Good and bad should be exclusive.

[Magic Poriferan]

I don't understand the idea of choosing to do something that you consider bad. It makes no logical sense. You either don't do it, or don't consider it bad.
The tendency to label desired things as evil is extremely confusing to me.

A really good place to start would be an advertisement for something pornographic. The first words that come up are "bad", "dirty", "nasty", "filthy" and the like. I find this extremely weird.
If someone started talking dirty to me during sex, I'm pretty sure I'd start laughing, or I'd be discomforted. I can tell you I wouldn't be turned on.
Why would I want sex to be bad?

I think everyone that declares their own acts to be bad, with this look ,
is suffering from a case of confusion instilled by society. I personally blame mono-theism. If you really want to do something, and don't see why you shouldn't, then why even call it bad?
Even more baffling me is when people feel an increased desire to do something because it is "bad", much like those pornographic adds are appealing to.
I think these people seriously need to do some soul searching to figure out what they really believe in, and what they really want.
This train of thinking seems to be rather abundant in society, and it's one that gives me a lot of trouble in relating to the "common man".

Don't do things you consider bad!
That being said, don't consider something bad just because another circle does!

 

[Randomnity]

I don't think people doing 'bad' things think they are bad (a la ). It is more that the actions are commonly considered to be bad and the person is rebelling against tradition/norms. Also dirty talk/saying "I'm being so bad" is not nearly the same as feeling it genuinely (I'm mostly thinking of sex here though)

 

[Athenian200]

I don't understand the idea of choosing to do something that you consider bad. It makes no logical sense. You either don't do it, or don't consider it bad.
The tendency to label desired things as evil is extremely confusing to me.

A really good place to start would be an advertisement for something pornographic. The first words that come up are "bad", "dirty", "nasty", "filthy" and the like. I find this extremely weird.
If someone started talking dirty to me during sex, I'm pretty sure I'd start laughing, or I'd be discomforted. I can tell you I wouldn't be turned on.
Why would I want sex to be bad?

I think everyone that declares their own acts to be bad, with this look ,
is suffering from a case of confusion instilled by society. I personally blame mono-theism. If you really want to do something, and don't see why you shouldn't, then why even call it bad?
Even more baffling me is when people feel an increased desire to do something because it is "bad", much like those pornographic adds are appealing to.
I think these people seriously need to do some soul searching to figure out what they really believe in, and what they really want.
This train of thinking seems to be rather abundant in society, and it's one that gives me a lot of trouble in relating to the "common man".

Don't do things you consider bad!
That being said, don't consider something bad just because another circle does!

I think they don't really consider it bad viscerally, I think they're just self-conscious about society considering it bad, so their desire for it becomes something to be ashamed of. So when they finally let themselves express it, they feel liberated by letting go and allowing themselves to identify with what is considered "evil."

People are much less likely to violate their own deeply held personal standards than rules that have been imposed from the outside. Some people have no personal standards, however, and need rules imposed to control their behavior at all. INTP's tend to have strong personal integrity (a mark in your favor in some ways, actually), so you probably don't understand that mentality too well.

 

[Metamorphosis]

It's a logic versus emotion thing. If I went up to someone and said, "What do you think about drug dealers?" They would generally say something to the extent that they are dirty, evil people. If I then asked them, "What do you think of casino operators/tobacco executives/McDonalds executives/etc.?" they would still think it was bad...but not nearly as bad. Why? They are virtually all the same. It's just because of society's effects on emotion. Society makes flawed logic almost instinctual.

Likewise...if I raked a poker game or ran a numbers racket I would be bad. But if the government runs a lotto it's ok.

 

[Domino]

A question of localized flexible ethics?

 

[miss fortune]

some of us feel like sticking it to The Man while a man is sticking it to us!

really- on my part it's all rebellion against the oppressive atmosphere of my hometown

 

[Magic Poriferan]

some of us feel like sticking it to The Man while a man is sticking it to us!

really- on my part it's all rebellion against the oppressive atmosphere of my hometown

But what I often wonder is what the worth is of "sticking it to the man" when the means by which you do it can be self-destructive(as it often seems to be for rebellious people), even more-so than anything the system imposed on you.

Rebellious drug use comes to mind.
Some rebellion. Why do the authorities need to be scared? Are they going to be shaking in their boots when the health-care system gets a dent?
I tend to think a rebellion needs an aim, too. Rebelling for the sake of rebelling is ridiculous. Nothing good would actually come of a rebellion that is based entirely around unplanned wrecked.
It's all non-sensical. Very immature.

Through my whole teenage life I have had little respect for my peers.
Did you know that all of the top causes of death amongst teenagers are unnatural, often self-induced?
They have no talent for cost-analysis.

 

[miss fortune]

I don't take stupid risks! I just occasionally feel like rebelling for the sake of it because it makes me feel less bored with my life!

 

[swordpath]

Things that should be considered bad are acts that disregard another and harm them, be it physically or emotionally. It shouldn't be confusing to label such a thing as bad.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I'm apparently one of the least bored people in the country.

 

[miss fortune]

I'm a college student who works in retail- I'm very very bored with my life at the moment!

 

[Metamorphosis]

I'm a college student who works in retail- I'm very very bored with my life at the moment!

I've got you beat. I'm a college student who's unemployed.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I've got you beat. I'm a college student who's unemployed.

That would actually be me, as well.

 

[OctaviaCaesar]

If nothing were labelled as "wrong" or "bad" then there would be no such thing as guilt. There are many schools of thought on this, ranging from "guilt is a social regulating mechanism" and "guilt is inborn with a sense of morality proving the existence of god."

 

[Magic Poriferan]

If nothing were labelled as "wrong" or "bad" then there would be no such thing as guilt. There are many schools of thought on this, ranging from "guilt is a social regulating mechanism" and "guilt is inborn with a sense of morality proving the existence of god."

I'm not sure where you are going with that.
For the record, I absolutely believe there should be a definition of right and wrong, and such a thing as guilt and shame.
I do personally believe many of the standards of guilt develop intuitively out of the human mind, though I think this proves nothing of God's existence.
These are not separate factors. It is an inborn quality that evolutionarily developed because of it's affectivity as a social regulator.

What I'm talking about is the fact that people confuse their own definitions of right and wrong.

 

[nightning]

Don't do things you consider bad!
That being said, don't consider something bad just because another circle does!

I for one do not believe in absolute right or wrong. There are only rights and wrongs by convention... and morality.

I'm not sure where you are going with that.
For the record, I absolutely believe there should be a definition of right and wrong, and such a thing as guilt and shame.
I do personally believe many of the standards of guilt develop intuitively out of the human mind, though I think this proves nothing of God's existence.
These are not separate factors. It is an inborn quality that evolutionarily developed because of it's affectivity as a social regulator.

What I'm talking about is the fact that people confuse their own definitions of right and wrong.

I don't think people can fully define what right and wrong meant to them exactly... No more than the hand waving arguments of "this feels right/wrong to me" or "this is right/wrong by convention". It seems like there's always exception to the rules.

Ethics are taught to us by our parents, teachers what not. They seem like very reasonable things to me. Yet how much of that line of thinking is due to logical deduction and how much due to sheer conditioning? My line of thinking might upset some people... but we could very well just be accepting them based on nothing more than social conditioning, and we fabricate reasons... however logically to support our beliefs.

I seem to be wandering off on a tangent. But anyways, my point is that if our concept of right and wrong is nothing more than conventions that we were taught to believe in... then what makes something TRULY good or bad? We cannot ever look at the situation from a strictly objective point of view without bias. Even the words "good" and "bad" themselves are biased... if they're subjective... then there cannot be absolute rights and wrongs. And from the objective stand point, good and bad, being relatives, cannot be mutually exclusive. A relative bad can be relatively more right than a relative good etc etc...

I'm giving myself a headache... why am I doing this? I'm not really into philosophy...

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I for one do not believe in absolute right or wrong. There are only rights and wrongs by convention... and morality.


I don't think people can fully define what right and wrong meant to them exactly... No more than the hand waving arguments of "this feels right/wrong to me" or "this is right/wrong by convention". It seems like there's always exception to the rules.

Ethics are taught to us by our parents, teachers what not. They seem like very reasonable things to me. Yet how much of that line of thinking is due to logical deduction and how much due to sheer conditioning? My line of thinking might upset some people... but we could very well just be accepting them based on nothing more than social conditioning, and we fabricate reasons... however logically to support our beliefs.

I seem to be wandering off on a tangent. But anyways, my point is that if our concept of right and wrong is nothing more than conventions that we were taught to believe in... then what makes something TRULY good or bad? We cannot ever look at the situation from a strictly objective point of view without bias. Even the words "good" and "bad" themselves are biased... if they're subjective... then there cannot be absolute rights and wrongs. And from the objective stand point, good and bad, being relatives, cannot be mutually exclusive. A relative bad can be relatively more right than a relative good etc etc...

I'd just like to say that I don't believe all right and wrong is a social construct. I don't believe that's possible.
There has to be an inherent basis for this concept.
Guilt, shame, indignation and many of the other things related to right and wrong are genetic, biological, neurological things.
Not only are those feelings inherent(excluding mutants like psychopaths) but it does seem to me that there is a general pattern of what is considered wrong. It would only make sense for a social species to develop such a function.

That being said... Are you a Five or a Four, nightning?

 

[nightning]

I'd just like to say that I don't believe all right and wrong is a social construct. I don't believe that's possible.
There has to be an inherent basis for this concept.
Guilt, shame, indignation and many of the other things related to right and wrong are genetic, biological, neurological things.
Not only are those feelings inherent(excluding mutants like psychopaths) but it does seem to me that there is a general pattern of what is considered wrong. It would only make sense for a social species to develop such a function.

Genetics... oh that's another can of worms. Yes I agree with you that guilt, shame and the like have biological relevance and are hardwired in our systems. Evolutionary speaking, we have them because they helped our specie survive. Some social psychologists/anthropologists whatever thinks there is such a thing as social evolution as well. And that evolution of our culture is very rapidly outpacing/ has already completely overtaken the genetic basis of natural selection.

Obviously things like guilt and shame had and still continue to have their roles in our well being. However, there are numerous cases where guilt and shame are maladaptive. The rights and wrongs in our society has changed far too rapidly. I agree that things like incest and kin killing are usually morally wrong and have biological relevence... and cooperation, helping is typically seen as a virtue. But the bottom line is these things are right and wrong because of what they can promote not just because they're inherently good or bad. Helping behavior boost group/gene survival... If the group is to survive, then that notion has to be fostered. So keeping that type of thinking in the back of my mind... I can't see a case where something is good just because it inherently is... there's always a hidden motive behind it!

That being said... Are you a Five or a Four, nightning?

Ummmm I'm not sure what my ennaegram type might be... I think I'm a 4w5? But it changes too darn much. Maybe you can help me figure it out sometimes...

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Genetics... oh that's another can of worms. Yes I agree with you that guilt, shame and the like have biological relevance and are hardwired in our systems. Evolutionary speaking, we have them because they helped our specie survive. Some social psychologists/anthropologists whatever thinks there is such a thing as social evolution as well. And that evolution of our culture is very rapidly outpacing/ has already completely overtaken the genetic basis of natural selection.

Obviously things like guilt and shame had and still continue to have their roles in our well being. However, there are numerous cases where guilt and shame are maladaptive. The rights and wrongs in our society has changed far too rapidly. I agree that things like incest and kin killing are usually morally wrong and have biological relevence... and cooperation, helping is typically seen as a virtue. But the bottom line is these things are right and wrong because of what they can promote not just because they're inherently good or bad. Helping behavior boost group/gene survival... If the group is to survive, then that notion has to be fostered. So keeping that type of thinking in the back of my mind... I can't see a case where something is good just because it inherently is... there's always a hidden motive behind it!

Well, of course. I don't know what to say. I just don't see how these are two different concepts. That is the most simplistic basis of right and wrong.

Ummmm I'm not sure what my ennaegram type might be... I think I'm a 4w5? But it changes too darn much. Maybe you can help me figure it out sometimes...

That's what I do!

 

[nightning]

Well, of course. I don't know what to say. I just don't see how these are two different concepts. That is the most simplistic basis of right and wrong.

What two different concepts were you referring to?

But should good not be just that? "good"? It's like altruism is good. Why do we say that? Altruism is help of others regardless of self. Yet there's always a selfish basis for altruism, unconscious or not. Is how do you define good then? I'm going around in a circle. *grumbles*

What is the objective sense of being good? I don't think it exists. Good is always relative... good from this perspective, not always so for all perspectives. So good and bad is only exclusive under one particular POV. I'm not happy with the statement because it's not true under all cases.