What makes a 'good' person?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Good and evil are definable terms. Stop living in caves.

Good- That which allows or creates growth in understanding the world.

Evil- That which stops or hinders growth in understanding the world.




posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


Good and evil are subject to interpretation.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Hexidecimal
 


Would you explain..

How does what i said not match every use and action... just apply it to somthing in your weak mind.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by lovelyn
 


"
What makes a 'good' person?

"

That will be the sort of person that conforms to what YOU deem to be a 'good' person. Some people think George Bush is a good person. Some think Tony Blair is a good person and some even think the Pope is a 'Good' person? So it takes all sorts



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


Oh boy..

You are implying that everyone, everywhere has the exact same opinions on good and evil.

Edit: And that they have the same idea on what is progress and what is stopping it.

[edit on (1/15/0909 by Hexidecimal]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by lovelyn
 


Long philosophical question!

Short answer: A good person, is one who does no intentional harm to other people and creatures. Conversely, a bad person is exactly the opposite.

spikey



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Hexidecimal
 



If you had enough knowledge you could tell if something will help somone progress in understanding or inhibit it.

Of course you must have knowledge. We all know that the world is filled with ignorant people though... so i would expect everyone to agree...

You'd probobly get in a fight with a bum trying to explain colors. Some people just dont think its understandable and so their mind becomes weak and frail.


[edit on 15-1-2009 by Wertdagf]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Hexidecimal
 



If you had enough knowledge you could tell if something will help somone progress in understanding or inhibit it.

Of course you must have knowledge. We all know that the world is filled with ignorant people though... so i would expect everyone to agree...

You'd probobly get in a fight with a bum trying to explain colors. Some people just dont think its understandable and so their mind becomes weak and frail.


[edit on 15-1-2009 by Wertdagf]


Again. Everything you are saying suggests that every person thinks the same, and comprehends every situation the same.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by tac109
I always believed that what seperates a good person from a bad person is for example, A bad person will lie, know they lied, not care and contiue to lie. A good person will lie, know they lied, and feel kinda sorry for it and try not to lie again. Nobody can follow the 10 commandments, we can only try to.


Should a good or bad person be confined by their god given nature? If someone has the propensity to be a "good" person, why are they good over someone who has been given bad traits? There have found genes that give people a tendency to do certain things. Aggressiveness being one example that genes largely dictate. Aggressive people are generally considered "bad", but can that person help their genes?

In the case of mother terresa, she might have had good genes that someone else didn't have. But why is one good and the other bad when they are just following a program given to them by nature via genes? Shouldn't everyone have an equal playing field concerning goodness, something that genes and character traits have nothing to do with?

In all honesty, there really isn't any good people because they all do things in egotism. They get some sort of benefit out of it and there is no escaping that. A person helping starving kids in some remote country would be considered "good" while someone at home partaking in a hobby would be considered "less good" on someone's scale. But both are doing what they enjoy, there is self benefit, so why aren't these people considered equal?

[edit on 15-1-2009 by ghaleon12]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Hexidecimal
 


What your implying is that people are not predictable...... That their very thoughts and actions are NOT a result of definable variables.

You are wrong... with enough knowledge of someone you could predict every thought.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


Stop what your trying to explain(and failing) and look at what you have been posting. You are making no sense what so ever buddy.

Get back on topic...



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Hexidecimal
 


What your implying is that people are not predictable...... That their very thoughts and actions are NOT a result of definable variables.

You are wrong... with enough knowledge of someone you could predict every thought.


We have two men. Both of them go into a grocery store. One of them buys a loaf of bread, (Man A). The other, steals one, (Man B).

What we know about man A, is that he's a hard working, upper class citizen. What we know about man B, is that he's an anti-establishment bum.

Man A sees man B stealing the loaf of bread, and considers it evil, while man B considers it a righteous and good act, because he anti-cooperation and gets to feed his family. Man A buys his loaf of bread, and considers it a good act, because he is supporting the store owner, and the company that made the bread. Man B sees man A buying the bread, and considers it an evil act for supporting such a money hungry cooperation.

Man A and man B have completely different personalities, lifestyles, and completely different views on what is good and evil.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Hexidecimal
 


What your implying is that people are not predictable...... That their very thoughts and actions are NOT a result of definable variables.

You are wrong... with enough knowledge of someone you could predict every thought.


whoa... easy does it...attaining knowledge is also subject for interpretation to the extent of ones beliefs. Somewhat of a mixture between what you believe and what is true. So the information you get from calculating the variables will not give you knowledge, but just more data. Only until you interpret it as true (by belief) can it be called knowledge - of course you can only prove calculation after the fact, thus making a prediction on thoughts subject to what you believe or how you interpret the data.

what I know, and what is, can be two different things.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hexidecimal

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Hexidecimal
 


What your implying is that people are not predictable...... That their very thoughts and actions are NOT a result of definable variables.

You are wrong... with enough knowledge of someone you could predict every thought.


We have two men. Both of them go into a grocery store. One of them buys a loaf of bread, (Man A). The other, steals one, (Man B).

What we know about man A, is that he's a hard working, upper class citizen. What we know about man B, is that he's an anti-establishment bum.

Man A sees man B stealing the loaf of bread, and considers it evil, while man B considers it a righteous and good act, because he anti-cooperation and gets to feed his family. Man A buys his loaf of bread, and considers it a good act, because he is supporting the store owner, and the company that made the bread. Man B sees man A buying the bread, and considers it an evil act for supporting such a money hungry cooperation.

Man A and man B have completely different personalities, lifestyles, and completely different views on what is good and evil.


If man b is doing it with the understanding that its based on his only option for food... then its ok... of course if poeple were good and he was really out of options for food... they would give it to him freely, of course if he was a good person he would repay without asking later.

If man A does not understand the possiblity of extreme motivation for extreme situation... he is ignorant and wouldnt understand Good or evil in his ignorance. Its not the act but the thoughts behind it. In his ingoranace his thoughts are evil.

It depends on the WHY. Which is definable only with enough information about the variable leading up to these situations...

Your saying somthing is realitve only beacuse you are ignorant of the reality behind the actions.

You cant use your ignorance as a shinning light as to what is real.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by juveous
 


Regardless they are both determinable with enough information about the aforementioned variables.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


It's funny that you think you're so much more intelligent than everyone else in here and you can't understand perspective, simple perspective.

Good and bad are manmade concepts, they didn't exist before that. And only now exist in ones head, as has already been explained ad nauseam in this thread.

Your trapped in this idea that you are smarter then everyone else and therefor get to define good and bad. You can't understand that you are just one perspective in the world, and everything you view as good could be viewed as bad by someone somewhere.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf


It depends on the WHY. Which is definable only with enough information about the variable leading up to these situations...

Your saying somthing is realitve only beacuse you are ignorant of the reality behind the actions.


The WHY is what will give the person pleasure, simply put. Even when following rules people only do so because they run from pain and move towards pleasure. Each person has their own will to receive pleasure, egoism, so each person's reality is subjective. Good and bad are respectively pleasurable and painful, so where's the objectivity? You guys are making be more complicated than it is.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by ghaleon12]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


It's funny that you think you're so much more intelligent than everyone else in here and you can't understand perspective, simple perspective.

Good and bad are manmade concepts, they didn't exist before that. And only now exist in ones head, as has already been explained ad nauseam in this thread.

Your trapped in this idea that you are smarter then everyone else and therefor get to define good and bad. You can't understand that you are just one perspective in the world, and everything you view as good could be viewed as bad by someone somewhere.


What if life was created by a natural function of the division of space. I guess youll never "get it" "dog". Nice "nine" yo! Why dont you type out some of the rap songs youve been working on.

they must be so good... you seem so intelligent.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


ah dissin the avatar, typical of people who realize they have no other argument.
BTW, way to stay on topic "dog"



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by liquidsmoke206
 



If your going to make an assuption that i havent already concidered all the possibilitys. Then i can make assumptions about you... althought mine are much more obvious and based on evidence.






top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join