What makes a person good?
Why?
I have come to think that one of the elements of being a good person is doing good things, as in helpin others, not doing wrong things such as breaking the law or hurting others in legal ways, etc. This conclusion comes from the premises of:
1) good things are good
2) people enjoy good things
3) the more people enjoy good things, more good there will be
What other elements can be logically traced into the goodness of a person?
More importantly...
If a person is by default, bad. And that person hates herself for that, therefore deciding to deliberately become a better person in their own selfish interest to feel better about themselves, and does indeed become a better person, wouldn't that make the person even worse? After all, what this person does is good - but its selfish, escapist intentions are bad.
Would that be a bad good? Or should I say, a good bad?
Don't mind the hottie, I just need attention in this thread.
>>941615
Goodness is a spook
>>941615
Who was phone?
>>941615
There is objective good and objective evil. There are also grey areas.
>>941821
For you.
>>941615
Who is that fluid Druid?
>>941615
That's a solid fucking 10/10 right there. Didn't read your post.
>>941615
>not doing wrong things such as breaking the law or hurting others in legal ways, etc.
>good things are good
how old are you?
just be kind to people. that is all.
Reommend Sam Harris talks on morality. Doctorate in neuroscience and master in philosophy. In my opinion, he has sucessfully quantified morality.
>person good
Smells like slave morality.
What makes a person "good" is whether or not they are inclined to behave in a way that most would consider moral. People who aren't inclined to do so won't, and people who are will, regardless of any religious or moral philosophy. Any complications beyond that are a spook.
>>941615
You only view illegal things as wrong? What of the legislature who makes the laws? How would you judge them as good or bad?
>>942608
Considering that being slave is bad smells like slave morality, isn't it ?
>>942619
No, it is wrong.
Being moral imply necessary the existence of God. Good and Bad are designed by God and people who are good follow the Good designed by Gods and People who are bad are selfish people that don't care about Good and follow their personal interest that lead them to Bad behavior such as sexual deviancy.
This girl - this animal I should Say - is the typical example of a bad person following their bestial instinct to pursue pleasure and that don't care if her Behavior will hurt someone else in the society where she lives.
What you've said is that a people is good if according to the society she is seen as a good person. So this is a relative view of the Good and the Bad.
If the society is a Virtuous society, so it's okay, this person is Absolutely good.
If the society is a Sodom and Gomorrah society, so the people considered as a good person is Absolutely a bad Person and the person who are persecuted by being not deviant are considered as a bad Person but is in fact a good person according to Humanity and eternity.
For example, today we live in a society where Religion, Morality are seen as demonic and where Individualism ( By the Capitalism, liberalism and society of consumerism ) is the new god. The individual is the ultimate god and nothing is more important.
>>941821
This guy is right
>>941821
This guy is totally wrong because he try to impose to the other his relative view of the Good and the Bad as A Truth, like a Godlike concept, reality... But in the name of what ? Nothing unless its own point of view.
Where like the other guy says that in the Name of the Absolute - not of his person - absolute bad and absolute good exist.
The other person says that in the name of its relative view, personal view, his relative and personal view is an Absolute Truth.
>>941615
>good things are good
Ah but Anonlycus, what is the "good"?
>>942580
this desu
just dont be bad
Good and bad aren't universal because resources are limited. Something that benefits one person harms another. It's all a matter of perspective.
>>941615
Nothing. Nothing makes a person good. There are no good people. The depravity of mankind is complete.
>>944313
How are you doing with that? Ever been bad?
>>944378
Xun Zi please be gone
>This conclusion comes from the premises
>not basing your ideas on real-life consequences
Jesus Christ, do you seriously need some axioms before you stop treating people like shit?
>>944484
Of course you need axioms. Morality is a serious question not in the range of the plebs. It's a very fragile system that have to be protected by intellectual such as priest.
If, for example, you're a stupid dreamer with stupid illusion of liberty claiming that individuals should have the right to " chose " their sexuality, 30 or 40 years after, all people are Sodome tier people and an anti-moral is applied persecuting people that still not sodomie tier people.
Just look today of how a girl, when she talk about sexuality, don't want to be seen as a christian blocked in middle age tier by the others persons and how a girl that claim to be indirectly a bitch is better defended by the pleb/leftist than the blocked girl.
Don't forget that Tolerance is a moral value... And if Morality is destroyed, there is no Tolerance... Or only Tolerance for the dominating group of people and total discrimination against the dominated group of people.
>>944604
>Of course you need axioms.
Then you're a fucking idiot. Or a sociopath
>>944604
Tolerance is just allowing something to happen. It doesn't mean you have to like it. Walling people in a ghetto where they can practice their own culture is tolerating their presence in your city.
I'll admit I'm having some trouble understanding the rest of your post.
>>944470
Don't know who he is, but he's on to something.
>>944484
Of course.
>>944652
Idiots and sociopaths have no axioms by which to live.
>>941615
You're on a good way OP, but your thinking isn't entirely spot-on yet. Let me help you clear a few things up.
>I have come to think that one of the elements of being a good person is doing good things, as in helpin others, not doing wrong things such as breaking the law or hurting others in legal ways, etc.
You're right about the following things: Doing good things makes you a better person. Not doing bad things makes you a better person.
You're wrong about the following: Wrong doesn't equal illegal, and good doesn't equal legal. Morality and law are only remotely connected concepts, and one can't stand in for the other, ever. The people who hid Anne Frank and her family in their house did something illegal, but it was morally very good. Nestlé acts in accordance with national and international law, but the things they do are very bad (buying land and denying the people that live there access to water.
>1) good things are good
No shit. This is a tautology. What makes anything good? What does good mean?
Cont.
>>941615
>>944804 Cont.
>2) people enjoy good things
What's this? This could be your definition for good things. What an individual enjoys is good. What makes an individual suffer is bad. We can make assumptions about what other individuals think is good for them by using our empiric knowledge and "common sense". For example, everyone likes access to water, food and shelter. No one likes being denied those things. But we also know that other people's interests may deviate from our own. This means that freedom of choice is a good thing. Everyone enjoys spending their time on things they like.
>3) the more people enjoy good things, more good there will be
This premise is a tricky one. I won't go into too much detail, but this might lead one to think that a huge group of people who are somewhat happy is better than a smaller group of people who are completely happy. You should also look into the concept of the "utility monster" for a similar problem.
>>941615
>>944854
Cont.
>More importantly...
>If a person is by default, bad. And that person hates herself for that, therefore deciding to deliberately become a better person in their own selfish interest to feel better about themselves, and does indeed become a better person, wouldn't that make the person even worse? After all, what this person does is good - but its selfish, escapist intentions are bad.
Looking at the other premises in your post, I'll assume that a person who is "by default bad" is someone who does a lot of bad things and relatively little good things, right?
You can always look at both intentions and results when looking for the moral value of any given deed. The intention matters because it may require other individuals to encourage or discourage the behavior that arises from it. The results matter because the person might be rewarded or punished in accordance with what they've done to other people.
The nature of the deed itself doesn't matter.
In this case, you have a selfish motivation and an altruistic outcome. Selfishness isn't necessarily bad or evil. We all know best how to take care of our own needs by ourselves. We eat when we're hungry, we hang out with people we like, we avoid pain, all out of selfish reasons. But this isn't actually bad, as it furthers the total amount of good.
What's bad or evil is putting our own needs above the needs of others.
In this case, everyone else profits from the fact that you have decided to become a better person. No one suffers from it. It is thus, from an altruistic utilitarian point of view, a good thing.
And who knows, maybe you just feel bad about yourself because of what other people think of you. This is society's way of telling you to be altruistic. So maybe you're actually not acting egotistical in the first place.
I'd also like to know what you mean by "selfish, escapist intentions" in this context.
>>944804
>but it was morally very good
No. The word you're looking for is "ethically".
Then again. There is no good or bad, and you have to be a manchild to believe so.
