Something to ponder.
A relative of mine once asked me "Are we good people capable of doing bad or bad people capable of doing good?" I didn't really have an answer at the time and thought about it a lot. I want to know what the members of stoptazmo think.
The concepts of bad and good are relative. I'd rather think about that than wrack my brain over a question that will most likely have answers varying based on how pessimistic or optimistic the person answering the question is.
^Jesus Christ would say the former, whereas Thomas Hobbes would say the latter.
I believe we all have the potential for good. Everyone. But we still tend towards bad, or selfish things... so our tendancy might be bad some or most times, but our potential, who we can be, is good.
I guess I try to think of everyone in terms of who they can be, because I'd rather be judged on what I want to be than who I am, because I make mistakes.
I guess that makes me a pessimist who wants to be optimistic? Or possibly just totally out of touch with reality.
IMO it's the first. I mean, it takes a certain courage to do something bad right? For example, it's not easy to actually kill somebody (even though we don't know them), heck it might not be easy killing a, say, cute cat.
Well, that's just how my logic goes. But then again, it might also be that we're more worried about the consequences of doing bad things than doing bad things itself.
You aren't born good or bad, you're born innocent. It's up to you whether you become a good or bad person. Even then, there's no simple black and white division between good and bad. Good people can do bad things for good reasons, and vice-versa.
I always thought that everybody has this type of instinct inside them. What makes some people better than others is how they control them selves.
Or maybe that's just what your instinct is, and you assume everyone has it because there's no way to know how another person really thinks? I know people who are too nice for their own good, and it's not because they're afraid of doing something bad, it's because they don't want to or don't feel a need to.
Instincts don't have to be bad all the time. You can like train them, i think. For example, you see a homeless guy, you can give him food, money etc.
example 2; You have to study, then you want to go on the computer to read some manga...you try to resist yourself but you can't...(I'm really weak willed)
Good and Bad are defined differently for different people, so it's rather hard to come up with an answer everyone can agree on. for instance, i myself believe that "good actions" are actions with the intent of contributing positively, and that "bad actions" are actions with the intent of contributing negatively (which, if i recall correctly, is utilitarian, but with the key concept of intent mixed in).
i can understand how others can base their moral system off other things (like, emotions govern what's right and wrong, or the Bible governs what's right and wrong), but i can't agree with them - it doesn't sit well with me.
anyway, given that humans are a mix of good and bad, of course a generally good person can do bad things and a generally bad person can do good things. there will be exceptions though - in rare cases, some people are destructive without feeling any remorse whatsoever. in those cases, it isn't possible for a person to do good things.
this topic reminds me of this quote:
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
-- Steven Weinberg
relative in what sense though ? if you say they're relative, you must still believe that there's some principle dividing what's right and wrong (like, fast and slow are relative, but everyone knows the difference between fast and slow).
Last edited by echoblaze; 12-03-2007 at 04:04 AM.