What's a bad person?

[Matariki]

You miss the point. My point was not that "good" and "bad" behaviours do not exist among humans, but that they exist within their societal construction of them. Why did you quote that particular line I made, "I am sure there are some communities in the world where rape is not as condoned or seen as evil, but is seen as more natural or like how other animals use it."? I made that to illustrate that there can be communities in the world whose values are not exactly the same as the ones we'd be used to. Take societies who practice cannibalism, or who do not support female liberation.

I imagine the insane are aware of what you call "moral instincts" outside of the obvious-to-determine "demanding equality in treatment" and "golden rule". because they have retained their conditioning from society.

Asking whether or not there are absolutes will depend on your philosophy. I personally believe that absolutes only exist as concepts.

So I gotta ask, does make lying, cheating, stealing, murder, neglect, child abuse etc. neither right or wrong, If so why are people hurt as the result?
So if an individual commits any of these things can be considered the social norm depending on what culture you come from?
Does accountability exist?
Why is it in most cultures throughout history there are legal systems and punishments?

 

[Norton]

Okay, but why? Did you read my post #43.

Surely, you can use your intuition and your knowledge about these criminals to understand what is meant by "bad people."

I think it's all subjective. Every one of those people had admirers who thought the world of them.

And, you won't or can't judge "admirers" of evil? You would benefit from reading Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, by Daniel Goldhagen.

 

[lenina]

[MENTION=3998]niffer[/MENTION] to be merciful is a greater virtue than to be just

 

[subwayrider]

[MENTION=1678]Norton[/MENTION] I think my point was that there isn't an objective good or evil.
To the near-starving German citizens in the aftermath of WWI, he was a hero.

 

[subwayrider]

[MENTION=3998]niffer[/MENTION] to be merciful is a greater virtue than to be just

Not everyone would agree.

"Criminals thrive on society's understanding."

 

[lenina]

To expand a little on what @lenina and I just briefly discussed there:

Obviously it's only the individual that can truly choose, within their limits, what actions they take. In that aspect others give up responsibility. But still I do not see a reason for blame. Blame and hatred and disappointment, even if it's cast towards a "bad" individual, is allowing more negativity in the world to circulate. Communal responsibility for goodness, where everyone is made an advocate of goodness (should they be advocates of goodness about individuals being responsible for it in the first place), free of negative influence and energy towards others... would that not help to eradicate the "problems" more?

@subwayrider

i was adding to the above conversation. being fair and just is to take from others what they have taken from you, hurt others as they have hurt you. i see value in that. but more value in mercy.

 

[Norton]

@Norton I think my point was that there isn't an objective good or evil.
To the near-starving German citizens in the aftermath of WWI, he was a hero.

But they were wrong, disastrously wrong, weren't they? By any ethical measure (and "ethics" is a definitive subject category of philosophy), once it became clear what Hitler believed and espoused, he was obviously a "bad person." But you are right about subjectivity. We are all mired in subjectivity because even the most "objective" field is filtered through a subjective lens. That shouldn't stop us from aspiring to objectivity because the process thereof leads us to better understanding and judgments.

 

[CAptain]

Hmmm

 

[Cecilff2]

Well you see, if you leave dead bodies out in the open air for a long amount of time, the bacteria feeding off them multiplies dramatically. They expel waste gasses that smell terrible to us. In small numbers, you can't really smell it but after time there's so many that you get large concentrations of it. There are other ways to tell, of course(molds, discolorations and such), but smell is pretty easy. That's how you can tell a person's gone bad.

At that point it's usually best to bury them. Consider notifying your local officials to let them know that ol' uncle Gerard is going rank. They can usually deal with picking up the body and transporting it to a proper burial location. They tend to get fussy though if it's been there a while so try to make the call early so you(and they) don't have to deal with it.

Hope that helps!

 

[subwayrider]

But they were wrong, disastrously wrong, weren't they? By any ethical measure (and "ethics" is a definitive subject category of philosophy), once it became clear what Hitler believed and espoused, he was obviously a "bad person." But you are right about subjectivity. We are all mired in subjectivity because even the most "objective" field is filtered through a subjective lens. That shouldn't stop us from aspiring to objectivity because the process thereof leads us to better understanding and judgments.

As an INTP, I knew you'd understand my perspective. You're right, ethics is a definitive subject-- I think it's the study of "good" and "bad" centered on the perspective of humans. "Good" and "bad" are two examples of words that don't really mean anything-- that is, without a point of reference.

Looking at things objectively is the only way I'm willing to try and understand them, most of the time. I think it's the only way to avoid your perspective being seriously skewed by outside influence.

 

[Ciergan]

Nobody is truly bad. There are simply varying levels of functioning and well-being. Question is, how healthy is another person for you?

 

[subwayrider]

@subwayrider

i was adding to the above conversation. being fair and just is to take from others what they have taken from you, hurt others as they have hurt you. i see value in that. but more value in mercy.

It was wrong to take your words out of context. But, maybe it would help to define "just", "fair" and "mercy" (mostly for my own benefit).


Fair
1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.

Just
1. guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness.

Mercy
1. compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one's power; compassion, pity, or benevolence.

It seems that being just and fair are not precisely about balancing out the pain inflicted. In being just and fair in judging the actions of another, it has to be assumed that there is no bias, no desire to want to hurt the subject in question, whether or not they have done any harm to you. True justice, it seems, is impartial.

Before I say any more, I want to understand what was meant by this:

"Communal responsibility for goodness, where everyone is made an advocate of goodness (should they be advocates of goodness about individuals being responsible for it in the first place), free of negative influence and energy towards others... would that not help to eradicate the "problems" more?"

 

[aerosol]

A lot of people seem to think that malicious intent makes a person bad,




HA.

 

[Norton]

A lot of people seem to think that malicious intent makes a person bad

Well, it can certainly help convict someone.

 

[Trifoilum]

Differs between people.

But mostly rotates among intentions, methods, and attitudes. How bad it is, again, depends on everyone. :| The other side of 'you can't please everyone' is that in that same person you can't please, you -are- a bad person. Whether that bad is malicious / wicked / incompetent / lackluster / mediocre.

 

[Gaze]

A bad person, imho, is someone who does bad things with bad intentions, regularly. It can be one act or many acts. It's the nature of the act and the intention behind it. But someone can do a bad thing without realising it. In that sense, they were a little misguided or ignorant of consequences without intending to produce a particular negative outcome or result. But it's still a bad act nonetheless.

 

[turquoise]

@OP:

I think 'bad' is more of an abstract concept which is perhaps best understood intuitively rather than pinned down with precise definitions; in more philosophical terms, it's an essentialist concept rather than an existential one. Many actions or events have qualities and consequences which we can understand through the abstraction of good and bad, good and evil, etc. It's a way of understanding the world, not something that actually exists independently of us in a tangible way.

That being said, I have to disagree with the sentiments that there are no bad people and such. If we take the idea of being a 'bad person' has generally having had a net negative effect on the world versus a net positive effect, over the course of our lives*, then I seriously question whether anyone could claim to be a good person. Human existence is just too much of a perpetual war against others, taking whatever you can at the expense of everyone else. The 'good' actions we have are just a few drops amidst the entire ocean of destructive behaviors. People simply delude themselves into not recognizing this so that they can get through the day/rest of their life without being completely bitter and miserable. Unfortunately they're also more prone to continue such behaviors in their naivete.

I could elaborate on this for far too long, so I'll just stop here. I realize this is probably not a pleasant viewpoint for most to consider.

*EDIT: I'd think it's also good to look at things on a case by case basis, though. You might manage to be a generally good person overall, but still do some very bad things, and it seems wrong to let other positive actions "cancel out" the more negative ones. Such things aren't zero-sum, imho, as they all have their own unique consequences.

 

[lenina]

@subwayrider

to me anything which demands retribution, goes in the realm of justice. but that is just my view. the line u quoted, id ask niffer about that. im just coming from the perspective that to seek retribution for your hurt is just, but to forgive is well, as the saying goes...divine. but this is all sorta off topic from answering 'what is a bad person'. in my perspective moral nihilism is flawed, because whether you are being just, merciful or unjust, u are functioning on the assumption that some things are good and okay and other things are bad and not okay (and in need of being dealt with with either justice or mercy, those concepts would be obsolete if everything was good or if everything was neither good nor bad).

i believe i am rambling, but this is fun! thanks for starting this thread [MENTION=3998]niffer[/MENTION]!

 

[subwayrider]

I think 'bad' is more of an abstract concept which is perhaps best understood intuitively rather than pinned down with precise definitions; in more philosophical terms, it's an essentialist concept rather than an existential one. Many actions or events have qualities and consequences which we can understand through the abstraction of good and bad, good and evil, etc. It's a way of understanding the world, not something that actually exists independently of us in a tangible way.

That being said, I have to disagree with the sentiments that there are no bad people and such. If we take the idea of being a 'bad person' has generally having had a net negative effect on the world versus a net positive effect, over the course of our lives*, then I seriously question whether anyone could claim to be a good person. Human existence is just too much of a perpetual war against others, taking whatever you can at the expense of everyone else. The 'good' actions we have are just a few drops amidst the entire ocean of destructive behaviors. People simply delude themselves into not recognizing this so that they can get through the day/rest of their life without being completely bitter and miserable. Unfortunately they're also more prone to continue such behaviors in their naivete.

I agree for the most part, but I want to add that "good" and "bad" also need a point of reference to function as descriptors. IMO, there are no universally "good" or "bad" people, however horrendous their actions against other people, because although their actions against other people may have a negative effect on the world of people, they can still have a positive effect on the world not of people. This is rather crude, but think about the good a decomposing human body does as fertilizer for plant life, and to feed bacteria in the soil. This process allows for the growth of plant life, which leads to more oxygen in the air, creating a more stable environment for many forms of life on this Earth. A person who killed another person has done good for all forms of life on this Earth that need oxygen to survive.

So, I don't think that "good" or "bad" as definitive labels can apply ever, in a universal manner. It has to be specified to and what they are good or bad for. To truly define good and bad, we have to look even outside the realm of humans and human life.

 

[subwayrider]

to me anything which demands retribution, goes in the realm of justice. but that is just my view. the line u quoted, id ask niffer about that. im just coming from the perspective that to seek retribution for your hurt is just, but to forgive is well, as the saying goes...divine. but this is all sorta off topic from answering 'what is a bad person'. in my perspective moral nihilism is flawed, because whether you are being just, merciful or unjust, u are functioning on the assumption that some things are good and okay and other things are bad and not okay (and in need of being dealt with with either justice or mercy, those concepts would be obsolete if everything was good or if everything was neither good nor bad).

i believe i am rambling, but this is fun! thanks for starting this thread [MENTION=3998]niffer[/MENTION]!

I think it's fun, too.

I understand your perspective, but respectfully disagree. I believe in doing what works-- what it is that shows results. I was reading a Batman comic the other night, and noticed how he never kills. Ever. Well, thanks to his mercy, in the issue I read, the criminals all escaped from Arkham asylum and started on a killing spree, taking down several hundreds of innocent civilians. This could all have been avoided if he'd been willing to do what was necessary, rather than strictly adhere to his moral values.

This is fiction, yes, but events like those have been known to happen in real life. It's been a nice discussion, either way.