Defining concepts: Good and Bad people

[thelerner]

This is widening two discussions from off topic. How do we define Good vs Bad people?

 

Even though I just wrote it, I think its a bad question. The great majority imo are both; catch us at a good time, we're nice; a bad time, we're hurried and petty. The great majority of us are neither saints or psychopaths.

 

Still, isn't there a norm that runs across cultures of what a Good Person is? What do you think defines them? Are there specific actions they take? Thoughts they have? Karma paths chosen?

 

What kind of experiment or test would you set up to 'catch' the good person?

[Flolfolil]

...

Edited March 5, 2015 by Flolfolil

[Chang]

the only thing that defines a "good" person for me....and i personally wouldn't use the term "good".....is a willingness to look at their own shortcomings

 

self criticism is the seed of self development

 

Self observation is the seed of self development. That and our attempts at improvement. I have known too many people only too willing to admit their faults whilst making no attempt to correct them.

[Stosh]

The compassion which concerns us with the welfare of our fellows ..

seems to transcend cultural boundaries as a social-universal- 'good'.

But one must start from a contaminated position to arrive at that answer ,

and so I maintain that idea under a guise of suspended disbelief.

[Flolfolil]

...

Edited March 5, 2015 by Flolfolil

[dawei]

My wife once said, which I thought was supposed to be a semi-joke, that there are no good or bad people; there are just good and bad actions... that has caused me a very long pause on this topic ever since...

[thelerner]

My wife once said, which I thought was supposed to be a semi-joke, that there are no good or bad people; there are just good and bad actions... that has caused me a very long pause on this topic ever since...

I like this, and while its usually the truth for the great majority of us. Imo there are some plain bad/evil people in this world. Nasty selfish murderous ones who have no conscience. Not many, but a few can do a whole lot of harm. Thankfully there is the other extreme, amazing saintly people, who just light up a room and are selfless.. day after day.

[Bearded Dragon]

Religion, law, and social norms define good/bad. In reality there is no such thing.

[dust]

self criticism is the seed of self development

 

Can one pull oneself up by one's own bootstraps?

 

I see people as inherently selfish. That's how nature produces things. Animals evolve to survive. For humans, a big part of that is individual selfishness, and the smaller part is willingness to do things for the survival of the species. But that's still a selfish motive. When it comes to 'doing good' and 'doing bad', it can go either way.

[Flolfolil]

...

Edited March 5, 2015 by Flolfolil

[dust]

i agree with what you are saying, and the answer to that question is yes of course...but i am not sure how your post relates to my post

 

Sorry. Everything after the first line was intended as a response to the OP, not to you

(one of those things that seemed obvious in my head but in hindsight was clearly not obvious at all!)

[TzuJanLi]

There is no 'good/bad', only consequences and arbitrary assignments of desirability..

[dust]

Nieh Ch'ueh asked Wang Ni, "Do you know what all things agree in calling right?"

 

"How would I know that?" said Wang Ni.

 

"Do you know that you don't know it?"

 

"How would I know that?"

 

"Then do things know nothing?"

 

"How would I know that? However, suppose I try saying something. What way do I have of knowing that if I say I know something I don't really not know it? Or what way do I have of knowing that if I say I don't know something I don't really in fact know it? Now let me ask you some questions.

 

If a man sleeps in a damp place, his back aches and he ends up half paralyzed, but is this true of an eel? If he lives in a tree, he is terrified and shakes with fright, but is this true of a monkey? Of these three creatures, then, which one knows the proper place to live? Men eat the flesh of grass-fed and grain-fed animals, deer eat grass, centipedes find snakes tasty, and hawks and falcons relish mice. Of these four, which knows how food ought to taste? Monkeys pair with monkeys, deer go out with deer, and fish play around with fish. Men claim that Mao-ch'iang and Lady Li were beautiful, but if fish saw them they would dive to the bottom of the stream, if birds saw them they would fly away, and if deer saw them they would break into a run. Of these four, which knows how to fix the standard of beauty for the world?

 

The way I see it, the rules of benevolence and righteousness and the paths of right and wrong are all hopelessly snarled and jumbled. How could I know anything about such discriminations?"

 

 

I think in future posts it might be enough to simply find a Zhuangzi quote to respond with. Less thought and typing involved. Have to memorize the Zhuangzi though.

Edited November 30, 2014 by dustybeijing

[TzuJanLi]

Nieh Ch'ueh asked Wang Ni, "Do you know what all things agree in calling right?"

 

"How would I know that?" said Wang Ni.

 

"Do you know that you don't know it?"

 

"How would I know that?"

 

"Then do things know nothing?"

 

"How would I know that? However, suppose I try saying something. What way do I have of knowing that if I say I know something I don't really not know it? Or what way do I have of knowing that if I say I don't know something I don't really in fact know it? Now let me ask you some questions.

 

If a man sleeps in a damp place, his back aches and he ends up half paralyzed, but is this true of an eel? If he lives in a tree, he is terrified and shakes with fright, but is this true of a monkey? Of these three creatures, then, which one knows the proper place to live? Men eat the flesh of grass-fed and grain-fed animals, deer eat grass, centipedes find snakes tasty, and hawks and falcons relish mice. Of these four, which knows how food ought to taste? Monkeys pair with monkeys, deer go out with deer, and fish play around with fish. Men claim that Mao-ch'iang and Lady Li were beautiful, but if fish saw them they would dive to the bottom of the stream, if birds saw them they would fly away, and if deer saw them they would break into a run. Of these four, which knows how to fix the standard of beauty for the world?

 

The way I see it, the rules of benevolence and righteousness and the paths of right and wrong are all hopelessly snarled and jumbled. How could I know anything about such discriminations?"

 

 

I think in future posts it might be enough to simply find a Zhuangzi quote to respond with. Less thought and typing involved. Have to memorize the Zhuangzi though.

What's interesting is that Wang Ni knows enough about what he doesn't think he knows how to know, to think he knows not to know, and that's a bunch of thinking and knowing.. seems like it could be more plainly said, more simply..

[Boy]

...

Edited December 1, 2014 by Boy

[dust]

What's interesting is that Wang Ni knows enough about what he doesn't think he knows how to know, to think he knows not to know, and that's a bunch of thinking and knowing.. seems like it could be more plainly said, more simply..

 

"Everything has its "that," everything has its "this." From the point of view of "that" you cannot see it, but through understanding you can know it. So I say, "that" comes out of "this" and "this" depends on "that" - which is to say that "this" and "that" give birth to each other. But where there is birth there must be death; where there is death there must be birth. Where there is acceptability there must be unacceptability; where there is unacceptability there must be acceptability. Where there is recognition of right there must be recognition of wrong; where there is recognition of wrong there must be recognition of right. Therefore the sage does not proceed in such a way, but illuminates all in the light of Heaven. He too recognizes a "this," but a "this" which is also "that," a "that" which is also "this." His "that" has both a right and a wrong in it; his "this" too has both a right and a wrong in it. So, in fact, does he still have a "this" and "that"? Or does he in fact no longer have a "this" and "that"? A state in which "this" and "that" no longer find their opposites is called the hinge of the Way. When the hinge is fitted into the socket, it can respond endlessly. Its right then is a single endlessness and its wrong too is a single endlessness. So, I say, the best thing to use is clarity."

 

 

Clear enough?

[TzuJanLi]

"Everything has its "that," everything has its "this." From the point of view of "that" you cannot see it, but through understanding you can know it. So I say, "that" comes out of "this" and "this" depends on "that" - which is to say that "this" and "that" give birth to each other. But where there is birth there must be death; where there is death there must be birth. Where there is acceptability there must be unacceptability; where there is unacceptability there must be acceptability. Where there is recognition of right there must be recognition of wrong; where there is recognition of wrong there must be recognition of right. Therefore the sage does not proceed in such a way, but illuminates all in the light of Heaven. He too recognizes a "this," but a "this" which is also "that," a "that" which is also "this." His "that" has both a right and a wrong in it; his "this" too has both a right and a wrong in it. So, in fact, does he still have a "this" and "that"? Or does he in fact no longer have a "this" and "that"? A state in which "this" and "that" no longer find their opposites is called the hinge of the Way. When the hinge is fitted into the socket, it can respond endlessly. Its right then is a single endlessness and its wrong too is a single endlessness. So, I say, the best thing to use is clarity."

 

 

Clear enough?

Yep...

[Stosh]

bimp

[Marblehead]

I hadn't even posted in this thread.  Strange.

 

 

Anyhow, from a Taoist perspective, judging the manifest things would be inappropriate therefore to judge people as good/bad would be inappropriate.

 

However, as mentioned above, I think it is fair to judge the actions of people as to whether they are good or bad.

 

And I would add that "intention" should be considered whenever possible.  Something that ends up being "bad" may have been initiated with the best of intentions.

[Karl]

I hadn't even posted in this thread.  Strange.

 

 

Anyhow, from a Taoist perspective, judging the manifest things would be inappropriate therefore to judge people as good/bad would be inappropriate.

 

However, as mentioned above, I think it is fair to judge the actions of people as to whether they are good or bad.

 

And I would add that "intention" should be considered whenever possible.  Something that ends up being "bad" may have been initiated with the best of intentions.

That's one of the reason to correctly identify our own philosophy/values/morals and tie it them to reality as much as possible. That way there is no need to wonder. An adult maybe clearly in error according to our own values and then we can apply judgement. We may feel there error is one which they will learn from and correct, in such a case we may pronounce merciful judgement. When the error is compounded and repeated there is no more reason to judge them anything other than guilty as charged and a danger to our own life.

 

Therefore it is possible to judge a person evil if they show a continued propensity to values that directly contradict our own. This is not a pragmatic judgement but a practical one. An irrational person is dangerous.

[Taomeow]

The ancient word that is used in the I Ching for bad people literally means "in-no-way."  

[Marblehead]

The ancient word that is used in the I Ching for bad people literally means "in-no-way."  

And in Chapter 27 of the TTC we see:

 

And the bad man is the raw material for the good.

[Drifting_Through_Infinity]

The master welcomes saints and sinners.

[rene]

The master welcomes saints and sinners.

The master might not make that differentiation.

[Daeluin]

All I am is a buffer between heaven and earth.

 

Day to day I dance among the myriad things.

 

There are only two directions between heaven and earth:

 

Greater separation or greater unification.

 

With separation the extremes of light and darkness grow.

 

With unification the refined balance that creates things like life grows.

 

Good or bad?

 

All is ebb and flow.