(June 7, 2013 at 1:55 pm)John V Wrote: Yep. More realistically, should one be expected to try to alleviate all harm within one's means? For instance suppose someone writes a $30 check to charity once a month, but spends $50 every weekend at the bars? Good or evil?
Good. Not endangering others, helping someone who has fallen, opening the door for someone with their hands full, assisting someone change a flat tire on the side of the road, etc. All small things that indicate you are a good human. Expecting someone to become an unreasonable level of saintlyhood is not realistic.
(June 7, 2013 at 1:55 pm)John V Wrote: There's also a problem in the opposite direction. Is anyone who ever tried to alleviate any harm a good person? In that case, practically everyone is a good person.
Many serial killers did supposedly good things under the light of day but secretly they were evil incarnate. Evil people can do good things just like good people can do evil things.
(June 7, 2013 at 1:55 pm)John V Wrote: Yep, that's another problem I was going to get to. A doctor who prescribes chemotherapy is causing harm, but in the hope of an ultimately beneficial outcome. Is this the same as your mother? If not, why not?
If the net outcome is intended to reduce the total amount of harm then it's good, even if some harm must occur in the process. Ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure.
