• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

What makes someone a bad person?

hiphophippy said:
Oh but what kind of person would you be if it was not for their ancestors who were brutal individualist assholes that forced the western world into a depravity under which Marx and Engels et.al developed their parties politcal philosophy, a by product of which is your avatar?
Click to expand...

Ok that has fuck all to do with the topic at hand :! . I was simply talking about some assholes i know who i would classify as being very bad people.
 
paranoid android said:
Ok that has fuck all to do with the topic at hand :! . I was simply talking about some assholes i know who i would classify as being very bad people.
Click to expand...

paranoid android said:
Ive met more then a few people who i would describe as being very bad people. As in the only bit of good they will ever do in their lives is act as fertilizer when there dead :p . People who only care about themselves, have no morals whatsoever and fuck over everyone in sight, are cunt's for the sheer sake of being cunts and are just all around evil bastards that no one likes. They only time they go out of their way to do anything for anyone else at all is when there is something in it for them. So they are miserable bad bastards.
Click to expand...

I think you need to brush up on your history of communism/marxism my friend especially the conditions of the prole during that time. It has everything to do with the topic at hand. You abstract bad(evil) from your personal sense of "good"(morality). TO be a good thinker you must ask yourself who you would be if these people weren't around in the times of Marx and now in times of yourself.
 
hiphophippy said:
I think you need to brush up on your history of communism/marxism my friend especially the conditions of the prole during that time. It has everything to do with the topic at hand. You abstract bad(evil) from your personal sense of "good"(morality). TO be a good thinker you must ask yourself who you would be if these people weren't around in the times of Marx and now in times of yourself.
Click to expand...

You mean what the Marxists called the Lumpenproletariat? The class that is not only useless during a revolution but may in fact work against the interests of the proletarians. Your being more then abit vague there in what you mean. If these people and their modern day equivalents where not around my morals would be more or less the same i guess. Marxism and anarchism are by far not the only thing i base my morals on though i guess it could be argued that they may have shaped my morals long before i knew the meaning of the terms. I gravitated towards communism because i found it to be much more in line with my morals then other ideologies. I already knew that giving people the choice of starving or freezing during winter because they could afford to pay only their grocery bill or light bill instead of both was wrong especially with all the wealth in today's society.

I would say alot of my morals came from the way i grew up. I was raised in a typical rural working class town and even though i hate to admit it i guess i developed alot of my morals so to speak because of my environment and the way i saw things. Although i don't know why i think some things are right or wrong i guess it could just be as simple as i can sort of empathize with people in certain situations and think of what i would have done.

This all depends on what you would consider good or evil mind you. If i didn't have these guys to compare myself to i guess i would just be me for lack of a better word which is all i am anyway. I am definitely not a saint but i wouldn't say I'm a bad person either.
 
Here's an idea:

Could it be as simple as one who bucks the self-control imperative imposed by cultural altruism in favor of momentary gratification?

Altruism means different things to different cultures, but all cultures have a concept of it. In caste systems, acting in the interest of your caste is good, because it preserves the culture as a whole. Even in individualistic cultures, acting purely in self-interest seems to be the main criteria for evil. So, could it be as simple as "going against the group"?

Wouldn't seem too much of a stretch to me. I'm no nihilist, and I consider this to be my main prerequisite for said label as well. I stress the abandonment of self-control, since there always seems to be an element of weakness involved in the personalities of the bad people I've encountered, which they are obviously trying to cover up somehow... because they know that, if they don't, others will immediately realize they are purely selfish. Similarly, gratification can take one of any number of forms, from ecstasy to frenzy to despair, as long as it validates one's own selfish motives.
 
HoneyRoastedPeanut said:
Here's an idea:

Could it be as simple as one who bucks the self-control imperative imposed by cultural altruism in favor of momentary gratification?

Altruism means different things to different cultures, but all cultures have a concept of it. In caste systems, acting in the interest of your caste is good, because it preserves the culture as a whole. Even in individualistic cultures, acting purely in self-interest seems to be the main criteria for evil. So, could it be as simple as "going against the group"?

Wouldn't seem too much of a stretch to me. I'm no nihilist, and I consider this to be my main prerequisite for said label as well. I stress the abandonment of self-control, since there always seems to be an element of weakness involved in the personalities of the bad people I've encountered, which they are obviously trying to cover up somehow... because they know that, if they don't, others will immediately realize they are purely selfish. Similarly, gratification can take one of any number of forms, from ecstasy to frenzy to despair, as long as it validates one's own selfish motives.
Click to expand...

The world is governed by hedonism. Think about it.
 
lack of goals or achievement I believe leads to happiness, the ultimate end. I believe living in accordance to virtue (i can detail which have been identified as universally applicable to foster a "good life") and having primary and secondary goals satisfied will utlimately bring about a happy life, or one with the notion of a "good person". I wrote this last week for Socrate Society:

In order to separate our perception of happiness, that an individual can be happy if they reach their own goals, against Aristotle’s less flexible ideals, Kraut uses the example of a mentally handicapped person. Here we can see that the handicapped person, although we would never want to be in his position, can be happy because he can reach his personal goals, even though they are not as ambitious as a more fortunate individual. Perhaps, even, the handicapped person would have a higher capacity for happiness had he developed a higher intelligence, and thus, higher personal goals. This level of higher capacity bringing about a higher level of happiness suggests that to trade places with another individual is simply deception.

The objectivist argues that happiness if fixed by nature and it is your job to discover your capabilities and exercise them towards your own personal happiness. According to an objectivist, a person is not happy if he falls short of the best life he is capable of. The objectivist and subjectivist agree on the point that a personal assessment of how happy a person is takes into “account the extent to which he has realized his capacities” (CV 208).
Click to expand...

I think failing to reach your capacities is a diservice to yourself, and choosing a life neither of the middle road nor of that of understanding and progress will ultimately lead to what we consider poor moral judgement, or a "bad action." I'm not so sure I believe in bad people, because I do believe in positive intervention - I feel it's more a matter of taking what capabilities fortune has given you and shaping them into the best possible scenario for your given situation. Striving for achievement with positive characteristics (defined by SWB scale) and virtue (Seligman's Happiness study) lead to the "good life," whereas intentionally doing the opposite will inventally lead to actions governed by emotion, misfortune, and misplaced passion.

IMO, anyway.... here's how I elaborated on this:

. In order to become more humane, objectivism should state that “happy individuals can fall short of the ideal they might have achieved, but they must do reasonably well” given any restrictions they have (CV 215). The objectivist should say a person is happy only if he (1) rises to his own standards and finds his life desirable, and if (2) no changes in their life would result in a significant positive change in happiness.
The final key remaining objection is that we simply do “not have a defensible theory about which lives are ideal,”
Click to expand...
 
hiphophippy said:
I feel like this applies to me XD. I'm a living contradiction, an ENFJ that disdains most people. A nihilist in social work. XD

Being a Nihilst I'll tell you. Evil is in the eye of the beholder and it is entirely subjective.

And while I fight for equal rights and human rights I do so solely because it bothers me. Not because of any morality based assessment E.G. treating people like animals is bad but purely because I empathize with people's sufferings and know I would not like to be in that position.

I'm also a militant revolutionary but I know and I tell people that if I was part of the leadership of a revolution that they would need to be prepared for me to step down as soon as shit was established/kill me If I insist on leading because I personally see most humans as nothing but shameless animals wholly undeserving of the technologies of this world.

And I'll come out and fucking say it, THE WORLD IS GUIDED BY HEDONISM. Either learn to deal with it or learn to manipulate it. For the love of god at least stop trying to act like it isn't.
Click to expand...

The world is probably guided by hedonism, but that in itself doesn't mean that everyone should take "learn to deal with it or learn to manipulate it" attitude towards existence. There are many things in this world that can be enjoyed without resorting to a purely jaded/hedonistic worldview.

What makes a person bad? Being selfish and not empathizing with other people. As I see it, it's a stupid idea to think of the world as a place where you happen to exist within the boundaries of your own mind. If you look at the universe in a purely objective way, there really is no difference between "you" and the rest of the universe. You're just another strand in a giant cosmic tree.
 
hiphophippy said:
The world is governed by hedonism. Think about it.
Click to expand...

Well there's a pretty blanket statement that doesn't really respond to anything I wrote. I can't tell if you agree or disagree with my points?

This, along with your other posts, paint you as a very condescending person.
 
levictus said:
The world is probably guided by hedonism, but that in itself doesn't mean that everyone should take "learn to deal with it or learn to manipulate it" attitude towards existence. There are many things in this world that can be enjoyed without resorting to a purely jaded/hedonistic worldview.

What makes a person bad? Being selfish and not empathizing with other people. As I see it, it's a stupid idea to think of the world as a place where you happen to exist within the boundaries of your own mind. If you look at the universe in a purely objective way, there really is no difference between "you" and the rest of the universe. You're just another strand in a giant cosmic tree.
Click to expand...
If you look at the universe from a purely objective stand point morals do not exist.

HoneyRoastedPeanut said:
Well there's a pretty blanket statement that doesn't really respond to anything I wrote. I can't tell if you agree or disagree with my points?

This, along with your other posts, paint you as a very condescending person.
Click to expand...
^It was supposed to be a blanket statement; Seems like you're on the right path and a rational enough person to realize the truths of the world.

There are two driving forces of any earthly animals existence, the drive for satisfaction/pleasure ect. and the drive for procreation, which in itself is still satisfying a desire. All choices anyone makes are result of the hedonistic mental process. Which I could elaborate on enough to turn it in as a thesis for a doctorate, since I would rather not I've shifted the responsibility to you. It's a nice little mental exercise.

As far as being condescending goes; I have a very low tolerance for bullshit.
 
^You know what you are? You're a nut....there I've said it.

Hedonism....I suppose hedonism drives the world, but a modified hedonism that takes into account laziness and comfort. The elite are hedonistic in the classic sense, they undoubtedly maximize their own pleasure, and strive endlessly to earn the largest bank accounts possible, but the masses whom they create their policies and products and services for aren't driven to maximize pleasure really, but to just sort of achieve a basic level of pleasure, and then any further strides are usually taken to provide for their children.

In the West, both their cases reek of "keeping up with the Joneses" as if jealousy was an inherent motive to their actions. Would the suppression of jealously be considered a certain type of pleasure then? Once you become sufficiently wealthy, it's been reported, you aren't going to make yourself any happier really, but just sort of remain at the status quo. I read an article in Psychology Today about how people who strive to be super rich are often less happy than people who are merely upper-middle class, because their days are filled with stress, and the more lucrative their dealings become, the more every little detail matters. The more you have, the more you have to lose, it seems. I don't think hedonism accurately explains everything, though it is on the right track. It's certainly basic to economics. I fail to see how "maximizing pleasure" is any different from "maximizing profits." It's pretty logical, but humans are far from logical creatures over-all. There's definitely more to the story.
 
CoffeeDrinker said:
^You know what you are? You're a nut....there I've said it.

Hedonism....I suppose hedonism drives the world, but a modified hedonism that takes into account laziness and comfort. The elite are hedonistic in the classic sense, they undoubtedly maximize their own pleasure, and strive endlessly to earn the largest bank accounts possible, but the masses whom they create their policies and products and services for aren't driven to maximize pleasure really, but to just sort of achieve a basic level of pleasure, and then any further strides are usually taken to provide for their children.
Click to expand...

So I'm crazy, but you agree with me?
 
Pretty much. Except for the killing everyone part, that would make life so ridiculously boring. I'm not the Phantom of the Opera, you know.
 
CoffeeDrinker said:
Pretty much. Except for the killing everyone part, that would make life so ridiculously boring. I'm not the Phantom of the Opera, you know.
Click to expand...
It would eliminate human suffering :D Also I said myself included so I wouldn't be bored.
 
Last edited:
levictus said:
So what? A lot of things don't exist if you look from at the universe from an objective standpoint.
Click to expand...

"What makes a person bad? Being selfish and not empathizing with other people. As I see it, it's a stupid idea to think of the world as a place where you happen to exist within the boundaries of your own mind.
If you look at the universe in a purely objective way, there really is no difference between "you" and the rest of the universe. You're just another strand in a giant cosmic tree."

You argue for morality, acknowledge that your statement is subjective, then argue against subjectivity and then argue for objectivity.
What exactly are you getting at?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top