A question

[Guest roger]

I realise this might have been better in free for all....

So, I was in the pub earlier with a mate from school, this issue came up - he suggested that whilst he would prefer people to strive for the good, that is was a fundamentally flawed philosophy to hope for that, as people are incapable of acting for the good without coercion.

I think that al things being even, people would prefer to be good, yet there are aspects of society that seem conspire against this and that is the greater problem.

Can there be a middle ground; what are your thoughts on this?

[Guest Dr Benways Assistant]

Different people have different ideas of what good is and different ways of achieving it.

[Guest roger]

we realise that, but even so imho each person must have their own concept of good, even if they do not follow it.

Edited December 6, 2008 by roger

[CaptainStoner]

Nearly all human beings will act in their own self interest at all times, IMO.

Wish it wasn't so but it is. I try to work to the rule of give and take, compromise & share. That way everyone is happy.

[Guest]

I recall from my psychology lectures that experiments were done on a variety of animals

and all exhibited selfish, self-preservative behaviour.

It is my ardent thought that as man has evolved for millenia before any kind of civilisation

that this selfish 'programming' or dna is stronger than our social programming to do selfless good.

(The nature/nuture debate.)

You only have to see the countless cases of meanness today to see that people are more prone

not to do good, especially if they think they will not be caught/seen.

However, on the flip-side, even captain caveman must have been doing some selfless good

for his immediate clan to survive, as he brought home the bacon for his "family" to survive

(as not all family members would have been able to hunt)

unless one considers this to be about ensuring the continuity of his bloodline.

vangraffe

[Vorty]

imo, some are good, some are bad, just about everyone else is both, most don't hurt people yet most don't help.

Without motivation or another reason other than 'because in some way it benefits me, I think most people are bystanders.

I truly believe 'do gooders' are cunts, cause they don't do any good yet get paid and bring down the common sence of society. by do gooders I do not mean individuals with the upward struggle of doing good without a pre-defined reward.

I think there's very few people who are either good or bad.

Yes everyone wants to be good and most think they are, even the self justified evil fuckers.

I like to think im good because I don't hurt anyone and stand by people, but I don't go out of my way for people without being asked.

[Guest]

dunno why, but i've always gone along with the 'treat others as you wish to be treated', or at least part of the time, as peoples moods aren't always the same. some days are good, some days are bad if you get my drift.

or have i just smoked too much?

[pinhead1337]

This poll is a difficult one to answer. I like to think I do good, I certainly do no harm, but do I do enough? Im a nice person but I often view certain people with contempt but that is in my own mind. Our society seems selfish to me. People dont really want to think about it either, we have comfortable lives compared to the rest of the world and we have no reason to fight wars, yet nobody really does anything to stop it. We live in a democracy so we are guilty. The world could be a much better place.

As for the nature nuture argument you cant really compare us with animals because we are concsious of ourselves and one another so the concept of doing good or bad exists. Some people are more concsious than others though. We need to learn to love one another, like religion, but alot of people dismiss religion which is a mistake imo. I dont believe in a single book but we have alot to learn.

More people smoking the good herb would help B) and listening to bob marley

[Guest roger]

This poll is a difficult one to answer. I like to think I do good, I certainly do no harm, but do I do enough?

What are the reasons that you do good?

[Karmacollector]

I believe the 'way' is Balance.

Everything is created to balance. Good Bad, Hot cold, day night, yin yang, masculine feminine, etc etc,

Our and everything on this planets purpose is to strive to maintain an equilibrium.

To attain true harmony there has to be a balance.

Karma.

We can all strive to be the best person we can and many try, but to strive for perfection is to succeed in failure.

I believe that we all desire to be good, yet the balance draws us.

We were given the sense of guilt and conscience to assist us in balancing. Some more than others.

To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Mother Theresa/Adolf Hitler, for example.

Ask ourselves, are we TRYING to be good, or ARE we good? Are we being good to offset the guilt? to maintain equilibrium?

A truly good act is one done without desire for acknowledgement or praise, nor for self gratification.

So, yes. I believe we want to be good, not always because it is a conscious descision, but because we NEED to be good to maintain the balance.

Harmony and peace.

Karmacollector

[Karmacollector]

......... Experiment.

Lets each of us, if the opportunity arises, do something good today.

For someone else and without expecing reward.

(by this i mean cooking for ya missis hoping for rumpy pumpy dont count!)

Put yourself out for someone else or give something you need to someone who needs it more.

Make a sacrifice. Time, money, etc.

Make someone smile.

Monitor the effects and see how good you REALLY are.

[Puff Adder]

I voted good because I like to think that we humans are fundamentally caring of our compatriots, but after having read the 'Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins I'm not so sure. Altruism is evident in every section of humanity so from a scientific/biological/survival point of view I'd say self interest.

[Guest roger]

so do you think 'the good' is a biological imperative, or say, a platonic idea?

[Guest roger]

from my drinking buddie:

A thought.

During our recent conversation about the "goodness" of people I said that there was no inherent goodness in man only that man is "good" when it suits them. I.e. a stable society is better for the individual than partaking in criminal activity for example etc.

What has occured to me since, is that the definition of "good" may well be "that what enables society to stay stable", i.e. there is no such thing as good for the sake of the individual. You came back with a question that would there be "good" if there was no society. Or rather I infered that that the lack of society would be the only way to support your argument.

So the question is, if there is no society then what definition of "goodness" can there be? The only concepts similar to "good" may be what perpetuates ones self and ones genes (perhaps?). This to me is not the same as being "good".

Thoughts?

[mr munchie]

i strongly believe thant you must treat people the way you wish to be treated!!!!!!!!!!

peace!