The good and the... not so good

[Lillith]

So during class a topic came up that in the end led to a heavy debate between most of my classmates. I found it a bit weird because I thought the point was pretty obvious (I'm a historian not a psychologist/philosopher so I don't think about these kind of things much) but I figured it might be an interesting topic here too.

Say you've got two people, person a. and person b.:
Person a.: is a naturally good and friendly person. This person will act friendly and helpful on instinct. In general a nice and caring person.

Person b.: is not a naturally good and friendly person. However, b. has a -desire- to be good and friendly. This person wants to be nice, not for the rewards or to be found nice but others, but pure because this person has the desire to be good. Therefore person b. acts, behaves and talks exactly the same as person a. on all fronts.

These two people are indistinguishable from each other. They act and behave exactly the same but their core is different.

The question that seemed to arise a heavy debate in my class was as followed:
Is Person a. better, worse or the same then Person b. due to their different cores?

[KingOfLaughter]

IMHO person A is better because deep down they really are a good caring person, while deep down person B isn't. Although the difference is not anything major it is there. However there could be something inner and unrevealed that would actually make person A worse.

[Comet]

If B wants to be a good person and then acts like a good person, how the heck is he not a good person?

We aren't born with any sort of "inner goodness" or arbitrary alignment. We are who we choose to be.

[Helanna]

Heh, I'd put it the other way around, or at least say that they're equal. Person A is good unconsciously, of course, but Person B has made a conscious decision to be a good person, even if it goes against their nature.

[Terumitsu]

I'm gonna be particularly pragmatic in this response. The way I see it, neither is better than the other as the net effect is the same. Good is still being done, be it by nature or by choice. The action itself is what matters most as a person can think of killing someone all they want but nothing comes of it until they actually do something about it. That may be an extreme example but it's the first thing that came to my brain in short notice... This likely has worrying implications but such is not the time for that.

Anyway, as both people are inclined to be good and as long as they act upon those inclinations, neither is better than the other in my personal opinion.

[Teddy]

I'd treat this problem a little like school gradings: The first person is a natural, while the other works hard to achieve the same goal, but since no one of them is a cheater (does good with evil intentions), they should both get the same grade regardless how much effort they're putting into it. It's really admirable that person b tries so hard to do good, but it doesn't make him/her any better than the naturally good, since that would be to discredit naturallity.

[Icewalker]

Um...I would say a 'desire to be good and friendly' with no selfish reasons behind it is the same thing as being naturally/instinctively good and friendly.

[PopcornMage]

To know evil, but to choose good is a virtuous choice indeed.

I don't grade people though, that's above my pay rating.

[Quincunx]

Person A is better. First, I reward inborn talent, whether it's a sense of narrative or perfect pitch or innate goodness--we're not all born equal and we can acknowledge the benefits in that as well as the downsides. Second, what we intend to do in this life does matter, and B's intentions to do non-good things when not consciously correcting for the goodness weighs down upon B.

[Sipex]

So person A just does good things without even thinking about it, it's just how they act.

Person B thinks about it and strives towards it without any ill intention (they just want to better themselves). Person B I'm assuming has bad thoughts then but doesn't act on them?

Can't help the way you think.

If person A was given a situation and asked to make a choice (on a grey scale) then asked why, what would his reason be?

[Quincunx]

Person A would not need to ask, nor would the wholly evil Person Chi. Only the conflicted Bs ask the questions.

[EDIT: Letter overlap.]

[Adumbration]

To know evil, but to choose good is a virtuous choice indeed.

I don't grade people though, that's above my pay rating.

This. For nearly word for word (the first sentence a perfect match, the second with a slightly different wording).

[Kuma Da]

Whoah. Nice topic. I'll throw in my two cents.

I don't think there is an objectively better person here. If they're both doing good, then there's no need to rank them on it. It's not like you can look at A and B and say A has 50 more kiloghandis of good, anyways.

I will say, though, that I like B better. Anyone can follow their natural tendencies--and if those natural tendencies help people, so much the better. But if someone's fighting the circumstances of their birth to help society/their friends/passing helpless puppies, it means that they're likely to keep doing the right thing, even if the rug's suddenly pulled out from underneath them.

Person A can always be corrupted. Person B knows what corrupt is, and hates it.

[Brother Oni]

From a practical point of view, both people are the same.

From a judgemental point of view, person B is better, because he chooses to be good and has to work at it. If they're the same as person A, but are starting from a different social/ethical/behavioural point, they have to work harder to achieve what comes naturally to person A and that should be recognised because B is putting effort in to do what comes effortlessly to A.

It's like watching Sammo Hung do acrobatics - watching a 16 year old 90 pound gymnast do athletic feats is impressive. Watching a 35 year old 200+lb man do the same is even more so.

[Terumitsu]

Kiloghandis? Kuma Da, I think I will have to steal that term for a silly game idea I have. Wonder what the opposite would be though... Megahitlers, maybe?

[Sipex]

Megahitlers sounds plausible.

Also sounds like something I've heard before.

[Fiery Diamond]

Megahitlers sounds plausible.

Also sounds like something I've heard before.

I believe OoTS used Kilonazis in reference to Belkar.

Also, I would say that we have no right to rank the goodness of those two people - however, I would respect person B more, if I knew about their cores, while I would be more in awe of person A.

[Brother Oni]

Wouldn't kiloghandi be a unit of pacifism, rather than good? A kilohitler (kiloAlexander? KiloCaesar?) would be a better unit of megalomania and desire to conquer.

[Knaight]

Um...I would say a 'desire to be good and friendly' with no selfish reasons behind it is the same thing as being naturally/instinctively good and friendly.

That depends on the reasons. If it is a desire to be good and friendly because deep down you want to be, then its about the same thing. If its due to a thought through moral code, then no.

[pendell]

So during class a topic came up that in the end led to a heavy debate between most of my classmates. I found it a bit weird because I thought the point was pretty obvious (I'm a historian not a psychologist/philosopher so I don't think about these kind of things much) but I figured it might be an interesting topic here too.

Say you've got two people, person a. and person b.:
Person a.: is a naturally good and friendly person. This person will act friendly and helpful on instinct. In general a nice and caring person.

Person b.: is not a naturally good and friendly person. However, b. has a -desire- to be good and friendly. This person wants to be nice, not for the rewards or to be found nice but others, but pure because this person has the desire to be good. Therefore person b. acts, behaves and talks exactly the same as person a. on all fronts.

These two people are indistinguishable from each other. They act and behave exactly the same but their core is different.

The question that seemed to arise a heavy debate in my class was as followed:
Is Person a. better, worse or the same then Person b. due to their different cores?

I would say person B. They're working harder to achieve the same goal. If person A put forth the same amount of that person B did, person A would be measurably better than person B. Since person A is coasting while person B is working to achieve the same goal, I believe person B is 'better'.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Sipex]

That depends on the reasons. If it is a desire to be good and friendly because deep down you want to be, then its about the same thing. If its due to a thought through moral code, then no.

From the way the question is worded, it's the former reason.

[Zen Monkey]

Most philosophical schools and religious doctrines will say that both people are good. The degree to which one is 'better' or in some way more good is largely irrelevant. Most ethical philosophy will tell you that both individuals are good because they are doing good things for good reasons (as opposed to doing them for reward, or as part of some deception). Similarly, most major religious groups (a source for many people's concept of goodness) have some concept of forgiveness or a prodigal son narrative that will allow even for those who went and practiced some evil to return to the group and be considered just as good as those who never left.

[Lillith]

That depends on the reasons. If it is a desire to be good and friendly because deep down you want to be, then its about the same thing. If its due to a thought through moral code, then no.

Yeah it's the first one.

Now I'm going to be mean and do this:

Enter Person C.

Person C. is like Person B. The same desire to do good and be friendly. However, due to outside interference whatever Person C. does always ends up in failing/hurting others. So what starts out as good intentions that are exactly the same as B. things go so that when C. does it, it will end up as deemed evil/hurting someone/etc.

Example: B. goes out to pick up his girlfriend. C. goes out to pick up his girlfriend, loses control of his car and hits her. (Yeah I know I suck at examples)

Anyways, consider B. and C. as the same core but the results due to outside interference are different. Does this mean is just as good, worse or equal to B (and to that extend A)? (What? I can be just as mean and make A's equal in this situation and make D the same as A with C's circumstances :smalltongue:)

[Sipex]

Well, if we're going that way.

What about person D who has different beliefs than persons A to C. Person D always does good by their own definition but things which are good to them (and not just some twisted sense of good either, different beliefs through a large group) might not necessarily be good in the view of the others.

Where do they rank?

[Mando Knight]

Personally, I will pass the supposition that person A does not naturally exist within practical boundaries and that "naturally good" people are in fact B-type persons who may have had their "goodness" drilled into their subconscious. A in practice is only a degree of B.

Furthermore, C's failure as supposed in the statement (but not the example) is not (by default) C's fault, as it is failure due to external influence. However, if C is aware of the influence but does not try to correct course so as to avoid failure in the altered system, it is C's fault. In the end, no good is done by C, but the evil done through C's actions by the external influence is only the influence's fault, unless C knows a means of preventing the outcome evil influence and fails to use it.

[mucat]

Sounds to me like they're both good people. I admire spontaneity and instinctive kindness; I would be proud to count person A as a friend. I admire people who think hard about the implications of their actions; I would be equally proud of person B. And I am a sneaky, Solomonaic bastard, so if either of them say "Hey! Im more worthy than the other person", then it's the other one, who doesn't fret about external validation, who is the better person.

[SDF]

Well, good is a relative term with no objective quantifiable qualities. By that I find the premise suspect as the only way to differentiate is to use a personal bias to place one ahead of the other. A real world equivalent analogy would be pedophilia. Most people with those urges, for whatever reason they have them, will never act on them because they find the concept as deplorable and wrong as anyone without those urges. Does that make them worse people than those that don't get those urges? Keep in mind virtually all treatment is to control not extinguish innate feelings certain people can develop. The morals in play here would be those of western society, but now you are judging real people as better or worse. What it really comes down to in my opinion is do you think that your morals are absolute and beyond reproach enough to impose on others.

[Keld Denar]

Me? I prefer the epic struggle between good and neutral.

What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

These are the things I contemplate in my everyday life.

[TSGames]

Is Person a. better, worse or the same then Person b. due to their different cores?

I'm going to break off here and go with person b. Person b is constantly defying his baser nature in order to do good; at any or every moment it would be easy for a naturally evil person to commit evil, but he defies this part of himself with consistent success. Person a, doesn't even have to think about it, he just is good. To achieve the same effect, but to overcome oneself in doing so, is a far greater task than acting without thought. In one person there is simply the coninuation of existence, in the other there is constant temptation, struggle, and conflict, but ultimately there is also improvement of self. For achieving the same results, I cannot see how person b is not better.

[Icewalker]

Sounds like person C is just person B but really unlucky? No moral difference, seems to me...

[fknm]

"How can you come to know yourself? Never by thinking, always by doing. Try to do your duty, and you'll know right away what you amount to."- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

The two people are the same, for all intents and purposes. That "inner dialogue" is totally meaningless.

[Sammich]

Mando Knight's take on A really just being a B makes sense. To form a fairly vague comic book analogy, A is Superman and B is Batman. B has more appeal obviously because of the constant effort required of it. Humanity's love for that aspect of life is evident from our entire field of art (Homer's Odyssey comes to mind).

Either way it doesn't matter, as the previous poster mentions.

[Blue Ghost]

From the outside, both would be the same. But I believe that B would be a better person inside, because he's going out of his way to be good despite being saddled with a bad disposition from birth or upbringing. Person A is just nice. That's good, but it doesn't take effort. Ultimately, the imprint on person B's soul will be deeper. (Going by C.S. Lewis's philosophy here; I really admire that man.)

[Erts]

If B wants to be a good person and then acts like a good person, how the heck is he not a good person?

We aren't born with any sort of "inner goodness" or arbitrary alignment. We are who we choose to be.


Agreed with this. Goodness isn't an inner pitch or good looks, it's a choice. Yes, because of the back-rounds some people are predisposed to be good or... not good, if that's how you want to put it, but ultimately, we decide it.
You can't "grade" goodness on a perfect scale, it's an objective thing when you observe it.

And the first part is so right. A guy wants to be good, and acts good, so, how is he not good?

[Trog]

All are the same, differentiated only by their circumstances.

Person A benefited from an upbringing that created his attitude. Person B did not. Person C also did not but is, on top of that, unfortunate in his circumstances. All intend to do good. So, again, in a judgment of their internal character they are the same.

[Coidzor]

Well, if they're indistinguishable to us or anything that would be constantly watching them invisibly...

It depends on the nature of whatever's going on in B that they have to struggle despite having formed this huge habit that defines their character and life.

In short, the scenario doesn't make sense, even as a thought experiment.

[742]

better for what? person B is going to think things out more and be more critical/suspicious, person A is going to be much more fun to spend time around.

i know a C, theyre ****ing useless and tend to have a lot of complications that make them very unpleasant to be around; C's almost cant exist without a boatload of coping mechanisms that may as well be full on hallucinations.

[Teddy]

better for what? person B is going to think things out more and be more critical/suspicious, person A is going to be much more fun to spend time around.


You know that one of the premises was that person a and b behave exactly the same outwards, right?

[Brother Oni]

Is person C aware of his 'bad luck aura'? Are the accidents due in some way to his negligence or are they completely external causes?

If C is aware of his constant bad luck and does not try his utmost to minimise the risk he causes, then he's worse than B, as he knows he's 'bad' (in terms of luck that is) like B but doesn't take the necessary steps to prevent bad things from happening.

If C is unaware of his constant bad luck, then he's an unobservant idiot, who while not malicious, is still guilty of negligence.

While this may seem particularly harsh view of C, far eastern cultures have a particular view of luck. Board rules prevent me from going into this in much more detail, but bad luck is often regarded as 'repayment' for previous or future transgressions or good luck.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Let me throw a little curve into this.

Ok, so we're working upon the basis that good is an inherent thing. You can be born with it, comes naturally to you, etc.

Well, as unreal as that is, what about necessary evils? Sometimes there isn't a 'good' choice.

I've met these 'good' people who seem to be just perfect. But the thing is, get most of these 'good' people into a tough spot and they fall apart.

Most folk think 'I'm' one of these 'good' people, and I try. I'm definitely B though. I have a dark side to me, but I fight it every day. However, I know there is evil out there. I may not be inherently perfect (as if anyone really is, I mean seriously) but in a dark world I also don't fold up. It just makes me that much more determined to fight.

That A's good, perfect soul may naturally do good, but without the drive to do everything possible for the good, he's still not going to have as many results as B.

Good by itself doesn't mean useful, good doesn't mean strong, good doesn't even mean that they are always right. You have to have something in addition. It requires the will to use it. That's something B is more likely to have and use.

[Cahokia]

All life is equal, and so one person cannot be inherently better than another person any more than a tree can be better than a cat, and all life works on the same basic principle--though behavior (thoughts, feelings, and actions) can be chosen freely, a being can only choose the behavior they can imagine bringing them the greatest sum of pleasure (+) opposed to pain (-). This is reflected in the process of natural selection--a being exists in one form until eventually it stumbles upon a more advantageous structure. As fish have gills and serpents venom, humans have a larger ability to analyze our behavior and imagine alternate behaviors, resulting in a greater capacity for change and the rapid intellectual evolution that has occurred in the span of mere thousands of years. Humankind is arguably a species of excellent optimizers.

Person A and Person B have both optimized their behaviors as best they can in regards to the world they imagine. In terms of my own morality, which is nothing more than my own morality, if they cause the same amount of healing and suffering, they are equally blessed and cursed. But Person A and B are also no better or worse than Person C, a nasty person who resents all he knows. All three are trying to optimize themselves in regards to the world they perceive--poor Person C, who can't imagine a world where survival requires destruction, or a love without ulterior motive.

[Teddy]

All life is equal, and so one person cannot be inherently better than another person any more than a tree can be better than a cat, and all life works on the same basic principle[...]

This is only true if we haven't set any definition for 'better'. In this case, we have two very loose and partially conflicting guidelines based on some non-spoken agreements that "gooder is better" and that "tries harder to be good is better".


[...]though behavior (thoughts, feelings, and actions) can be chosen freely, a being can only choose the behavior they can imagine bringing them the greatest sum of pleasure (+) opposed to pain (-).[...]

And, putting aside the oxymoron about both being able and unable to choose your behaviour freely, this is just untrue. There is a lot of behaviour which neither is based on the want for pleasure nor the fear of pain - things of marginal importance which you do out of sheer principle, even though you find it boring at best.

[Cahokia]

This is only true if we haven't set any definition for 'better'. In this case, we have two very loose and partially conflicting guidelines based on some non-spoken agreements that "gooder is better" and that "tries harder to be good is better".

Exactly. My impression of these threads is that answers to them are matters of opinion, not statements of absolute truth. Thus, I haven't set any definition for better beyond what I said was my own appraisal of what makes things better or worse. My perception of it, however, does not make one person inherently better or worse.


And, putting aside the oxymoron about both being able and unable to choose your behaviour freely, this is just untrue. There is a lot of behaviour which neither is based on the want for pleasure nor the fear of pain - things of marginal importance which you do out of sheer principle, even though you find it boring at best.

Life is oxymoronic. If truth is subjective and there is no One Truth but many truths, and those truths cannot hold more or less value than other truths, how do deal with contradictions? In this way, things can be both true and untrue. We are Schroedinger's cats in a box with the uranium of perception.

And what motivates the sheer principle? What shaped the principle? A baby touches a stove, learns it's painful, and doesn't repeat the action. The same baby smiles at his mother, his mother smiles back, the baby is pleased, and repeats the action. This is how behavioral patterns are formed--you receive pleasure or pain stimulus.

Acting out of sheer principle is like moving an object with sheer will--will helps, but the muscles are what get you there. One holds a principle because a principle provides a framework, on which an identity can be based. Lose a framework and you are forced to question your identity, resulting in anxiety and uncertainty. Most people I've observed prefer nearly any other feeling than uncertainty, and thus it is very difficult to lose a framework. When you behave according to principle, you are asserting that principle's framework as a method of self-identification, and thus granting you the pleasure of knowing who you are and averting the pain of an identity crisis. For an example, let's make up an imaginary ascetic--we'll call him Sidney. Sidney has decided to fast for a month, and two weeks in, his belly aches with hunger, but because fasting grants him the pleasure of saying, "My place in the universe is that of an ascetic," he prefers not eating until the end of his fast to breaking it.

EDIT: Keep in mind I'm using the collective "you" tense, not a personal you tense. I really wish English had a vous tense.

[Teddy]

Exactly. My impression of these threads is that answers to them are matters of opinion, not statements of absolute truth. Thus, I haven't set any definition for better beyond what I said was my own appraisal of what makes things better or worse. My perception of it, however, does not make one person inherently better or worse.

Yeah, I kind of guessed that, but I still wanted things to be put in a perspective. Make sure that you weren't trying to troll us, sort of. :smallwink:
Note that I'm not accusing you of being a troll, nor did I before reading this post. I'm just like that, I want people to be on the same level.


Life is oxymoronic. If truth is subjective and there is no One Truth but many truths, and those truths cannot hold more or less value than other truths, how do deal with contradictions? In this way, things can be both true and untrue. We are Schroedinger's cats in a box with the uranium of perception.

I'm somewhat of the belief that life isn't oxymoronic until you make it so by trying to write down the 'absolute truths'. Conflict and contradictions aren't oxymoronic before someone tries to claim that both sides are 'absolutely true'.


And what motivates the sheer principle? What shaped the principle? A baby touches a stove, learns it's painful, and doesn't repeat the action.

Has nothing to do with principles. You don't make it a principle to not touch stoves because they are/might be hot.


The same baby smiles at his mother, his mother smiles back, the baby is pleased, and repeats the action. This is how behavioral patterns are formed--you receive pleasure or pain stimulus.

Same thing here, it's not as much a principle as a way of getting a good feeling.


Acting out of sheer principle is like moving an object with sheer will--will helps, but the muscles are what get you there. One holds a principle because a principle provides a framework, on which an identity can be based. Lose a framework and you are forced to question your identity, resulting in anxiety and uncertainty. Most people I've observed prefer nearly any other feeling than uncertainty, and thus it is very difficult to lose a framework. When you behave according to principle, you are asserting that principle's framework as a method of self-identification, and thus granting you the pleasure of knowing who you are and averting the pain of an identity crisis. For an example, let's make up an imaginary ascetic--we'll call him Sidney. Sidney has decided to fast for a month, and two weeks in, his belly aches with hunger, but because fasting grants him the pleasure of saying, "My place in the universe is that of an ascetic," he prefers not eating until the end of his fast to breaking it.

I wonder if this might be thinking a bit too far, but I can't say anything for sure as I tend to stick to my principles, as I believe that that's the best way for an as good future as possible. I do, however, know that when I haven't stuck to my principles for some reason or another, I'm not especially bothered by it, and quickly forgets about it anyway.

Also, from what I've heard, starving is worst during the first few days, then you get used to it. :smallwink: Yeah, I know it was just an example, but I feel like pointing this out.


EDIT: Keep in mind I'm using the collective "you" tense, not a personal you tense. I really wish English had a vous tense.

Don't worry, I wouldn't assume that anyway. I'm using the collective "you" tense all the time. In Swedish, we have the man tense, which works in the same way but without any confusions.

[Cahokia]

Yeah, I kind of guessed that, but I still wanted things to be put in a perspective. Make sure that you weren't trying to troll us, sort of. :smallwink:
Note that I'm not accusing you of being a troll, nor did I before reading this post. I'm just like that, I want people to be on the same level.

Understood. :smallsmile:


I'm somewhat of the belief that life isn't oxymoronic until you make it so by trying to write down the 'absolute truths'. Conflict and contradictions aren't oxymoronic before someone tries to claim that both sides are 'absolutely true'.

I tend to argue that because beings assign truths to the universe and behave as if those truths were universal, those become universes of perception, which I like to think of as alternate planes or varying frequencies of reality. Two of those truths might contradict each other--you should put yourself before others vs. you should put others before yourself, for example--but they are absolute to the person holding the truths. Thus, both statements are both true and false, and all of the various frequencies above, below, and in between.


You don't make it a principle to not touch stoves because they are/might be hot.

I was trying to describe stove-avoidance as a behavior, not a principle. That said, I was also trying to describe how "being principled" is made of component behaviors, and as such shares a genesis with stove-avoidance.


I wonder if this might be thinking a bit too far, but I can't say anything for sure as I tend to stick to my principles, as I believe that that's the best way for an as good future as possible. I do, however, know that when I haven't stuck to my principles for some reason or another, I'm not especially bothered by it, and quickly forgets about it anyway.

Self-emphasis mine. You stick to your principles; you behave the way you do because you can imagine doing so offering you greater pleasure and less pain in the future than any other possible behavioral patterns. When you haven't stuck to them, it's because you've imagined a better alternative for that situation, and then return to your principles when you see them as optimum again. You then forget that you haven't stuck to those principles to avoid thinking of yourself as fractured, as both a principled person and an unprincipled person. This is probably a wise choice--I imagine having a panic attack every time you have to tweak your behavior to be quite sub-optimal.


Don't worry, I wouldn't assume that anyway. I'm using the collective "you" tense all the time. In Swedish, we have the man tense, which works in the same way but without any confusions.

Ooh, I like that "man" is used rather than "one," which is just the lamest tense in English and French. "Man must work hard to succeed." So much better.

[Teddy]

I tend to argue that because beings assign truths to the universe and behave as if those truths were universal, those become universes of perception, which I like to think of as alternate planes or varying frequencies of reality. Two of those truths might contradict each other--you should put yourself before others vs. you should put others before yourself, for example--but they are absolute to the person holding the truths. Thus, both statements are both true and false, and all of the various frequencies above, below, and in between.

Yeah, I understand, but I don't see these contradictions as oxymoronic for as long as they aren't held to be true by the same person. To me, moral isn't universal, but rather individual, so if it's just two persons with different moral outlooks, I won't see any problem (unless they're physically fighting about it for one reason or another, obviously). And, aside from philosophers, most people wont try to hold two contradictive morals for an 'absolute truth' without at lest some sort of separation, hence why I mean that there is no oxymoronity unless you make one.


I was trying to describe stove-avoidance as a behavior, not a principle. That said, I was also trying to describe how "being principled" is made of component behaviors, and as such shares a genesis with stove-avoidance.

I see.


Self-emphasis mine. You stick to your principles; you behave the way you do because you can imagine doing so offering you greater pleasure and less pain in the future than any other possible behavioral patterns. When you haven't stuck to them, it's because you've imagined a better alternative for that situation, and then return to your principles when you see them as optimum again. You then forget that you haven't stuck to those principles to avoid thinking of yourself as fractured, as both a principled person and an unprincipled person. This is probably a wise choice--I imagine having a panic attack every time you have to tweak your behavior to be quite sub-optimal.

Oh, it looks like I missed a line which I inteded to write down, mostly repeating how pointless these actions actually might be, and that they frankly just are causing a tad bit more inconvenience than if I was going for the optimal route. Oh, and I don't actually forget every time when I went against my principles (what I do and don't remember is a swamp, and I'm not sure I want to explore its depths), but it's just that I'm not bothered with it, because, to be honest, that specific principle wasn't especially giving, and made no sense at the time being. I did, however, intend to stick to it, until a friend told me not to. (Yes, I just switched to a specific case mid-sentence. :smalltongue:)


Ooh, I like that "man" is used rather than "one," which is just the lamest tense in English and French. "Man must work hard to succeed." So much better.

Oh, I think it sounds a bit too pompous when used in English to be used in common conversation, even if I like the poetic ring of it. Here in Sweden, well, it is the same word as 'male human' too, but not the same as 'human' or 'mankind', and it sounds a lot better in common conversations.

We do actually have 'one' as a tense too: en, but it only referes to yourself, and it suffers from some other rules too, and basically should only be used with careful moderation, if I remember my Grammar Nazism for Dummies right. :smallwink:

[Dr.Epic]

Person b. seems better because they act just like Person a. only they battle with a desire to do wrong.

[Eldonauran]

I'd like to comment on something said above, though change the verbage slightly. There are no such things as necessary evils, only convenient ones.

On topic: I don't believe that anyone is inherently worth more than anyone else. However, I do believe that people can 'grow' to be worth more than others. Call it enlightenment or spiritual growth, if you will, I won't get too in depth with that for obvious reasons (board rules).

So, Person A is naturally good and Person B is completely opposite but has the desire to be like Person A. Person A & B act the same way and are completely identical without being able to visually tell the difference. Which has more value?

My answer: Person B has a bit more 'growth' to go through before his nature becomes that of Person A. Naturally, a fully 'mature' person is worth more than an immature one. People can and do change when they want something strongly enough. Some people are just born farther along that road than others.

[Teddy]

Person b. seems better because they act just like Person a. only they battle with a desire to do wrong.

So, Person A is naturally good and Person B is completely opposite but has the desire to be like Person A.
...and a bunch of other people...

I don't really understand where people got the idea that person b has a desire to do wrong. The only thing that was set in the premises is that person b doesn't behave good naturally. You don't have to occupy the other end of the spectrum just because you're not in the first end.

I imagine person a as a person who does good things without having to think about it, while person b would be inclined towards neutrality, but constantly thinks through his/her actions and "forces" him/herself to chose the goodest route instead.

Okay, a bit of a rant here, but I felt like getting it out of my system. And, as I wrote in white earlier, I want people to be on the same level in a discussion.

[Cahokia]

I think the other issue to this dilemma might be that Person A is semi-mythical. Does he/she never have the urge to do anything that could result in destruction? Then I think that person either just has better luck, to never act in a way that would unintentionally harm someone, or is completely oblivious and as a result causes plenty of unintentional harm.

To rephrase my initial point, in a nutshell: Person A and B are equally good, as they have equally good intent in their behaviors and cause the same amount of harm/healing. Even if B is not inherently inclined to behave "goodly," the fact that it brings him more pleasure to alleviate suffering than to cause it (inadvertently or not) makes his ultimate intent, manifested through his behavior, equal to A's.

@Teddy: I think we might be saying the same thing, the operative difference being that I'm a philosopher. I can't be satisfied with my experience until I've considered it on a meta-universal level, so it behooves me to expedite the process and go there first. Keeps me from staying in my head all of the time, instead of just most of it. :smalltongue: But I would argue that oxymoronic frameworks can coexist in one mind. The experience is often called cognitive dissonance, which wikipedia explains better than I do.

[Eldonauran]

I don't really understand where people got the idea that person b has a desire to do wrong. The only thing that was set in the premises is that person b doesn't behave good naturally. You don't have to occupy the other end of the spectrum just because you're not in the first end.

Yeah, you are right that Person B wasn't specified to be a complete opposite, it just makes for a more dramatic comparision when you do.

[PersonMan]

I think that Person B is a better person. Why? Because they're trying to be good, when they otherwise might not be.

In a way, you could say that they "bring more good into the world", whereas the naturally-good person(however that works) is just there.

[Zen Monkey]

It's hard to relate to any person that doesn't battle with some temptation to do evil. The original post makes me think of the movie Twins, where two people are separated at birth and one is given an idealized life removed from society and one is given a rather rough start to the real world. The fact that they both end up doing good asserts that they can be good people in the end. I almost think that you would have to grow up in some sort of idealized and sheltered Truman Show sort of world to really not deal with an urge to take moral shortcuts at times. Even then, you have to wonder whether that person would behave (at least occasionally) in ways we would consider immoral like telling lies or cheating in some sort of contest.

Put simply, a human being that never feels an inclination to evil doesn't seem recognizably human to us. Even if Person A always commits good actions and only displays evil internally, then they have fallen into the category of Person B who struggles and overcomes. If there is anything in your life that you are lacking (money, food, companionship, happiness) to some degree, then there is some desire to have it. If there is a desire for something, then there is temptation to take a moral shortcut to get it. That would mean that avoiding all temptations toward evil would mean having a life where you never want for anything, which doesn't seem to serve as a useful example for practical ethics.

[Dr.Epic]

...and a bunch of other people...

I don't really understand where people got the idea that person b has a desire to do wrong. The only thing that was set in the premises is that person b doesn't behave good naturally. You don't have to occupy the other end of the spectrum just because you're not in the first end.

I imagine person a as a person who does good things without having to think about it, while person b would be inclined towards neutrality, but constantly thinks through his/her actions and "forces" him/herself to chose the goodest route instead.

Okay, a bit of a rant here, but I felt like getting it out of my system. And, as I wrote in white earlier, I want people to be on the same level in a discussion.

Person b. does have a burden while Person a. does not. Think of it like two people both swimming (one with a weight attached to them and that person is Person b.). Person b. does just as well as Person a. even with the burden hence they are the better swimmer (and swimmer in this metaphor means more noble person).

[Moff Chumley]

Me? I prefer the epic struggle between good and neutral.

What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

These are the things I contemplate in my everyday life.

Disguising the issue with pop culture references? How very... NEUTRAL of you. :annoyed:

:smalltongue:

[Teddy]

Person b. does have a burden while Person a. does not. Think of it like two people both swimming (one with a weight attached to them and that person is Person b.). Person b. does just as well as Person a. even with the burden hence they are the better swimmer (and swimmer in this metaphor means more noble person).

I don't think you can compare this dilemma to swimmers with weights. Sadly, I can't come up with a better comparision. I do, however, wonder what it is that makes person a worse than person b. I can't see how that works.

[Dr.Epic]

I don't think you can compare this dilemma to swimmers with weights. Sadly, I can't come up with a better comparision. I do, however, wonder what it is that makes person a worse than person b. I can't see how that works.

Person a. may have a psychological condition that makes them want to do bad and hence would be like a swimmer carrying a weight.

[Teddy]

Person a. may have a psychological condition that makes them want to do bad and hence would be like a swimmer carrying a weight.

It's person a who's naturally good, y'know. And what I dislike is the assertion that because person b achieves the same goal as person a, but has to work harder, person b must have something weighting him down.

All humans haven't got the same fundamental conditions. This makes some people naturals at swimming, while others won't become such. If a natural swimmer and an ordinary person was to meet each other in a contest, and it ended in a tie, that would probably mean that the ordinary person would have to work harder to achieve, but it still wouldn't mean that the ordinary person was a better swimmer than the natural.