Are people generally good or relucatant?

[Bacon]

The concept of good and evil is overused and far too extreme for my tastes. While I stand by my own policy of avoiding confrontation with others, which includes restraining myself from physically or indirectly harming people. I do wonder how different I would be acting if the combination law enforcement and the social stigma of being a criminal keep me in check. Meaning, how different would I be if there were no ramifications for certain actions?

To avoid a subject such as killing people, I'll use theft as my primary example. Before we can consider the question, we must define what is good and bad, with all else equal. Good can be defined as not causing harm to a significant other and bad is just the opposite. Significant other is a person, place or thing with protection under the law. This could mean that some physical property is a significant other, some pets like a dog can be a significant other, and some people can be significant others. Now I use the word some, because people were not always treated the same way, certain pets are illegal, and the consequences of ripping a playing card far outweigh the damage of a vehicle. Please don't take offense here, I'm merely defining what good and bad can mean. With hundreds of other recognized countries,what is considered heinous here is normal in others. But I won't delve into that.

So the question I am asking is, are people generally good or are our actions dictated by consequences alone?

Theft: Theft is not a simple crime, it varies depending on the method of theft and the good or service being stolen. Theft can be physical property or digital or intellectual property. Yet there are lots of inconsistencies that revolve around theft, especially when it comes to digital theft.

Example one: Let's say that guy walks into walmart and see the new [Insert artist] cd. You think, I want Song "A",but you don't have the cash to buy the cd. So you leave it there and download the song for free on the internet. So this begs the question, why would this fella steal this song? If he did not have the guts or the determination to acquire the physical cd, why would he steal via download?

Example two: Girl walks into the same walmart and sees a post of Naruto and his gang. Now, girl can spend 9 dollars on a picture, or she can find it on the internet or save a similar or better one later on.

Yes, I know my examples are based solely on these relatively cheap retail items, but they will help me illustrate the point, why would they do it? If shop lifting a lone candy bar can land you in jail with a hefty fine in the thousands, who in their right mind would do that? It's simple logic ofcourse, I don't want to get in trouble. Yet this begs the question, what if law enforcement was not so adamant on busting people for petty theft? Would Guy have taken the Cd and Girl taken the poster? If there are no legal ramifications, would you be more inclined to do things you normally wouldn't? Would people care about the indirect damage they cause others? For you see, theft of any kind not only takes from the retail store, no it takes food from the people shipping the good, the factories creating the good, the people originally coming up with the idea and so on and so forth.

This leads me to my original point of significant others, historically all peoples in the United states were not subject to the same protection under the law. Thus, the bigots who acquired slaves could beat them if they didn't comply to their demands. The reason why, Certain people were not protected under the law, thus they were at the time, not considered a significant other by a size-able chunk of the mainstream population.

I am not asking you to judge others, past or present. I am merely wondering, based on your observations of how people including yourself think; are our actions dictated by consequences alone?

[PlatonicZombie]

Originally Posted by Bacon

The concept of good and evil is overused and far too extreme for my tastes. While I stand by my own policy of avoiding confrontation with others, which includes restraining myself from physically or indirectly harming people. I do wonder how different I would be acting if the combination law enforcement and the social stigma of being a criminal keep me in check. Meaning, how different would I be if there were no ramifications for certain actions?

To avoid a subject such as killing people, I'll use theft as my primary example. Before we can consider the question, we must define what is good and bad, with all else equal. Good can be defined as not causing harm to a significant other and bad is just the opposite. Significant other is a person, place or thing with protection under the law. This could mean that some physical property is a significant other, some pets like a dog can be a significant other, and some people can be significant others. Now I use the word some, because people were not always treated the same way, certain pets are illegal, and the consequences of ripping a playing card far outweigh the damage of a vehicle. Please don't take offense here, I'm merely defining what good and bad can mean. With hundreds of other recognized countries,what is considered heinous here is normal in others. But I won't delve into that.

So the question I am asking is, are people generally good or are our actions dictated by consequences alone?

Theft: Theft is not a simple crime, it varies depending on the method of theft and the good or service being stolen. Theft can be physical property or digital or intellectual property. Yet there are lots of inconsistencies that revolve around theft, especially when it comes to digital theft.

Example one: Let's say that guy walks into walmart and see the new [Insert artist] cd. You think, I want Song "A",but you don't have the cash to buy the cd. So you leave it there and download the song for free on the internet. So this begs the question, why would this fella steal this song? If he did not have the guts or the determination to acquire the physical cd, why would he steal via download?

Example two: Girl walks into the same walmart and sees a post of Naruto and his gang. Now, girl can spend 9 dollars on a picture, or she can find it on the internet or save a similar or better one later on.

Yes, I know my examples are based solely on these relatively cheap retail items, but they will help me illustrate the point, why would they do it? If shop lifting a lone candy bar can land you in jail with a hefty fine in the thousands, who in their right mind would do that? It's simple logic ofcourse, I don't want to get in trouble. Yet this begs the question, what if law enforcement was not so adamant on busting people for petty theft? Would Guy have taken the Cd and Girl taken the poster? If there are no legal ramifications, would you be more inclined to do things you normally wouldn't? Would people care about the indirect damage they cause others? For you see, theft of any kind not only takes from the retail store, no it takes food from the people shipping the good, the factories creating the good, the people originally coming up with the idea and so on and so forth.

This leads me to my original point of significant others, historically all peoples in the United states were not subject to the same protection under the law. Thus, the bigots who acquired slaves could beat them if they didn't comply to their demands. The reason why, Certain people were not protected under the law, thus they were at the time, not considered a significant other by a size-able chunk of the mainstream population.

I am not asking you to judge others, past or present. I am merely wondering, based on your observations of how people including yourself think; are our actions dictated by consequences alone?

First, there are a few assumptions that seem to be missed. If you want to delve into the subject of actions being guided based upon consequences alone, we have to first talk of two things: 1) Are significant others to be considered places and things? 2) Does law help guide other's actions?

I would suggest, first, that places and things are not SOs (significant others). SOs may be viewed as owning these things, but (IMO) should not be considered SOs themselves. Also, what about animals and the such? I never see them as being owned (with the respect of pets, which own their humans). So, unless you're of the opinion of Descartes, their pain or lack of pain is of concern. I would then suggest that SOs include animals as well.

Secondly, if you're to view people's actions to be guided by their concequences alone, then you have to assume that the law is an aid for them to do so; good or bad, that is not the concern. The fact is that there are times the law is not in the thought process. There are many examples to be found but right now I'm thinking of the trolley problem. There are various scenarios but the typical one is: there is a train on a track heading toward a switch. It's set-up right now to run over five people; however, the switch lever is next to you and you can pull that lever that will switch the train to an alternate route that will lead it to run over one person. (Alternate versions of this problem has the lever next to the one person you'd switch the train to run over). Still, the point is that there are problems of which the law has no way to help. This would mean that people guide their actions the best they can seperate from the law.

As for you're actual question I suggest that many are guided by this view, and it's hard to suggest this is wrong or right. (which I'm not doing.) When you ask if our actions are dictated by consequences alone I would ask if there was anything else they could be dictated by? I only ask this because there are good consequences as there are bad consequences. I feel, or at least the impressions I get from your examples, you view much of society acting in accordance to utilitarian principles. (This is getting long enough that I'm going to assume you know what that is, or will look it up).

The problem is that life is very much a hypocratical and, often times, confusing thing. No one ethical/moral frame work will do, as there are an infinite number of practical and not so practical situations experienced. Between Virtue Ethics, Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, etc...

So if you're asking from a ethical standpoint, are our actions guided by consequences alone? I ask, again, if there is anyway our actions can be guided by anything else? Ethically, that is what is of concern, actions and their consequences. However, if you're asking strictly on a practical matter, if our actions are always guided by consequences alone, I would say no. Heidegger suggested that often times people are in a world within a world; meaning that often times people are not in the moment. The best example I can give you of this is when you're driving on "autopilot" to a job, or where ever, and your thinking about a girl friend or boy friend, or the speech your going to give, etc... You're not in the moment of driving at that time. You're mentally somewhere else. So, technically, whatever you do when you're driving has no meaning, as you're not even thinking of your actions. (Many times when this happens you'll have the feeling of wondering how you got to your destination in one piece as you do not recall how you really go there.) I fail to recoginze how that action of driving, or whatever people may be doing without actually mentally being there, have them concerned with their concequences of their actions.

[Bacon]

First off, I would like to note that this was a simplified question, so to speak. I wasn't drawing from other sources such as utilitarianism because there are an endless stream of examples to draw off of. I could have drawn from Calvinism and argued that people are inherently evil and so much more. No, what I am asking is a simple question question that asks if negative consequences influence how we rationalize we decisions. It is also why I defined good and bad, positive and negative. Why you might ask, because it was a spur of the moment thought that I was inspired to ask, it had nothing to do with anyone's philosophy, because any that I could draw upon are too staunch on their views.Most of which I could easily refute or disagree, thus I asked this relatively uninformed question, that perhaps I was not able to convey in the original post.

First, there are a few assumptions that seem to be missed. If you want to delve into the subject of actions being guided based upon consequences alone, we have to first talk of two things: 1) Are significant others to be considered places and things? 2) Does law help guide other's actions?

1) Significant others are anything that have value in society's eyes.
2)Law is a tangible example, nothing more and nothing less. I am ultimately asking about ethics in general.

I would suggest, first, that places and things are not SOs (significant others). SOs may be viewed as owning these things, but (IMO) should not be considered SOs themselves. Also, what about animals and the such? I never see them as being owned (with the respect of pets, which own their humans). So, unless you're of the opinion of Descartes, their pain or lack of pain is of concern. I would then suggest that SOs include animals as well.

A house is a significant other, if the police do not catch you for damaging another's property; the person who may catch you will harm you themselves. Thus, property can be considered significant. As for animals, perhaps you are reading far too much into my statements. I have always referred to pets that I take of as mine. I love my pets and would do anything to protect in as long as it is in my ability to do so. I am in no way saying that they are objects. Furthermore, many a people refer to their children as theirs. The parents or guardians take full responsibility for their actions when they are young, they take care of them, and many parents love their children to death. Yet there is an unwritten rule that the kids are not objects.

Secondly, if you're to view people's actions to be guided by their concequences alone, then you have to assume that the law is an aid for them to do so; good or bad, that is not the concern. The fact is that there are times the law is not in the thought process. There are many examples to be found but right now I'm thinking of the trolley problem. There are various scenarios but the typical one is: there is a train on a track heading toward a switch. It's set-up right now to run over five people; however, the switch lever is next to you and you can pull that lever that will switch the train to an alternate route that will lead it to run over one person. (Alternate versions of this problem has the lever next to the one person you'd switch the train to run over). Still, the point is that there are problems of which the law has no way to help. This would mean that people guide their actions the best they can seperate from the law.

I would have liked it you would have refrained from life and death situations, I am not asking for extremes. This is because I just don't go there, if I had wanted to go down that route; this would be about being good and evil. Then I would have given tangible examples of war crimes and other various acts of tragedy caused by people. What you fail to see and what I failed to mention because of this are all the various variants that go into one's decision. For a short list of variables, one would have to consider

1) The era. Was this during a time of Overt racism?
2) The economic factor.
3)Who the people are. Something tells me that people in Germany have historically acted independent of the French.
4) The laws of society.
Etc.

The list can go on and on,something that I did not want to delve into to. I would never voluntarily try to rationalize why a person would purposefully run over people with a train, if they could have avoided doing so. Situations like this are important to consider, but there are too many possibilities to consider.

As for you're actual question I suggest that many are guided by this view, and it's hard to suggest this is wrong or right. (which I'm not doing.) When you ask if our actions are dictated by consequences alone I would ask if there was anything else they could be dictated by? I only ask this because there are good consequences as there are bad consequences. I feel, or at least the impressions I get from your examples, you view much of society acting in accordance to utilitarian principles. (This is getting long enough that I'm going to assume you know what that is, or will look it up).

As I said above, I did not draw from any published philosophies.

The problem is that life is very much a hypocratical and, often times, confusing thing. No one ethical/moral frame work will do, as there are an infinite number of practical and not so practical situations experienced. Between Virtue Ethics, Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, etc...

I am well aware of this.

So if you're asking from a ethical standpoint, are our actions guided by consequences alone? I ask, again, if there is anyway our actions can be guided by anything else? Ethically, that is what is of concern, actions and their consequences. However, if you're asking strictly on a practical matter, if our actions are always guided by consequences alone, I would say no. Heidegger suggested that often times people are in a world within a world; meaning that often times people are not in the moment. The best example I can give you of this is when you're driving on "autopilot" to a job, or where ever, and your thinking about a girl friend or boy friend, or the speech your going to give, etc... You're not in the moment of driving at that time. You're mentally somewhere else. So, technically, whatever you do when you're driving has no meaning, as you're not even thinking of your actions. (Many times when this happens you'll have the feeling of wondering how you got to your destination in one piece as you do not recall how you really go there.) I fail to recoginze how that action of driving, or whatever people may be doing without actually mentally being there, have them concerned with their concequences of their actions.

Bingo, finally after working through all that fluff. Yes, there is probably no other way to rationalize one's actions without first thinking of the consequences, whether the bad or good are there. Every action we commit in our daily lives are dictated by what could happen.

Prime example: Someone finds themselves angry and wants to attack someone in broad daylight; would that person be more inclined to give into their passions if they were alone? What if the police would turn a blind eye because of their deep seated prejudices? Let me rephrase my question, in a true state of nature in an isolated bubble for but a moment's notice; would one care about how the person they were going to harm if there would be no retaliation? Or would this person be held in check if someone could possibly stop him, if his peers might possibly disown him, and lastly if law enforcement were going to arrest him. Which kinda suggests that ethics has almost nothing to do with the subject, but then I ask if it ever plays a role in our decisions? Would people harm another based on the goodness of their hearts or are they ulimately held in check by the negative consequences. Whether they a direct result on the attacker or something like upsetting the loved ones of the potential victim.

This is a question using practical examples that affect our everyday lives and not life and death situations such as blowing up your space pod in order to stop a cataclysmic impact with the earth. Those situations are irrelevant, just like your train example to a certain degree.

Furthermore, you sound as if you are suggesting that people many a time act without thinking. It sounds as if you are saying that you can do anything you want, if you are not aware of your actions.

[PlatonicZombie]

I'm not stating that people can do anything they want so long as their not aware of their actions. I was merely pointing out that often times people are not in the moment, which means they do not think of the concequences of their actions. I gave no opinion either way if I thought that was good or bad. Just that I do not see how this falls into your example of people acting in relation to the intended consequences they desire. If anything, I was trying to point out that these moments are actions without intentions. It is up to you to decide if that is good or bad, desired or not. I don't wish to be told what to think, as I'm sure you do not either. So, if you believe there is a possibility of people acting without intentions, it is possible then that people may be able to act without thinking of concequences; which means neither the negative or positive concequences matter, thus, do not influence their decision making.

[Bacon]

Ah I see, just seemed a bit off to me. All I'm doing is asking for opinions and your perspective. Although what you described is a fluffy version of saying some people(including myself) are oblivious in their everyday lives.

Edit: I didn't mean to seem angry in my post,but I was trying to address all the numerous points. Your response didn't exactly derail itself too much,but it made me re-think what I was saying. >.>

[PlatonicZombie]

Originally Posted by Bacon

Ah I see, just seemed a bit off to me. All I'm doing is asking for opinions and your perspective. Although what you described is a fluffy version of saying some people(including myself) are oblivious in their everyday lives.

Edit: I didn't mean to seem angry in my post,but I was trying to address all the numerous points. Your response didn't exactly derail itself too much,but it made me re-think what I was saying. >.>

No worries, I understand that text is devoid of tone. I try to give the people the benefit of the doubt in that respect. But I appreiciate your effort to explain your comment. I probably came off like a nut as it is. So I'm sure I deserved a harsh response haha!!! I was trying to clean up my post before I sent it, but in do so I recognized how broad the topic was and felt I had to roll the dice with what I had. So thanks for reading it. I do tend to go off on tangents when I type, and the explanations from one thought to another would only serve to make a much longer post. No one wants to read one post for an hour. haha! Anywhos, I don't recommend being aware of your everyday life. That's a sure way to go insane.

[Bacon]

It was fun to read! I learned about utilitarianism and got to flush out the real aim of my thread.

[mrsticky005]

I think it might be better to say that people are weak-minded.
Evil is often (but not always) easier to choose than good.
Most people are not extremes of good or evil. They are usually
somewhere in the middle. You could call them lukewarm.
For it takes a certain kind of strength of will to be wholly good or wholly evil.

[Bacon]

Hmm, that's a good way of summing it up. :3

[Maikeru D. Shinigami]

I'm just going to take into account the "more good" people.

I think it's somewhat a mixture of both. They have came up "good", but a lot of that would have to do with the environment they grow up in. Whereas, they may have disagreed with certain things if they grew up in a different environment. In a way, like influenced into being good.

I'm more of a reasonably reluctant type. I'll yell at umpires for being shitty, and whatnot, and complain about crap the world does, but won't actually do anything severe to get me in serious trouble.

[Bacon]

Hmm, that last part is what sends chills down my spine. Most of us including my self seem to believe in certain principles of being good,but we don't always act. I remember some girls beating up another in plain daylight, yet no one did anything. It makes me respect and revile our nations soldiers, who put their lives on the line when most of us would not.

Beating

[Maikeru D. Shinigami]

I sure as hell wouldn't.

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by mrsticky005

I think it might be better to say that people are weak-minded.
Evil is often (but not always) easier to choose than good.
Most people are not extremes of good or evil. They are usually
somewhere in the middle. You could call them lukewarm.
For it takes a certain kind of strength of will to be wholly good or wholly evil.

I should also add that strength of will comes through adversity.
A person who has never faced fear cannot be called brave.
I think we are all born with a tendency for weakness. To make
the easy choice rather than the difficult choice. However in
the face of adversity we either sink or we swim.

[Maikeru D. Shinigami]

I don't like swimming, there's sharks in the ocean.

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by Maikeru Shinigami

I don't like swimming, there's sharks in the ocean.

It's an expression. You don't have to actually swim...unless you do.

[Maikeru D. Shinigami]

I know, I was just trying to lighten the mood, which wasn't even darkened.

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by Maikeru Shinigami

I know, I was just trying to lighten the mood, which wasn't even darkened.

Bright light at night what a sight to fly a kite with all it's might it shall smite



GUMMY BEARS!