39 replies to this topic

[Will of NGE]

If someone knows only good and does only good, are they really good? Or are they doing the only thing they know? They do not chose between good and evil because they know only one, so are they really good?

This is a rethorical hypothetical question, discuss away. Do note that the answer is most likely not absolute.

 

(sorry, was thinking one, written another)

 

This about a person doing the deed, not if the   deed is good or bad. This way perspective is eliminated and you can actually think about the question and not philosophise about it to no end.

Edited by Will of NGE, 23 August 2014 - 05:29 PM.

[Hedgehog]

can you not mess with my mind

let me get this straight

i cant figure out

unghhhh

[DarkPrince]

"If someone knows only good and does only good, are they really good?"
Obviously.

"Or are they doing the only thing they know?"
Which is good.

"They do not chose between good and evil because they know only one, so are they really good?"
Yep. They can't be anything but good, can they?

8D

[Nepenthe]

I think knowing only good means that your actual actions are still good, but you as a person are not necessarily good for performing them.

[Linkd]

This is fun.

 

If someone considers themselves "good" you can think of it as a perspective.

They have been raised to think that way is "right" or taught by society that it is "right or good"

With that in mind one can to realize that there are two sides but both are two different things labeled by society as 

"good" or "evil" so even is someone does good without the other you can argue that it's "evil" because of different

social perspectives and how we view things.

 

<sorry I let my mind go a bit loose.  this stuff is fun>

[Chilled SDK]

Mhmm. Have to agree with Link. The matter of 'good' or 'bad' is a matter of perspective. If you were to say a person only knows 'good', that is only one society or civilization's good. This may not be 'good' to another society. The person performing them could be understood as pure for not knowing anything other than that 'good' however the actions themselves would not be right.

 

However if the person is aware if they are doing 'good', then they must be aware of what is 'bad'.

[Shrimpeh]

To answer that, you have to first define "good".
Because somewhere in this big world, something we consider "good", is considered bad/evil.

[Amuro Ray]

Back in the days, homosexuality was considered absolutely bad and evil by pretty much everybody on the planet. It was bad the be one, to do things one does and the spectator were "victims of the sight and in need for reparation". Hence, it was consider good to denounce the "vile deviant", torture him until he admits his affections and burn him at the stakes. It took century before people realized that they were wrong (well, not everyone believes it, but you get me).

 

Socrate once said that one must know that he doesn't know. They didn't, but thought they knew at 100% that it was bad. They though they knew at 100% that there was actually reasons to burn some one alive. They had arguments and also had other arguments that they considered not valid.

 

300 hundreds years from now, people will probably talk about us like I talk about our ancestor.

Do we really know? Or is it possible that we burned some Galileo before a Rene Descartes could appear to make us realize that our logic had flaws that we didn't know yet, making it possible for a Copernicus to enter the scene? Or is it possibly that we didn't do anything at someone that was deserving a sentence because we didn't have a Martin Luther King to point it out yet like he did with segregation?

 

Though, this borders an appeal to tradition, isn't it? Rhetorical question calls rhetoric I presume. There is no proof that past is reproducing itself. Also no proof of the opposite before it is part of the past, though. Yep, it is definitely fun to let one mind go loose. Sorry for that.

Edited by Amuro Ray, 23 August 2014 - 02:03 PM.

[Will of NGE]

To answer that, you have to first define "good".
Because somewhere in this big world, something we consider "good", is considered bad/evil.

 

Help a kitten, clean the neighbourhood, help an old lady over the road...

It's a hypothetical question, conventional thinking won't help much.

 

 

"If someone knows only good and does only good, are they really good?"
Obviously.

"Or are they doing the only thing they know?"
Which is good.

"They do not chose between good and evil because they know only one, so are they really good?"
Yep. They can't be anything but good, can they?

8D

 

Are they really? Is a man without fear really brave? Is a man without evil really good? If you know only good, are you doing good willingly? Are you choosing to do good or are you doing the only thing you know?

How can one be good if they do not chose to do good, but do only what they know?
 

 

Mhmm. Have to agree with Link. The matter of 'good' or 'bad' is a matter of perspective. If you were to say a person only knows 'good', that is only one society or civilization's good. This may not be 'good' to another society. The person performing them could be understood as pure for not knowing anything other than that 'good' however the actions themselves would not be right.

 

However if the person is aware if they are doing 'good', then they must be aware of what is 'bad'.

 

This isn't a matter of perspective, this isn't a conflict of interest.

Good does not exist without evil. To define good you must have evil. There is no North without South. No Dark without Light.
 

[Linkd]

I don't think that's true, You can say in terms that Yes there has to be one with the other, however I don't believe it.  One can be conditioned and raised to be and hold only one belief and cannot think out of their own box.  For examplee, North Koreans know that they must obey and knowing that if they don't they will die.  The new gen only knows to obey and only know that one thing which is their societal upbringing they CANNOT think outside of that.  It's a mental conditioning so it's all based on perspective, the previous point was to just show that one can exist w/o the other but back on topic, good like earlier is just a perspective of the general SOCIETY such as helping another person.  This is what unviersally will be considerd "good" however murder is "bad" but in a society where killing was not out of place like in the past it's never "bad" so that can justify that society changes as well as beliefs of good and bad which can also mean that "good" is not really "good" because it's all based on society's thought and or thinking

[Will of NGE]

This about a person doing the deed, not if the   deed is good or bad. This way perspective is eliminated and you can actually think about the question and not philosophise about it to no end.

I get a feeling more than one person missed this point, so I'll add it to the first post.

Edited by Will of NGE, 23 August 2014 - 05:28 PM.

[Shrimpeh]

i understand your point now, i think.
A person that can only do one thing (in this case good), and is not able to do the other.
Ie he doesn't have any other choice because he only knows one thing.
Can he be really called a human then? Isn't he more like a robot? a good robot?

[Kannade]

They aren't a good person. In order for them to be a good person, their actions have to be backed by good intentions. For example, where I live, people think you're an asshole when you put a plastic bottle in the trash can, but they see you as a good person that cares for the environment when you put it in a recycling bin. Over in New York City, you get a couple of cents for each plastic bottle you take to a recycling center so some people there hoard plastic bottles and cans so they they can cash out at the recycling center. Are those people considered to be "good" people for recycling when their motive is to make money & they actually don't give two shits environment? Not really, so that's what I mean when I said a person is only good when they do things with good intentions.

 

You said in the OP that they don't know what evil is, so they can't even understand the concept of good if they have no concept of evil to juxtapose it. That person is only doing what they know how to do or what they are told to do. For example, when they are recycling or doing whatever they're doing, they don't think to themselves "I'm doing this because this is the right thing to do #Ilovetheenvironment," they're thinking "kk I guess I gotta pick this shit up and put it in the recycling bin because that's what I'm supposed to do/that's what I was taught to do." So because they lack good intention, they really aren't a good person. Also, to clarify just because I don't think they are a good person, it doesn't mean I'm calling them a bad person either because they don't have ill intentions when they do shit.

Edited by Kannade, 23 August 2014 - 05:57 PM.

[Will of NGE]

i understand your point now, i think.
A person that can only do one thing (in this case good), and is not able to do the other.
If he doesn't have any other choice because he only knows one thing.

 

This a lot more to the point now, yes. You might have just said what I keep saying, but I get a feeling you're starting to get it.

[Amuro Ray]

This about a person doing the deed, not if the   deed is good or bad. This way perspective is eliminated and you can actually think about the question and not philosophise about it to no end.

I get a feeling more than one person missed this point, so I'll add it to the first post.

Yup, I totally missed it.

 

You want to know if we think that being good comes from actually choosing of doing good over evil (which makes define good or bad unimportant and beside the point) or if a person is good by just doing good things because he only knows how to do that? In other word, if the intention and consciousness of the act is important or not?

 

Then, I think it is. A good person needs to have the conscious intention to do good. The hypothetical individual you talk about doesn't know what he's doing. He just do it. By just doing it, he might do good, but I don't think it says a lot about him as a person. Actually choosing of doing good over evil is for me the most important part. I won't write more though...  in case I'm still beside the subject...

[Will of NGE]

Yup, I totally missed it.

 

You want to know if we think that being good comes from actually choosing of doing good over evil (which makes define good or bad unimportant and beside the point) or if a person is good by just doing good things because he only knows how to do that? In other word, if the intention and consciousness of the act is important or not?

 

Then, I think it is. A good person needs to have the conscious intention to do good. The hypothetical individual you talk about doesn't know what he's doing. He just do it. By just doing it, he might do good, but I don't think it says a lot about him as a person. Actually choosing of doing good over evil is for me the most important part. I won't write more though...  in case I'm still beside the subject...

 

Well, I already know what I think about it and I have chosen my answer, but I wanted to pose this question to others as well as it is interesting.

The part in bold is a valid extension to the original question.

[DarkPrince]

Are they really? Is a man without fear really brave? Is a man without evil really good? If you know only good, are you doing good willingly? Are you choosing to do good or are you doing the only thing you know?

How can one be good if they do not chose to do good, but do only what they know?

Well, as long as they do good, technically, they are good. In my opinion.

As long as he's not introduced to evil, he can't be anything but good.

He doesn't have the choice to be evil.

[Will of NGE]

Well, as long as they do good, technically, they are good. In my opinion.

 

They are only doing good. They are not choosing to do good. Can you be good if it is not a choice you made, but a thing that happens?

[Natureboy]

The topic has been beat to death as parts of "the problem of evil" and "the problem of free will."  Under one conventional argument, only moral agents are capable of acting in a way that is either good or bad. Individuals or things that are incapable of moral judgements cannot be moral agents, and are thus not fully responsible for their actions. In order for moral agents to exist, they must be able to make choices. If there are no options available that are 'not good' or at least 'not as good', then there can't be agents exercising moral judgements.

 

That said, I think robots with inflexible programming can still be bad, as can a serial killer who has no sense of morality. To me it is not necessary to frame discussions of good and bad so as to make sin, judgement and forgiveness possible. Although there may not be an absolute/fixed frame of reference for good and bad, they are still useful concepts within a defined circumstance.

[pizhhh]

If farming was the only thing I knew, and I kept to farming for the rest of my life, am I a farmer or just a person who only knows how to farm? What you answer to this question will be my answer to the question.