Zarathustra
Let Go Of Your Team
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 8,110
I could argue that I'm right here:
good------------reasonable------------evil
What, in your opinion, is the difference between being reasonable, and being good?
How bout evil?
I could argue that I'm right here:
good------------reasonable------------evil
So you're not a bad person, nor are you necessarily a good person?
You're a neutral person.
If so, it seems like the system kinda cuts to the core of things...
What if what makes someone happy is evil?
Do you support them doing it because it makes them happy?
what does it even mean to be a good person, though?
That depends on the situation.
Tyrinth said:I think people should do what makes them happy, I don't care if someone calls it good or evil.
For instance, there are quite a few people that consider stem cell research "evil" or at the very least "wrong". However people pursue such research because it can save people, and one would hope that they save people because it makes them happy, and not for the money... So they are commiting an "evil" to make themselves (and others) happy, and I fully support them in that instance. This is one situation where I think the subjective nature of good and evil comes into play. Some will consider it good others won't. So basically, it depends on the situation... So really, I can't answer your question, because it would have to be asked for each specific instance that you could ever think of. There is no one answer.
For example, do you believe that whether or not rape is moral or immoral is entirely subjective?
How about genocide? Or child abuse?
I always score Chaotic good or Chaotic neutral. I think apart of me wants to be Chaotic neutral and I relate to it in a way because I consider myself to be a highly independent person; but no matter what I can't really escape from the fact that I have basically good intentions and have others' well being in mind with everything that I do, and that I really can't live solely for myself no matter how much I try.
Neutral Good.
I think laws and order are generally helpful and usually for the greater good, but my ethical sense will win out over law every time - I think ethics are more fuzzy/complicated and more important than laws can account for (and laws are made to promote good, not vice versa). As for good over evil (in the alignment sense), I believe that true "good" inherently helps everyone, so it makes no sense in my internal logic to be evil or even neutral - being "good" helps me as much as it helps others (plus I have always felt the compulsion to help others).
I think it's a pretty good description, but I feel that the good-evil labels are likely to throw people off - probably there are a lot of "evils" running around identifying as neutral because they don't want to be evil. Or is a true evil person less likely to care? Probably, but I still bet there's bias because of it.
I think it's a relevant system, but moreso in terms of human interactions, instead of intrapersonal development, which MBTI and the Enneagram are better for.
As for dating, that's funny. I suppose realistically I can only see dating someone in the Neutral-to-Good and Neutral-to-Lawful range. I feel like dating a Chaotic would be a pain in the behind (sorry to any Chaotics, I'm just enough of a mess already), and dating an Evil would cause endless pain on my part, since I'd always be looking out for them and they wouldn't be always looking out for me. Right now I'm dating a (suspected) Lawful Good, which seems to work well for me. He could be a little less of either and I'd probably be fine too, though.
So you've pedaled back a little bit, haven't you?
To the people who consider themselves "neutral", as opposed to good, do you consider yourself a good person?
If so, where's the disconnect?
Imo, the quality expressed by BlackCat @the bolded is a pretty good place to start pointing to when trying to determine what it means to be a good person. It could be fleshed out a bit more, but what he expressed here is pretty much what I already had in mind.
By being neutral, we are able to recognize that sometimes evil is more reasonable than good.What, in your opinion, is the difference between being reasonable, and being good?
How bout evil?
By being neutral, we are able to recognize that sometimes evil is more reasonable than good.
Imagine a boy that gets sexually abused by his father every single day for years. Then, one day, the child grabs a knife and stabs his father to death while he was sleeping. Plus, stabs him so much that the funeral is pretty much ruined. Was his action ''good''? Nah, it was pretty evil. Still, reasonable.
There's also the classic criminal law example of a shipwreck scenario, on which there is only a float for 2 people. On this scenario, the reasonable course of action is to fight for your life no matter what. I'd call that evil. Yet, once again, reasonable. And the criminal law recognizes that (it's not a crime
There's torture, which can't be called good, but can still be a reasonable option, depending on the criminal and the objective of the torture.
Yes I consider myself a good person and I've always wanted to be helpful or loving, but there are things about my nature which I know directly oppose good, such as the way I believe in tough love, and the way I feel that some people deserve to be spoken to harshly, and how I know sometimes my moods are entirely selfish. So depending on the moment I could choose a Chaotic Good alignment, but other times I will seem more Chaotic Neutral.
I remember JTG told me once that I seemed more like Chaotic Good and that he was Lawful Neutral. I think he saw himself as neutral, because again, CLEARLY, his behavior can obviously not always be described as "good" or cooperative or serving any benevolent purpose except his own amusement or selfish feelings of vengeance. On the other hand, he's highly lawful, and one of the things about that he hated about this forum is that he thought the rules were too subjective, and he actually has some pretty damn rigid morals, or a sense of what is "correct." However, it is his personal code, just as the Lawful Neutral describes, not always the existing greater "law."
I think this is an explanation of a neutral alignment for two people with very clear Fi, one being an FP and the other a TJ.
I believe that neutral people can choose to be good, and can be inherently good sensitive caring people, even, but be highly aware of their own selfishness and capriciousness.
I would say that only 1/3 things tends to deserve to go under "not good", and, even then, so long as your selfish moods aren't harming other people, they're not necessarily "not good" (in some cases, they very well could be, though).
This all makes sense.
Lawful Neutral is really weird to me, but something about your explanation makes sense.
Still weird, but I guess I can see that real people like that do exist.
I believe this starts getting to the crux of the issue: while perhaps some good people think they are good because the simply don't recognize their selfishness and/or capriciousness, I don't really feel that way about most of the people who chose have chosen "good" thus far. That's not to say that those people wouldn't exist, cuz they certainly do (I'm especially thinking of church-going hypocrites, here).
But I think a lot of times there is a difference between people that, in addition to recognizing their selfishness and/or capriciousness, basically comes down to caring about being moral vs not caring about being moral. Their almost seems to be an inherent caring-about-morality that seems to differ in strength between people. I think people who accurately judge themselves as good tend to have more of this particular quality.