The_Liquid_Laser
Glowy Goopy Goodness
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 3,376
- MBTI Type
- ENTP
Everyone is a bad person. No one is morally superior to anyone else.
...but what about someone who consistently shows callous disregard to others, misanthropic, is morally destitute, but holds these attitudes to themselves so there isn't anything concrete to pin the bad person label?
Should the quality of being a bad person only be applied to someone who would clinically fall into that category, i.e. a sociopath?
Everyone is a bad person. No one is morally superior to anyone else.
people who do things knowingly that would hurt others all the time and don't care a bit about it...i think they're called sociopaths, right?
In many cases this is correct. But there are cases that someone will have to manipulate the situation so that both of them will have use of it on the long run. People in some cases don't really think things through or they can't reject things that matter to them but they should.
So, sometimes you have to hurt people to help them. Sometimes this means hurting them over longer periods of time.
And technically speaking, surgery is assault with a deadly weapon.
Think about it. To be a surgeon, you have to be okay with cutting up human bodies.
There's no hope for people with such bleeding hearts, they are part of the reason evil flourishes.
Yes, lack of empathy, when desire for power takes the place of desire for love, that's what I would say makes the difference. The little Hitlers of the world, estimated as 1 in 30. Socialized psychopaths are the more intelligent ones who learn how to work within the law to get their power kicks, they hurt people throughout their lives and get away with it. And there's always, always, always people ready to defend them, give them "second chance" because so many people cannot handle the concept of evil in others.
Then there's also corrupt judgment and people who don't balance their T-F use. To veer too far in either direction T or F I think leaves a person lopsided in their judgment and open to create havoc for others.
Sure.
And the butcher, the surgeon and the barber all belonged to the same medieval Guild.
And they all belonged to the same Guild because it was only this Guild that could give members permission to cut.
And often enough the butcher, the surgeon and the barber were the same person.
--that's why bad men are bad. They are akin in character and effect to overzealous hairdressers. Something inside them has them disregarding the wishes of the people around them...
You never felt entitled to (do) anything in this life?
I'm not more entitled than anyone else.
If I stab you don't you feel entitled to fight back in some form? If you work like hell everyday and there's this colleague of yours that is the epitome of laziness and bumness and one of you is going to get promoted, don't you feel you deserve to be the one getting the promotion (let's assume the promotion is supposed to be rewarding hard work)?
I'm not talking about making a big deal out of it or being bitchy about it. I'm talking about what goes on inside your head.
If there's no such thing as moral superiority why should criminals be thrown to jail?
Now you are talking about behavior rather than strictly making a moral judgement about someone. I deal with bad behavior by whatever method I think would correct or counter that behavior. If you are attacking me, then I run or fight or call the cops (or some combination of the three). If some lazy person is competing for a promotion, then I am sure to sell my best points to employer in order to get the promotion myself.
It doesn't matter if the other person is good or bad. If a "good" person is behaving badly then I treat them like a "bad" person in that situation. And likewise if a "bad" person is doing right, then I treat them like a "good" person in that situation. However I can't claim anyone is morally superior in an overall sense. Everyone has done bad things, so everyone is a bad. Therefore no one is morally superior.
Criminals are not put in jail because they are morally inferior. They are put in jail because they broke the law and got caught.
Moral judgements are made based on present and past behavior. I mean, morality is about "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or or good and bad behavior."
There is such a thing as reputation. Of course everyone does good and bad things. But there's quite a distinction between Hitler and Gandhi, wouldn't you agree? You said "Everyone is a bad person. No one is morally superior to anyone else.". Morality pertains to a specific behavior or a series of behaviors. A bad person is someone with a reprovable behavioral history.
I consider myself morally superior to Hitler, for instances. In any given situation, if I react in morally appropriate fashion (and I'm talking common sense here) and this other person reacts in a morally reprovable fashion, I'm morally superior as it pertains to that particular event. It's all relative to the scope, but the concept is still there.
Criminals are sent to jail because the law is morally superior to that person as far as that particular incident is concerned. The law doesn't condone that particular kind of behavior so that's why the guy goes to jail. The law dictates it's own moral standards and anyone who violates them is punished. The law is impersonal so it's the epitome of moral superiority. It's the whole of our society's moral standards.
Everyone has done bad things. That is why everyone is a bad person.
Reputation is meaningless. A bad reputation can simply mean that person got on the bad side of some compulsive gossiper. History is meaningless in judging morality too, because History is written by the victors. History is not written by those who took the moral course of action.
I'll admit that what we know about Hitler is immoral, while what we know about Gandhi is admirable. However what we know about each of them is pretty limited in comparison to the whole of a person. Ultimately I consider them to be morally equal. Both have done bad things, and therefore both are bad people.
I agree that you can say this to a specific event, but I wouldn't ever say anyone is morally superior overall.
This is where it comes down to differences in our individual morality. I personally don't consider the law to be a good moral standard. For example adultery is not illegal while tax evasion is. However I consider adultery immoral, while I don't consider tax evasion to be immoral. (It's foolish, but it's not immoral.) In fact some people might even avoid paying their taxes, because they are protesting immorality from the government such as a war. To them tax evasion is moral, yet it is clearly illegal.
There are plenty of other examples like this such as a reporter going to jail for protecting his sources. Overall I consider the law mostly to be a way of maintaining civil order, but I don't consider it to be a particularly good standard for morality.