A question

[Culchi]

Tough question Roger. If you take psychopaths into consideration, thought now to be an extra male chromosome into their DNA structure, which may or may not lead to their lack of remorse, guilt or whatever. I believe we have the potential to be good, but the majority of us haven't reached maximum potential, myself included, or in particular. I'm no angel Roger, I've done wrong things, who is without sin? Let them cast the first stone.

Ponds and ripples Roger. You either appreciate the beauty and serenity of any given moment, or you rush toward the water with a boulder and lash it into the middle to see how big a splash it makes. Is it as all or nothing though? Do we throw less pebbles into the pond because we appreciate the beauty and serenity of the moment its stillness grants us, or toss in more because we learn that, by throwing bigger stones, we have a bigger effect? When the pond is full of stones, where then is the pond? Where is the beauty? Where is the serenity? There is only stone and mud. When the heart becomes stone, we are but golems. When we are stuck in the mud, we think only of escape. There are countless reasons, causes and effects why anyone should do anything at any given moment.

e2a: Despite a desire, or even feeling a need to be alone sometimes, human beings are, by nature, social creatures. Division is caused by the haves and have nots, or those perceived to haves but the have nots wants.

As you say, it's been a long day. Don't do things by halves do they?

Edited December 13, 2008 by Nettle-Grower

[Guest roger]

would you say that good is an active or passive thing? or somewhere in-between?

In that a person could simply choose not to do 'bad' things or they could actively try to do 'good' things. In doing or omitting to do, what one perceived to be 'good', could one become de facto 'bad'?

[mr munchie]

would you say that good is an active or passive thing? or somewhere in-between?

In that a person could simply choose not to do 'bad' things or they could actively try to do 'good' things. In doing or omitting to do, what one perceived to be 'good', could one become de facto 'bad'?

Heavy man

[gen131]

i think roger that external reality or the physical has nought to do with good but that intent is all. are roads really paved with them. evil intent that makes a perceived good external reality is not perceived correctly or is not good. good deeds do not make a man good. human being should quit trying to be good and be who they are. then it all can be sorted out. but this metaphysical not pertinent to our world of war.

huey of the news; cool is the rule; but sometimes bad i s bad.

gen :wink:

[Culchi]

would you say that good is an active or passive thing? or somewhere in-between?

In that a person could simply choose not to do 'bad' things or they could actively try to do 'good' things. In doing or omitting to do, what one perceived to be 'good', could one become de facto 'bad'?

Not sure what you mean Roger. If we witness a crime and stand by and do nothing when it is easily in our power to prevent it, are we guilty of inaction? If on the other hand someone does something that really annoys us, surely our not acting upon our anger is a good thing? We are emotionally driven creatures, otherwise we'd just graze for food all day. We seek stimulation, some good for us, some not so good for us. We usually prefer to be up than down? Doing good things can give you a good feeling for no other reason than knowing you did something right, or that you did something anyway. At the same token, if we do something we know we shouldn't, we tend to feel bad about it.

That's not to say, as Gen points out, that by doing good deeds we will automatically be good people, although could it be said that if you do bad things you're necessarily a bad person? But perhaps if you learn to love and nurture that good feeling enough, it will shine outwards, perhaps spread some joy into yourself and the world around you? Perhaps if we had more examples of goodness within society, but that would take a level of equality evolution hasn't factored for yet.

[Boojum]

Altruism is not a natural thing. Or rather what appears on the surface to be altruism is not an altruistic thing, animals may appear to demonstrate altruism but if you actually observe and understand their behaviour you will realise that the seeming altruism is in fact self serving, if not at an organism level then at a species level, it is the product of biology not psychology and is thus not altruistic. The same is true for humans, it's just that we are a step further removed, psychologically, from our biological needs so the behaviour may appear altruistic, until you really examine it closely. For example people who believe in karma and act in an alrtuistic manner as a result, are their actions genuine altruism ? I'd argue not, they are acting in a selfish way, they are doing good to improve their karmic balance and increase the chances of their escaping the wheel of karma when they die. Are Christians who do good being altrusitic ? I'd say no, at a deep psychological level they are merely trying to get into heaven - selfish motivation again. Look at any act of altruism, look at the person doing it, look at their background and their beliefs and I think you'll have to look fucking hard for any genuine good intentions. That's not to say there isn't genuine altruism, but it's a tiny, infinitesemal exception to the rule, and the question was about people as a whole - people as a whole are selfish, self serving, egotistical, mercenary narcissists. And I'm a cynical drunk. C'est la vie.

[Karmacollector]

For example people who believe in karma and act in an alrtuistic manner as a result, are their actions genuine altruism ? I'd argue not, they are acting in a selfish way, they are doing good to improve their karmic balance and increase the chances of their escaping the wheel of karma when they die.

Yep. Selfish. I agree. I have been and still am on occasion a complete and utter wanker, and like 'Earl' like to put right my wrongs. Makes me feel better. I do do nice things to random people just for the hell of it tho, but again, it makes me feel good

So i guess by trying to be good, whether to put right the bad or maintain balance, the act of 'goodness' in itself is a selfish one? Therefore surely the people who are selfish and are considered the bad ones are truly better people than those who try to be good?

For myself i would rather be considered un altruistic and selfish for improving my karmic balance, and if the occasional act of kindness makes me selfish for the warm fuzzy feeling i get then cool.

The intention behind the act is more important than the act itself.

Then theres the unselfish acts of lifesaving bravery we hear about. Generally spontaneous and without selfish forethought. Some done by people we would probably consider bad. An instinctive response to preserve life? or a subconscious selfish desire for reward?

And then theres the question is being a good person about doing good for others? or just not doing bad?

(does this read as stoned as i feel?)

[Puff Adder]

Altruism is not a natural thing. Or rather what appears on the surface to be altruism is not an altruistic thing, animals may appear to demonstrate altruism but if you actually observe and understand their behaviour you will realise that the seeming altruism is in fact self serving, if not at an organism level then at a species level, it is the product of biology not psychology and is thus not altruistic. The same is true for humans, it's just that we are a step further removed, psychologically, from our biological needs so the behaviour may appear altruistic, until you really examine it closely. For example people who believe in karma and act in an altruistic manner as a result, are their actions genuine altruism ? I'd argue not, they are acting in a selfish way, they are doing good to improve their karmic balance and increase the chances of their escaping the wheel of karma when they die. Are Christians who do good being altruistic ? I'd say no, at a deep psychological level they are merely trying to get into heaven - selfish motivation again. Look at any act of altruism, look at the person doing it, look at their background and their beliefs and I think you'll have to look fucking hard for any genuine good intentions. That's not to say there isn't genuine altruism, but it's a tiny, infinitesimal exception to the rule, and the question was about people as a whole - people as a whole are selfish, self serving, egotistical, mercenary narcissists. And I'm a cynical drunk. C'est la vie.

I concur

[Guest nigfis]

For example people who believe in karma and act in an alrtuistic manner as a result, are their actions genuine altruism ? I'd argue not, they are acting in a selfish way, they are doing good to improve their karmic balance and increase the chances of their escaping the wheel of karma when they die.

Yep. Selfish. I agree. I have been and still am on occasion a complete and utter wanker, and like 'Earl' like to put right my wrongs. Makes me feel better. I do do nice things to random people just for the hell of it tho, but again, it makes me feel good

So i guess by trying to be good, whether to put right the bad or maintain balance, the act of 'goodness' in itself is a selfish one? Therefore surely the people who are selfish and are considered the bad ones are truly better people than those who try to be good?

For myself i would rather be considered un altruistic and selfish for improving my karmic balance, and if the occasional act of kindness makes me selfish for the warm fuzzy feeling i get then cool.

The intention behind the act is more important than the act itself.

Then theres the unselfish acts of lifesaving bravery we hear about. Generally spontaneous and without selfish forethought. Some done by people we would probably consider bad. An instinctive response to preserve life? or a subconscious selfish desire for reward?

And then theres the question is being a good person about doing good for others? or just not doing bad?

(does this read as stoned as i feel?)

I don't know, but as stoned as I am, I dunno.

I wondered about this bit..... So i guess by trying to be good, whether to put right the bad or maintain balance, the act of 'goodness' in itself is a selfish one? Therefore surely the people who are selfish and are considered the bad ones are truly better people than those who try to be good? ...... And thought that surely it's not as simple as 'Good is selfish therefore selfish is good. 'Cos that would be like ummmmm, something or other. Does Newtons Law affect altruismismism? For every shellfish, there is an equal and opposite mollusc. Shellfish, sorry, selfish people by their very nature are good only to themshelves.

So the answer is, spontaneity without shellfish, in a hollandaze sauce, is good.

Hello? What? Turn what over? Click!

[Edited to add: The poll results are interesting.]

Edited December 18, 2008 by nigfis

[PotBelly]

there must be more people wanting to be good vs bad or we would have died out as a race a while ago.

I feel females have more of a capacity for goodness vs males, prob from an evolutionary home maker/hunter gatherer perspective.

I don't regard all acts of altruism as selfish. from a karmic perspective you dont HAVE to be good to have positive karma, just not be bad.

Some people want to be good just as they think it is worthwhile.

imo being good is easier on the brain than being bad. As we dont really evolve much anymore and dont have to fight for our existence, thankfully there are increasing levels of good deeds.

thankfully the majority have a predisposal towards good acts, more so the older we get

I find being good makes me feel good, being bad, I feel bad. Maybe we are programmed that way

Edited December 18, 2008 by PotBelly

[Boojum]

For example people who believe in karma and act in an alrtuistic manner as a result, are their actions genuine altruism ? I'd argue not, they are acting in a selfish way, they are doing good to improve their karmic balance and increase the chances of their escaping the wheel of karma when they die.

Yep. Selfish. I agree. I have been and still am on occasion a complete and utter wanker, and like 'Earl' like to put right my wrongs. Makes me feel better. I do do nice things to random people just for the hell of it tho, but again, it makes me feel good

So i guess by trying to be good, whether to put right the bad or maintain balance, the act of 'goodness' in itself is a selfish one? Therefore surely the people who are selfish and are considered the bad ones are truly better people than those who try to be good?

For myself i would rather be considered un altruistic and selfish for improving my karmic balance, and if the occasional act of kindness makes me selfish for the warm fuzzy feeling i get then cool.

The intention behind the act is more important than the act itself.

Then theres the unselfish acts of lifesaving bravery we hear about. Generally spontaneous and without selfish forethought. Some done by people we would probably consider bad. An instinctive response to preserve life? or a subconscious selfish desire for reward?

And then theres the question is being a good person about doing good for others? or just not doing bad?

(does this read as stoned as i feel?)

You only quoted one part of my post. My post in its entirety does not discount the existence of altruism, my point is that a lot of apparent altruism is actually motivated by selfish reasons. To do good for a bad reason is far better than doing bad, but it's not altruism, it's not 'good'. The question was whether people desire good or are motivated by self interest. I would suggest that the majority of people are motivated by self interest, even if some of them appear to be motivated by altruism (or even think their own motivation is altruism). I think some people's belief in and acting on karma, and some people's belief in and acting on the existence of an afterlife that includes concepts such as heaven and hell motivates them, and that such motivation is ultimately self serving. I make no reference to the consequences of their actions, and of course it's better for people to do good even if for selfish reasons. I'm merely answering the question. It's up to the individual to examine their own motivation.

[lazi]

my point is that a lot of apparent altruism is actually motivated by selfish reasons.

I'll go with that but that 'enlightened selfishness' is actually 'good' for all of us, therefore it meets the definition of the word good so therefore we do want to be good. It's a nice feeling to help out a mate in need that has helped you out plenty in the past. Another moral quid in the bank of life. KerChing.

Pyschopaths and Sociopaths have a screw loose (medical term) so their actions don't apply to the discussions imo.

[Guest roger]

my point is that a lot of apparent altruism is actually motivated by selfish reasons.

I'll go with that but that 'enlightened selfishness' is actually 'good' for all of us, therefore it meets the definition of the word good so therefore we do want to be good. It's a nice feeling to help out a mate in need that has helped you out plenty in the past. Another moral quid in the bank of life. KerChing.

I suppose that altruism evolved as a survival mechanism to give a group better chances of furthering their collective genes, but if that is correct, can we really have an idea of 'good' in the platonic sense?

[sibannac]

On my own personal scale of good/bad i'm a bloody saint and a born again virgin.

:wink:

[Guest roger]

On my own personal scale of good/bad i'm a bloody saint and a born again virgin.

:wink:

That's the spirit, speaking of - maybe you could have a chat to age concern, I'm sure they would love a hand - they might be able to introduce you to some folk who need a spot of help as you suggested earlier.