Are people basically good?

[ricechickie]

Tell me an example.

I have a fee standards that I try to uphold, even when I’m angry. Anything else, someone would need ro tell me that it’s crossing their line. And I’d listen.

I think you rationalize that you are doing right when you are doing wrong because you believe they deserved it.

All I am suggesting is that instead of rationalizing it, to just acknowledge it.

I’m not going to comb through the records to show you past examples. We all do it. Some to a lesser degree others to a greater degree.

So no concrete example, just an overall impression.

I’ll be sure to take that under advisement, but I assure you, all my life, I’ve always been my harshest critic. If I think I’m ok, at this age and stage of my life, then I’m ok.

But don’t worry, I’m always reassessing.

There have been plenty of examples. I’m just not going to waste my time to dig them up. I have a feeling you would argue you didn’t violate anything. That does seem to be human nature.

I never said or thought you are a bad person.

Pardon me for funnying this, but if you can’t easily find examples, then they’re probably few and far between.

Then ignore it.

Why? You put it out there.

 

[Votto]

I strive to do good every day of my life.

My parents raised me with the knowledge that I’m a good person worthy of their love, and God’s love, and imbued with that knowledge, along with corrections when necessary, I loved myself. And I continued to hold myself to high standards to do the right thing, because I have confidence that that is the person I am meant to be.

Why would a Christian want to make me feel otherwise?

Have you ever wronged someone?

Yes. And I’m terribly sorry for it.

Would you say that you are a good person?

 

[ding]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

Evil, like cold and darkness are not extant. They do not exist by themselves, they exist as the absence of something else. Darkness is the absence of light. Cold is the absence of heat. And evil is the absence of good. So to answer your question, man is good as evil is not extant.

Evil is a lot more active than just the "absence of good." It is actions abhorrent to society. However, different societies find different things "abhorrent." For that reason, I find it hard to believe the Platonic theory that Good (and its flip side evil) is an immutable force in the universe. Humans determine the rules, and they determine what is good and what is evil.

What I have been trying to explain is that standards exist independent of man. In other words, man cannot pick just any standard and get the same results. Ergo standards exist independent of what man wants them to be.

Humans make the standards.

Do you think the cuckoo feels bad for emptying out an occupied nest and laying their own eggs in it? Do you think the strong, young lion feels guilty for chasing the old, weaker lion away from his pride? Do you think sharks feel bad for eating the seal lion pups?

No, humans are social animals with big brains and as such invented this concept called “morality” and think they solve all possible problems if everyone just follows the rules. But the problem with our big brains is that we think we can improve upon others’ ideas. And often we can. However, it means that very few of us will agree on everything, including morality. So, in the absence of that, humans at least have empathy....

Animals operate on instinct an impulse. Humans do too but we have the unique ability to override our instincts and impulses for the sake of good of others. So yes, animals have no concept of right and wrong.

The question is can we make our standards be anything we want and still get the same results. The answer to that question is no. So there is something about the standard which is independent of man.

 

[ricechickie]

I strive to do good every day of my life.

My parents raised me with the knowledge that I’m a good person worthy of their love, and God’s love, and imbued with that knowledge, along with corrections when necessary, I loved myself. And I continued to hold myself to high standards to do the right thing, because I have confidence that that is the person I am meant to be.

Why would a Christian want to make me feel otherwise?

Have you ever wronged someone?

Yes. And I’m terribly sorry for it.

Would you say that you are a good person?

Yes.

 

[ding]

No offense and I do not wish to cause you pain but I think you pay lip service to what you just wrote.

Tell me an example.

I have a few standards that I try to uphold, even when I’m angry. Anything else, someone would need ro tell me that it’s crossing their line. And I’d listen.

I’d like to come back to your standards. If standards are not universal then how can you blame someone for violating your standards?

I don’t. I blame them for not acknowledging (apologizing) when they’ve hurt someone. Maybe they didn’t know the pain they caused.

We all violate someone’s standards at some time, I believe usually out of ignorance. But once you’re made aware of it, if a sincere attempt to make amends isn’t made, then chances are you’re a callous person.

It’s called empathy.

What you have just described is that you believe in a universal standard of empathy. That others should know and adhere to, right?

NO.

Others should listen when someone expresses that they are hurt by someone else’s actions, and try to make amends. It’s not automatic knowledge; it must be learned.

Now, once a person hears, “Don’t call me stupid” (for example) enough times, generalization should kick in, and they should start to think that calling people stupid is generally hurtful to others.

Not in the Flame Zone, of course.

Why should they listen? Why should they be empathetic? You are literally making shall statements. Shall statements imply a law or a rule. If there is no common standard of conduct that is universally or generally understood, then you have no justification to get upset when someone violates it.

 

[ding]

I strive to do good every day of my life.

My parents raised me with the knowledge that I’m a good person worthy of their love, and God’s love, and imbued with that knowledge, along with corrections when necessary, I loved myself. And I continued to hold myself to high standards to do the right thing, because I have confidence that that is the person I am meant to be.

Why would a Christian want to make me feel otherwise?

Have you ever wronged someone?

Yes. And I’m terribly sorry for it.

Would you say that you are a good person?

I'm not.

 

[ricechickie]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

Evil, like cold and darkness are not extant. They do not exist by themselves, they exist as the absence of something else. Darkness is the absence of light. Cold is the absence of heat. And evil is the absence of good. So to answer your question, man is good as evil is not extant.

Evil is a lot more active than just the "absence of good." It is actions abhorrent to society. However, different societies find different things "abhorrent." For that reason, I find it hard to believe the Platonic theory that Good (and its flip side evil) is an immutable force in the universe. Humans determine the rules, and they determine what is good and what is evil.

What I have been trying to explain is that standards exist independent of man. In other words, man cannot pick just any standard and get the same results. Ergo standards exist independent of what man wants them to be.

Humans make the standards.

Do you think the cuckoo feels bad for emptying out an occupied nest and laying their own eggs in it? Do you think the strong, young lion feels guilty for chasing the old, weaker lion away from his pride? Do you think sharks feel bad for eating the seal lion pups?

No, humans are social animals with big brains and as such invented this concept called “morality” and think they solve all possible problems if everyone just follows the rules. But the problem with our big brains is that we think we can improve upon others’ ideas. And often we can. However, it means that very few of us will agree on everything, including morality. So, in the absence of that, humans at least have empathy....

Animals operate on instinct an impulse. Humans do too but we have the unique ability to override our instincts and impulses for the sake of good of others. So yes, animals have no concept of right and wrong.

The question is can we make our standards be anything we want and still get the same results. The answer to that question is no. So there is something about the standard which is independent of man.

But we’ve already established that there’s more than one way to be successful. Why is there, then, only one kind of successful behavior?

Yeah, different behaviors get different results. So it depends upon what your goal is.

We don’t all want the same things.

 

[Wry Catcher]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

Some are good, some are evil. Good people employ the Golden Rule. Evil people do not.

 

[ding]

I think you rationalize that you are doing right when you are doing wrong because you believe they deserved it.

All I am suggesting is that instead of rationalizing it, to just acknowledge it.

I’m not going to comb through the records to show you past examples. We all do it. Some to a lesser degree others to a greater degree.

So no concrete example, just an overall impression.

I’ll be sure to take that under advisement, but I assure you, all my life, I’ve always been my harshest critic. If I think I’m ok, at this age and stage of my life, then I’m ok.

But don’t worry, I’m always reassessing.

There have been plenty of examples. I’m just not going to waste my time to dig them up. I have a feeling you would argue you didn’t violate anything. That does seem to be human nature.

I never said or thought you are a bad person.

Pardon me for funnying this, but if you can’t easily find examples, then they’re probably few and far between.

Then ignore it.

Why? You put it out there.

Because there was an off chance that you wouldn't. I'm not going to argue with you about it.

 

[ding]

Evil, like cold and darkness are not extant. They do not exist by themselves, they exist as the absence of something else. Darkness is the absence of light. Cold is the absence of heat. And evil is the absence of good. So to answer your question, man is good as evil is not extant.

Evil is a lot more active than just the "absence of good." It is actions abhorrent to society. However, different societies find different things "abhorrent." For that reason, I find it hard to believe the Platonic theory that Good (and its flip side evil) is an immutable force in the universe. Humans determine the rules, and they determine what is good and what is evil.

What I have been trying to explain is that standards exist independent of man. In other words, man cannot pick just any standard and get the same results. Ergo standards exist independent of what man wants them to be.

Humans make the standards.

Do you think the cuckoo feels bad for emptying out an occupied nest and laying their own eggs in it? Do you think the strong, young lion feels guilty for chasing the old, weaker lion away from his pride? Do you think sharks feel bad for eating the seal lion pups?

No, humans are social animals with big brains and as such invented this concept called “morality” and think they solve all possible problems if everyone just follows the rules. But the problem with our big brains is that we think we can improve upon others’ ideas. And often we can. However, it means that very few of us will agree on everything, including morality. So, in the absence of that, humans at least have empathy....

Animals operate on instinct an impulse. Humans do too but we have the unique ability to override our instincts and impulses for the sake of good of others. So yes, animals have no concept of right and wrong.

The question is can we make our standards be anything we want and still get the same results. The answer to that question is no. So there is something about the standard which is independent of man.

But we’ve already established that there’s more than one way to be successful. Why is there, then, only one kind of successful behavior?

Yeah, different behaviors get different results. So it depends upon what your goal is.

We don’t all want the same things.

So then you believe a society that prized dishonesty, thanklessness, cruelty, selfishness, cowardice and any other failed behavior you can think of would get the same or better results than a society that behaved the opposite way?

 

[ricechickie]

Tell me an example.

I have a few standards that I try to uphold, even when I’m angry. Anything else, someone would need ro tell me that it’s crossing their line. And I’d listen.

I’d like to come back to your standards. If standards are not universal then how can you blame someone for violating your standards?

I don’t. I blame them for not acknowledging (apologizing) when they’ve hurt someone. Maybe they didn’t know the pain they caused.

We all violate someone’s standards at some time, I believe usually out of ignorance. But once you’re made aware of it, if a sincere attempt to make amends isn’t made, then chances are you’re a callous person.

It’s called empathy.

What you have just described is that you believe in a universal standard of empathy. That others should know and adhere to, right?

NO.

Others should listen when someone expresses that they are hurt by someone else’s actions, and try to make amends. It’s not automatic knowledge; it must be learned.

Now, once a person hears, “Don’t call me stupid” (for example) enough times, generalization should kick in, and they should start to think that calling people stupid is generally hurtful to others.

Not in the Flame Zone, of course.

Why should they listen? Why should they be empathetic? You are literally making shall statements. Shall statements imply a law or a rule. If there is no common standard of conduct that is universally or generally understood, then you have no justification to get upset when someone violates it.

You’re right. But instead of a universal “shall,” it’s a transactional thing between individuals.

“Hey, if you stop calling me a pedophile, I’ll stop STFUing every one of your posts”

For example.

 

[ding]

I’d like to come back to your standards. If standards are not universal then how can you blame someone for violating your standards?

I don’t. I blame them for not acknowledging (apologizing) when they’ve hurt someone. Maybe they didn’t know the pain they caused.

We all violate someone’s standards at some time, I believe usually out of ignorance. But once you’re made aware of it, if a sincere attempt to make amends isn’t made, then chances are you’re a callous person.

It’s called empathy.

What you have just described is that you believe in a universal standard of empathy. That others should know and adhere to, right?

NO.

Others should listen when someone expresses that they are hurt by someone else’s actions, and try to make amends. It’s not automatic knowledge; it must be learned.

Now, once a person hears, “Don’t call me stupid” (for example) enough times, generalization should kick in, and they should start to think that calling people stupid is generally hurtful to others.

Not in the Flame Zone, of course.

Why should they listen? Why should they be empathetic? You are literally making shall statements. Shall statements imply a law or a rule. If there is no common standard of conduct that is universally or generally understood, then you have no justification to get upset when someone violates it.

You’re right. But instead of a universal “shall,” it’s a transactional thing between individuals.

“Hey, if you stop calling me a pedophile, I’ll stop STFUing every one of your posts”

For example.

So you are saying there is no real standard that it can be anything we want as long as we agree to a contract?

Sorry, but I have to call BS on that.

So in other words if a husband says I'll stop beating you if you do a better job at cleaning the house and cooking my meals that would be OK, because they agreed upon a transaction?

 

[ding]

I’d like to come back to your standards. If standards are not universal then how can you blame someone for violating your standards?

I don’t. I blame them for not acknowledging (apologizing) when they’ve hurt someone. Maybe they didn’t know the pain they caused.

We all violate someone’s standards at some time, I believe usually out of ignorance. But once you’re made aware of it, if a sincere attempt to make amends isn’t made, then chances are you’re a callous person.

It’s called empathy.

What you have just described is that you believe in a universal standard of empathy. That others should know and adhere to, right?

NO.

Others should listen when someone expresses that they are hurt by someone else’s actions, and try to make amends. It’s not automatic knowledge; it must be learned.

Now, once a person hears, “Don’t call me stupid” (for example) enough times, generalization should kick in, and they should start to think that calling people stupid is generally hurtful to others.

Not in the Flame Zone, of course.

Why should they listen? Why should they be empathetic? You are literally making shall statements. Shall statements imply a law or a rule. If there is no common standard of conduct that is universally or generally understood, then you have no justification to get upset when someone violates it.

You’re right. But instead of a universal “shall,” it’s a transactional thing between individuals.

“Hey, if you stop calling me a pedophile, I’ll stop STFUing every one of your posts”

For example.

Let me try this another way. Would you say that beating your wife was a successful behavior or a failed behavior? Let's define success or failure based upon results, OK? Would you think your success in your relationship (i.e. peace and harmony let's say) would be equal under both standards?

 

[ricechickie]

Evil is a lot more active than just the "absence of good." It is actions abhorrent to society. However, different societies find different things "abhorrent." For that reason, I find it hard to believe the Platonic theory that Good (and its flip side evil) is an immutable force in the universe. Humans determine the rules, and they determine what is good and what is evil.

What I have been trying to explain is that standards exist independent of man. In other words, man cannot pick just any standard and get the same results. Ergo standards exist independent of what man wants them to be.

Humans make the standards.

Do you think the cuckoo feels bad for emptying out an occupied nest and laying their own eggs in it? Do you think the strong, young lion feels guilty for chasing the old, weaker lion away from his pride? Do you think sharks feel bad for eating the seal lion pups?

No, humans are social animals with big brains and as such invented this concept called “morality” and think they solve all possible problems if everyone just follows the rules. But the problem with our big brains is that we think we can improve upon others’ ideas. And often we can. However, it means that very few of us will agree on everything, including morality. So, in the absence of that, humans at least have empathy....

Animals operate on instinct an impulse. Humans do too but we have the unique ability to override our instincts and impulses for the sake of good of others. So yes, animals have no concept of right and wrong.

The question is can we make our standards be anything we want and still get the same results. The answer to that question is no. So there is something about the standard which is independent of man.

But we’ve already established that there’s more than one way to be successful. Why is there, then, only one kind of successful behavior?

Yeah, different behaviors get different results. So it depends upon what your goal is.

We don’t all want the same things.

So then you believe a society that prized dishonesty, thanklessness, cruelty, selfishness, cowardice and any other failed behavior you can think of would get the same or better results than a society that behaved the opposite way?

No, but some societies value honesty less than others, because raw honesty is considered harsh. Some value what we would call “cowardice” because they are pacifists. Some value selfishness, so they read Ayn Rand and learn why it’s ok to let kids who can’t afford healthcare to die. Some cultures value what we would call “cruelty” because it shows strength. Hell, our culture has very recently defended cruelty (separating children from parents).

 

[ricechickie]

I don’t. I blame them for not acknowledging (apologizing) when they’ve hurt someone. Maybe they didn’t know the pain they caused.

We all violate someone’s standards at some time, I believe usually out of ignorance. But once you’re made aware of it, if a sincere attempt to make amends isn’t made, then chances are you’re a callous person.

It’s called empathy.

What you have just described is that you believe in a universal standard of empathy. That others should know and adhere to, right?

NO.

Others should listen when someone expresses that they are hurt by someone else’s actions, and try to make amends. It’s not automatic knowledge; it must be learned.

Now, once a person hears, “Don’t call me stupid” (for example) enough times, generalization should kick in, and they should start to think that calling people stupid is generally hurtful to others.

Not in the Flame Zone, of course.

Why should they listen? Why should they be empathetic? You are literally making shall statements. Shall statements imply a law or a rule. If there is no common standard of conduct that is universally or generally understood, then you have no justification to get upset when someone violates it.

You’re right. But instead of a universal “shall,” it’s a transactional thing between individuals.

“Hey, if you stop calling me a pedophile, I’ll stop STFUing every one of your posts”

For example.

So you are saying there is no real standard that it can be anything we want as long as we agree to a contract?

Sorry, but I have to call BS on that.

So in other words if a husband says I'll stop beating you if you do a better job at cleaning the house and cooking my meals that would be OK, because they agreed upon a transaction?

You think that never happened?

It’s not ok for me, nor for many people now, but wife-beating used to be considered a right of men, and a private matter for the couple to deal with.

Hell, even my mom said, “My husband might hit me once, and then maybe twice, but never a third time.”

And I thought, “why the fuck would he get the second time?”

Because she was raised in a different time.

 

[ricechickie]

I don’t. I blame them for not acknowledging (apologizing) when they’ve hurt someone. Maybe they didn’t know the pain they caused.

We all violate someone’s standards at some time, I believe usually out of ignorance. But once you’re made aware of it, if a sincere attempt to make amends isn’t made, then chances are you’re a callous person.

It’s called empathy.

What you have just described is that you believe in a universal standard of empathy. That others should know and adhere to, right?

NO.

Others should listen when someone expresses that they are hurt by someone else’s actions, and try to make amends. It’s not automatic knowledge; it must be learned.

Now, once a person hears, “Don’t call me stupid” (for example) enough times, generalization should kick in, and they should start to think that calling people stupid is generally hurtful to others.

Not in the Flame Zone, of course.

Why should they listen? Why should they be empathetic? You are literally making shall statements. Shall statements imply a law or a rule. If there is no common standard of conduct that is universally or generally understood, then you have no justification to get upset when someone violates it.

You’re right. But instead of a universal “shall,” it’s a transactional thing between individuals.

“Hey, if you stop calling me a pedophile, I’ll stop STFUing every one of your posts”

For example.

Let me try this another way. Would you say that beating your wife was a successful behavior or a failed behavior? Let's define success or failure based upon results, OK? Would you think your success in your relationship (i.e. peace and harmony let's say) would be equal under both standards?

Does the guy want a happy wife or a completely obedient wife?

For the wife, clearly one option is much better, and if she could tell him not to hit, and he listened and had empathy for her pain, then he wouldn’t, and it would be better for her and probably him as well, unless he was some kind of sadist.

 

[ding]

What I have been trying to explain is that standards exist independent of man. In other words, man cannot pick just any standard and get the same results. Ergo standards exist independent of what man wants them to be.

Humans make the standards.

Do you think the cuckoo feels bad for emptying out an occupied nest and laying their own eggs in it? Do you think the strong, young lion feels guilty for chasing the old, weaker lion away from his pride? Do you think sharks feel bad for eating the seal lion pups?

No, humans are social animals with big brains and as such invented this concept called “morality” and think they solve all possible problems if everyone just follows the rules. But the problem with our big brains is that we think we can improve upon others’ ideas. And often we can. However, it means that very few of us will agree on everything, including morality. So, in the absence of that, humans at least have empathy....

Animals operate on instinct an impulse. Humans do too but we have the unique ability to override our instincts and impulses for the sake of good of others. So yes, animals have no concept of right and wrong.

The question is can we make our standards be anything we want and still get the same results. The answer to that question is no. So there is something about the standard which is independent of man.

But we’ve already established that there’s more than one way to be successful. Why is there, then, only one kind of successful behavior?

Yeah, different behaviors get different results. So it depends upon what your goal is.

We don’t all want the same things.

So then you believe a society that prized dishonesty, thanklessness, cruelty, selfishness, cowardice and any other failed behavior you can think of would get the same or better results than a society that behaved the opposite way?

No, but some societies value honesty less than others, because raw honesty is considered harsh. Some value what we would call “cowardice” because they are pacifists. Some value selfishness, so they read Ayn Rand and learn why it’s ok to let kids who can’t afford healthcare to die. Some cultures value what we would call “cruelty” because it shows strength. Hell, our culture has very recently defended cruelty (separating children from parents).

The thing is that there has never been a society which prized diametrical values. Some societies have allowed more than one wife but there has never been a society that said you can take any woman you want. Same for every one of your examples. There has never been a society that prized running away from battles. They have never celebrated cowards and traitors. What you are talking about are degrees not diametrical values.

 

[deanrd]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

Good are people who help children, not separate them from their parents.
Good are people who want healthcare for everyone who don't believe in let them die.
Good are people who want affordable education and don't prey on people's fear and ignorance.
Good are people who aren't racist.

It's pretty easy to figure out who is good and who isn't. And even figure out what political party they belong to.

For Republicans, it's a matter of looks and wealth. If you look a certain way, you're good. If you are rich, you are good.

 

[ding]

What you have just described is that you believe in a universal standard of empathy. That others should know and adhere to, right?

NO.

Others should listen when someone expresses that they are hurt by someone else’s actions, and try to make amends. It’s not automatic knowledge; it must be learned.

Now, once a person hears, “Don’t call me stupid” (for example) enough times, generalization should kick in, and they should start to think that calling people stupid is generally hurtful to others.

Not in the Flame Zone, of course.

Why should they listen? Why should they be empathetic? You are literally making shall statements. Shall statements imply a law or a rule. If there is no common standard of conduct that is universally or generally understood, then you have no justification to get upset when someone violates it.

You’re right. But instead of a universal “shall,” it’s a transactional thing between individuals.

“Hey, if you stop calling me a pedophile, I’ll stop STFUing every one of your posts”

For example.

So you are saying there is no real standard that it can be anything we want as long as we agree to a contract?

Sorry, but I have to call BS on that.

So in other words if a husband says I'll stop beating you if you do a better job at cleaning the house and cooking my meals that would be OK, because they agreed upon a transaction?

You think that never happened?

It’s not ok for me, nor for many people now, but wife-beating used to be considered a right of men, and a private matter for the couple to deal with.

Hell, even my mom said, “My husband might hit me once, and then maybe twice, but never a third time.”

And I thought, “why the fuck would he get the second time?”

Because she was raised in a different time.

Standards are discovered over time, but even in those times there were men who didn't do it. That's how the standard was discovered.

No matter how hard you argue against it, you know that logically the results we get from behaviors make sense. Men who beat and cheat on their wives will never have the kind of loving relationship that men who cherish and respect their wives. The latter is the standard. Some men may wish the standard were different, but the standard is independent of what they desire.

 

[ding]

What you have just described is that you believe in a universal standard of empathy. That others should know and adhere to, right?

NO.

Others should listen when someone expresses that they are hurt by someone else’s actions, and try to make amends. It’s not automatic knowledge; it must be learned.

Now, once a person hears, “Don’t call me stupid” (for example) enough times, generalization should kick in, and they should start to think that calling people stupid is generally hurtful to others.

Not in the Flame Zone, of course.

Why should they listen? Why should they be empathetic? You are literally making shall statements. Shall statements imply a law or a rule. If there is no common standard of conduct that is universally or generally understood, then you have no justification to get upset when someone violates it.

You’re right. But instead of a universal “shall,” it’s a transactional thing between individuals.

“Hey, if you stop calling me a pedophile, I’ll stop STFUing every one of your posts”

For example.

Let me try this another way. Would you say that beating your wife was a successful behavior or a failed behavior? Let's define success or failure based upon results, OK? Would you think your success in your relationship (i.e. peace and harmony let's say) would be equal under both standards?

Does the guy want a happy wife or a completely obedient wife?

For the wife, clearly one option is much better, and if she could tell him not to hit, and he listened and had empathy for her pain, then he wouldn’t, and it would be better for her and probably him as well, unless he was some kind of sadist.

Again the measure I used was peace and harmony versus chaos and disorder. Successful behaviors provide a functional advantage that failed behaviors do not. For instance, it isn't a surprise that a girl who stays home studying will do well at school, while a girl who goes out partying doesn't. Will there be exceptions to this? Sure, but it does not negate the rule or standard. In fact it is for this specific reason that you taught your children specific values. Because you knew that logically not all behaviors led to equal outcomes. My point here is that if the standard could be anything that man wanted it to be then all behaviors would lead to equal outcomes. That just isn't the case.