Where do you draw the line between a good person and a bad person?

[megabyteme]

Good people inherently know who bad people are, and treat them as such.

[clocker]

Good people inherently know who bad people are...

"Instinctively" works better than "inherently" in this case, not that anyone cares.

[megabyteme]

inherent

in·her·ent
[in-heer-uhnt, -her-]–adjective

1.existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute

Since I was implying that the state of being good was a birthright (yeah, obviously no one cared enough to call BS on it), I think "inherent" was an acceptable choice.

[clocker]

Since I was implying that the state of being good was a birthright (yeah, obviously no one cared enough to call BS on it), I think "inherent" was an acceptable choice.

Your statement says, or implies, nothing about the "state of being good"- which would be why nobody called you on it-rather, it speaks to the ability to recognize good, which ability I still say is more instinct/conditioning than genetic.

Quibbling, FTW.

[Glod]

Anyone who demonstrates cruelty towards others in the form of violence or emotional abuse deserves no respect, and if the incident is severe enough, they've forfeited their own right to life. The active infliction of suffering upon sentient beings is horrific, and I would rather deal with the fallout of slaying a monster and being seen as one than stepping aside and remaining ethically unscathed in the eyes of others.

A good person is one who deliberately attempts to avoid becoming a source of suffering, regardless of whether or not they succeed in doing so. If the effort is sincere, I would consider them good, though depending on the result, possibly careless or stupid as well. Some individuals go beyond that basic duty and attempt to actively alleviate suffering, which is a particularly noble motive, but all I see as required for 'goodness' is to avoid infliction of suffering, not alleviation of it.

Personally, I fall into the category of those who avoid inflicting suffering but do not alleviate it, unless I can do so without causing myself to suffer in the process or as a result. An example would be assisting a blind woman in the middle of a street; I would do so if there were little risk of death or severe injury, but if cars are whizzing by and I could easily be hit by one, I wouldn't step into such a situation to potentially save her life. Some would view this as cowardly, but I have a strong impulse towards self-preservation and don't believe my responsibility extends to the point of sacrificing myself.

[Quarterquack]

There is no such thing as good or evil. These are concepts society enforces in order to maintain order. As an example of forced ideology for control: some of the richest countries in the world have no taxes, yet, as a society in North America, we are told that that is impossible (this debate goes down towards the education side, so I'm not pursuing it much further). Just to spite at MBM, your point is absolutely wrong as a discussion starter. People, animals, even trees all have inherent traits that could force them to be "good" or "evil", regardless of who they are. Research has been done to shown this, temperament on human babies proves this, and eons of our existence on our planet exhibit this. So how do you jump around the issue? If people are inherently evil, then there is no actual scale of good vs evil. It simply becomes another argument against human nature. Simple: As humans we just have a capacity to strive for survival, as Glod put it. Some of us are more attuned to helping the pack survive, and are seen as good, because the weaker, humbler neanderthals in the crowd can't survive without assistance. Some of the more evolved of us, know that the further we step away from the big picture, the more the image becomes apparent that survival of the fittest truly counts. There's far too many of us for society to count. Anywhere you go nowadays being competitive is a good thing. I don't see "team-based" groups being successful. Name me successful people. How many of them needed a "group" to get to where they are. Mostly just the resources of the group, but the raw talent of their own selves.

Want to know my opinion? If an old lady can't cross the road alone, I'd encourage her to try. Natural selection at its finest. If you can't feed or walk by yourself, I view it as cruelty to keep providing for you, when I or someone else might need said provisions and are capable of maximizing benefits from them. Gaining my preference as to where I should put my efforts, is where my efforts could matter the most. For all I know, old lady crossing the road is dying tomorrow, and any effort I put it returned zilch gains. But in Africa, the same amount in effort could save entire lives. Such is the nature of the hypocrisy of good and evil. People "instinctively" think they have to be good. But, alas, no. People are all vile and selfish. Psychological research has shown that you can only care about your immediate (!) community and nobody else outside it. Why? Well because in a way you are maximizing your own gains. You know that your social circle might give as much back one day. Why fight for pension rights today? Because you want them tomorrow. Why fight for gay rights today? Because you want people to parade for your atypical habits tomorrow. So on and so forth.

There is no greater evil than the obsession with being good. People spend their entire lives compulsively valuing one doctrine over another, when most of them inherently know that none of it means anything. People invent the concept of a deity in order to remove the responsibility out of their own hands, and creating a power that compels us to follow the one ideology that they believe is better. But in doing so have created a trojan horse that can easily be defeated. People advocate humility, sincerity, forgiveness, and mercy as qualities of a good person, but at the end of the day, point out one person in your proximity who enjoys having and carrying out any of these qualities. I feel fantastic picking up $500 unmarked off the side of the road. I feel shitty when someone tells me the "right" thing to do is look for its owner.

If you think I'm wrong, answer me this: What is the point? If you're a good person, what do you gain? If you're a bad person, what do you lose? This question deals with why value good or evil, or is it just a decision that was made for you?
If you think I'm wrong, also answer me this: If you're a bad person, what do you gain? If you're a good person, what do you lose? And this question deals with how most people will say that they can relate to this question, but fight against the urge, simply thinking there's some logical fallacy to it, because of how they've been tamed.

Answer those two questions and you have my answer. And perhaps a few of you have already seen through the charade for social control.

[A]

There is no such thing as good or evil.

Proof please.

Want to know my opinion? If an old lady can't cross the road alone, I'd encourage her to try.

There is a reason she needs help in crossing. She is old...

[mjmacky]

What if this same old lady begged for a lay. You'd be safe, and she'll be a lot more grateful that you got her across the apex than when you got her across the street. Where's the good and evil there? Would you do it?

[A]

By not helping someone you won't necessarily become an evil person. You are just letting an opportunity to be kind pass by. Moreover in that quote, I was addressing the reason why the old women needs help, not what action one takes.

[mjmacky]

But if you agree to do it and then force her to take it anally instead, good or evil?