But how good are we really??

[Catholic_Lady]

I started a poll thread yesterday asking people if they thought of themselves as good. I answered the poll myself (yes) and also stated that I think most people/the average person are generally good.

I do feel that way. But nonetheless there is something that has always bothered me about that sentiment.

The thing is, most of us don't rape, murder, steal, cheat on our spouse, etc (whatever it is that might make us "bad people")... simply because we neither have the desire to nor the opportunity to. Especially with rape and kill. We can pat ourselves on the back for never having done anything like that, but really it's just pure luck that we weren't born with the genetic desire for those things, and/or raised in such a way or culture that might lead us to it. Its pure luck that I don't have the genetic predisposition to want to have sex with multiple men and so I stay loyal to mine. But if we wanted to do something really bad and we had the opportunity to, would we do it?

Does it really speak to our character when we've never done anything really bad simply because we've never had the desire/opportunity to do it? When was the last time we resisted doing something (even something really small) that we wanted to do and could do, but didnt simply because we thought it was wrong? And if we always do the wrong thing every single time we want to and have the opportunity to despite knowing its wrong, are we really that different from the person who rapes every time he feels like it and can? If so, the only difference between him and us is desire and opportunity.

Maybe saying "im a good person because ive never killed, raped, stolen, cheated, abused anyone, etc," when the desire/opportunity to do those things was never there to begin with, isnt a good measurement of character. Maybe character should be measured by the times we wanted to do something we knew in our hearts is immoral, had the opportunity to do it, but chose not to simply for the sake of doing the right thing. Unfortunately, off the top of my head, I can think of a handful of times I've resisted immorality, but not overwhelmingly. Maybe none of us are really as good as we think we are.

As Dumbledore said, "There comes a time in life when we must choose between what is easy and what is right." When that happens, how many times do we take the easy road?

Thoughts?

[Astreja]

CL, I assure you that over the years I've had more than a couple revenge-type fantasies. I've occasionally gone so far as to semi-seriously work out the logistics. My struggle now is to keep things like that from occupying prime real estate in my brain so that I can use my mind for things that are actually beneficial to my well-being, rather than wasting time snarling at people who aren't in my life any more.

We may not be "good as we think we are," but IMO as long as we are capable of resisting our nastier impulses we are good enough.

[The Grand Nudger]

-that these binary wonderings are incapable of adequately capturing or commenting on the human condition in the first place.

Running with it, though, if the field of our moral decisions is determined by our genetics and our opportunity then that;s all there is to our "character" in the first place.  Good Character™ is the sum of desires juxtaposed against the dearth of opportunity.  

One wonders how this applies in scenarios a little more dire and complicated than fibbing to ones landlord or sleeping with multiple men.  For example.  I detest killing.  I find it loathsome.  I have no desire to do it, and yet I'm both willing and capable.  How do we run the moral calculus on that and come to some comment on a binary nature of man that doesn't and never did exist in the first place?

[vorlon13]

Any acts of 'good' or even 'good' by nature is to no avail if one is a heretic or apostate.

Sorry, but that's how it works.

[Jackalope]

Not-killing, not-raping, and not-cheating seem like awfully low bars to clear to claim the mantle of goodness.

What is good to me, lies not in simply refraining from evil, but instead lies in the positive things we do, in particular for others (and not just our families).

[Brian37]

I started a poll thread yesterday asking people if they thought of themselves as good. I answered the poll myself (yes) and also stated that I think most people/the average person are generally good.

I do feel that way. But nonetheless there is something that has always bothered me about that sentiment.

The thing is, most of us don't rape, murder, steal, cheat on our spouse, etc (whatever it is that might make us "bad people")... simply because we neither have the desire to nor the opportunity to. Especially with rape and kill. We can pat ourselves on the back for never having done anything like that, but really it's just pure luck that we weren't born with the genetic desire for those things, and/or raised in such a way or culture that might lead us to it. Its pure luck that I don't have the genetic predisposition to want to have sex with multiple men and so I stay loyal to mine. But if we wanted to do something really bad and we had the opportunity to, would we do it?

Does it really speak to our character when we've never done anything really bad simply because we've never had the desire/opportunity to do it? When was the last time we resisted doing something (even something really small) that we wanted to do and could do, but didnt simply because we thought it was wrong? And if we always do the wrong thing every single time we want to and have the opportunity to despite knowing its wrong, are we really that different from the person who rapes every time he feels like it and can? If so, the only difference between him and us is desire and opportunity.

Maybe saying "im a good person because ive never killed, raped, stolen, cheated, abused anyone, etc," when the desire/opportunity to do those things was never there to begin with, isnt a good measurement of character. Maybe character should be measured by the times we wanted to do something we knew in our hearts is immoral, had the opportunity to do it, but chose not to simply for the sake of doing the right thing. Unfortunately, off the top of my head, I can think of a handful of times I've resisted immorality, but not overwhelmingly. Maybe none of us are really as good as we think we are.

As Dumbledore said, "There comes a time in life when we must choose between what is easy and what is right." When that happens, how many times do we take the easy road?

Thoughts?

The last quote has a nice ring to it, but again, since "right" means something different to the individual, even that is a loaded cliche.

I look at the world naturally, without clubs, and don't even give my fellow atheists a pass.

"right" to me isn't demanding my own utopia that others have to follow, but I would argue that "right" is anything that avoids violence as much as possible and that which fosters more cooperation.

And I also hate this bullshit of "hard vs easy".

Evolution isn't either or, but both. 

I think especially on the right, economically speaking, they have far more liars whom try to convince those below them that work has to always be hard. No, I see no fucking point in that one bit if humans constantly invent things to make their lives easier. We always hear in the west, "I worked hard so my kids lives would be easier".

Cant have it both ways then. Work can be productive and easy at the same time, that is why we invent things. Some inventions took longer to figure out and more sweat than others sure. But some human inventions start by dumb luck too. 

I think for workers at least, the better rested they are, the more they can afford things, the more independent they can be and thus more productive. But no, I don't like how the global economy has been a race for cheaper and cheaper labor, because all that does is allow the rich to suck the money up and treat humans like machines.

But I agree most humans don't rape and murder, most simply want to survive. I simply don't agree that our species morality is being magically handed down to us from above or is coming out of old books.

[Minimalist]

Define "good."

[brewer]

Who/whom is doing the judging. And as with your other thread, with no subject, context, set or setting I have no clue.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I try and live by the mantra of 'don't be a cunt', but you can't get on with everyone and some people will think you're bad regardless because different perspectives, yo.

But meh, my friends and family think I'm alright, so that's alright for me. I'm sure I piss people off sometimes but hell who doesn't.

[Aroura]

I think some of you are being a bit hard on her. They are legitimate wonderings. Asking questions is a very healthy thing.

What is interesting to me is that this line of reasoning in the OP is what eventually lead me to realize that free-will isn't real. We don't chose to be good or bad. We just are what we are. And good and bad are both totally subjective, depending on who's POV you are looking from.

To answer the OP, I didn't answer your poll, even though I read it, for some of the reasons you are wondering. I try and be the best I can, but I am not comfortable labeling myself as a "good" person. I am a fortunate, lucky person. That's the best way I can think of to describe myself.

Good questions, CL. I hope it spurs more good conversations.