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

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Edahn, as thorough as he was, neglected to mention Master P and P. Diddy.

 

[heart]

I am INFP and I have no problem with believing that some people KNOW better about good and evil but do evil anyway. I don't know that I believe people are good OR evil at the core, but we all make decisions about how we use what we are and what we have been blessed or cursed with in this material world. Every day is its own new slate to some degree.

My INFJ husband always says "Nobody wants to do evil, people who do evil are always sick or misguided."

I am not so sure.

We are all dual beings as far as good and evil goes, we all have the capacity within us to do good or evil. It is our choices that decide how we express that which is in our being.

 

[6sticks]

People do what they want. Some of them call it good or evil.

 

[heart]

Sure, sure...Tomás de Torquemada was just a wild and crazy dude blowing off some of his steam for kicks. Some of us might want to label it "evil" but who are we to dare judge?

 

[6sticks]

Sure, sure...Tomás de Torquemada was just a wild and crazy dude blowing off some of his steam for kicks. Some of us might want to label it "evil" but who are we to dare judge?

I believe he did quite a bit of judging himself.

 

[heart]

I believe he did quite a bit of judging himself.

And?

What bearing does the fact that he used his judging functions to justify his acts have on whether or not those acts could be labeled good or evil?

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Sure, sure...Tomas de Torquemada was just a wild and crazy dude blowing off some of his steam for kicks. Some of us might want to label it "evil" but who are we to dare judge?

I don't think they're saying that morality is relativist and no one really does any evil. I think the point was that rarely does anyone consciously do something that he believes to be evil. Torquemada thought he was guiding people toward God and that his actions were justified. Hitler thought he knew better and that his policies would lead to a stronger Germany. It's not that these people didn't do evil, it's that they thought they were doing the right thing. They were just wrong. I'm no psychologist, but I would wager that only people with serious mental maladies consciously do acts that they know are evil and without redeeming value.

 

[heart]

I I'm no psychologist, but I would wager that only people with serious mental maladies consciously do acts that they know are evil and without redeeming value.

I am not so sure. It would take a closer look at the people around a Hitler to know for sure. Hitler was just a spokesman and a puppet. He had to have a support team behind him to enact his reign of terror. That's something often overlooked in the subject. Hitler was an idealist, but not all around him were. I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe that there are some people who engage in evil in a cold and uncaring way. The true psychopaths. From what I have read about them, they are not considered "sick" just able to act without conscience and fully aware of their actions they just don't care.

 

[6sticks]

I'm no moral relativist, I just find it ironic how you can label someone whose job was essentially to seek out "evil" as evil. Not that I disagree. But what makes you right and him wrong? It's all a matter of opinion. Which is why I consider these discussions to be pointless.

 

[Night]

"Good" and "bad" are subjective values that correspond to nuances within environmental context.

As such, either pattern probably indicates a pattern of choice: one is "good" or "bad" consequent to the lifestyle they pursue within the culture they reside and the events that led up to the act/series of actions.



To your immediate question, the individual is an extension of his world. Biochemistry cooperates with external stimuli to create identity. "Good" and "bad" are thus clarifications within the moral rhythms of one's environment and are flexible entities.

 

[heart]

I'm no moral relativist, I just find it ironic how you can label someone whose job was essentially to seek out "evil" as evil. Not that I disagree. But what makes you right and him wrong? It's all a matter of opinion. Which is why I consider these discussions to be pointless.

Truth is what makes the difference. It is not all a matter of opinion. I have no problem with irony. Life is full of irony. Being unable to see through irony makes this statement so true:


"We would rather forgive the evil proliferating all around us than the rebellion against it, which we mistake for the true evil" - Arno Gruen (Betrayal of the Self)

Evil most often clothes itself in light and hides there, taking over that which was good to begin with.

The problem in this world is when people give up because seeking truth is hard. It is easier to just shrug and let evil proliferate while we continue playing.

 

[Wandering]

I don't believe people are born equally aware of Good and Evil.

I don't believe people are raised to be equally aware of Good and Evil.

I don't believe people agree on what Good and Evil are.

I don't believe people agree on the respective value and usefulness of Good and Evil.

In short: I can't find a single common position to judge people from. So I can't vote :rolli:

 

[6sticks]

Truth is what makes the difference.

So it's true that Torquemada was evil? How do you know that?

 

[heart]

So it's true that Torquemada was evil? How do you know that?

I didn't say he was evil.


We can only really judge acts.

 

[Ezra]

I'm an NT and I voted for the first choice. However, I find the idea of good and evil in any context quite dubious. As I've said before, I'm amoral. I also always find a rational argument for why people like Hitler are not evil. So, when I voted, it was in context. I think that from a pragmatic, worldly standpoint, people are fundamentally 'good' or they 'mean well', but often do bad things. I also think individuals are easily changeable in this respect; I think they can become more self-serving, and while they'll still maintain a certain empathy with humans, wildlife, the environment etc., this will be buried deep down, and often won't affect their actions. They'll unsuccessfully attempt to justify everything they do in good terms, and will continue to do it anyway. To illustrate, take an industrial tycoon. The more money and power they gain, the more self-serving and greedy they become. Where there might once have been principles there is now nothing. A second kind of business magnate might be one who starts off with no principles, and makes their way up through deceit and manipulation. Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood is a good example of this in my opinion.