimist, any break down will make for something better I'm sure.

Although I'm inclined to believe that prophets of doom or greatness as all exaggerating one way or another and things will be more mundane, if only because nature and the perennial things endure and could give a shit about vogues or fashions and vanities of mankind.

Look at all the movements of any description which have prescribed one or another design for life, whether its Aryanism or LGBT, none of its materialised or materialised completely to the satisfaction of its support, its probably for the best too.

 

[geedoenfj]

I think they're even and balanced, but I don't believe that there's either absolute good or absolute bad, sometimes there's good in evil and vice versa

 

[Kanra Jest]

This world is mostly corrupt, rotten, as it shows while it crumbles down slowly. It needs to be reshaped. And people don't do what's necessary for it. Focusing on their short term needs, within their bubbles, rather than the long term results of self destruction. The fear of nuclear war still remains. Things only get worse, and the news itself expresses and emphasizes this sheer negativity.

Look around. It is obvious.

However... that being said.

There is always hope.

I am pessimistic, but with a distant optimistic bend in terms of hope.

 

[PikUpYourPantsPatrol]

I don't believe in good and bad

 

[morganelise48]

That's completely subjective. I'd say yes for myself. The bad is just, generally, more obvious.

 

[jcloudz]

As long as you fight tooth n nail for it

 

[Mole]

The world has improved markedly in recent times. Wars have receded. Social violence has receded. Prosperity has increased in leaps and bounds. And of great importance, child rearing has improved from from authoritarian child rearing to helping child rearing where the child is helped to achieve their life goals.

Evidence based medicine is improving every day. Science is discovering the most fundamental facts about the Universe from gravity waves to the so called 'God' particle.

More countries are becoming democratic, for instance, Indonesia, our next door neighbour, and the largest muslim country in the world, has recently become successfully democratic.

And there are more of us alive today and living longer than any other time.

Is there any better time to be alive? Yes, the next generation will have it even better.

 

[fetus]

I’ve always been annoyed by those cheery “life is good” tee shirts (and hats, bumper stickers—you get the idea). Life is not good. We hurt. We cry. We feel like punching things and screaming at people, or, in all honesty, the other way around. To say that life is good would not be an accurate representation of what it truly is and the pain it holds.

Conversely, I’ve seen sad faces under rain clouds with a “life is bad” caption, parodies of widespread, generalized optimism. Just as it wouldn’t be fair to label life as good, it’s inaccurate to say that life is entirely bad. We smile and laugh until our sides hurt, see beauty, hear perfect melodies, and enjoy simple pleasures.

Life is sometimes good. Life is sometimes bad. I think the truthful balance between the two extremes is this: life is life. It just is, and we just are.