NationStates Jolt Archive

I was talking to my friend today, and some how the conversation made its way to drug addicts trying to sell stolen property, cds etc, to shops and people (dont ask how). I was quite adamant that alot of people would realise that the person was a junkie and not buy the stuff at knock off prices, simply because they would know that the money would go to drugs. But she said that people would never do that, i.e would buy stuff for way below market value not caring about the fact that the money funds terrible habits. I just said that not all people are like that, and the majority of people have good in them. Thoughts?

Out here in the English sticks people have morals, I can't speak for the towns.

I telegrammed u btw Dukesburyshire. But honestly can people do good? What is good if anything....

We are not sinners, but rather Saints that sin.

I dont understand :D

List of UK charities (http://www.ucandoit.org.uk/information/charities.html)

No people can never do good ;)

I think there might be reasons for people buying stolen goods, dubious though it may be it's possible that they have developed a sort of condition that forces them to buy all the cheapest things they can find, i think it's called survival.
Apart from that sure people can do good things, but whether they are good all the time is a different matter, i'm sure you could debate numerous areas of philosophy in whether humans are capable of a 'good' act or if people will do things against the control of social psychology to act autonomously, it's hard to say but it's likely people don't do things unless they have a motive behind doing them.
Besides defining a 'good' act is difficult, although there are numerous awards for bravery i suppose you could classify that as good, here's an example of bravery..Example BBC news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7291802.stm).

But to understand how "good" people are one has to define good. And could you define good? its not rhetorical

I dunno if you UK chaps watched Fake Trade? That was messed up, how can people abuse their fellow man for profit? Selling fake malaria and cancer medicine, disgusting.

I think what you're trying to ask is "Are there people acting rather according to their morals than to their own advantage?"
Yes, most people do most of the time. If they didn't, human society would not exist.

I hope there is. But I guess it's 50-50. Some people are good, some people are bad. That's how it is.

Is there any good in people?
No.

Sorry.

I dunno if you UK chaps watched Fake Trade? That was messed up, how can people abuse their fellow man for profit? Selling fake malaria and cancer medicine, disgusting.

Agreed but does money sell out our morals? I can see advantages to introducing money into the equation which =good society, but I think money has so many negative connotations and can drive people to horrible acts, like selling fake malaria medicine. Sometimes I just wonder where the good has gone

No.

Sorry.

:p
I think that would put an abupt end to any philosophical moral questions.

But why?

There is no good or bad people, only people that do what they think can be beneficial for themselves.

:p
I think that would put an abupt end to any philosophical moral questions.

"Although there should never have been actions which really sprang from such pure sources... whether this or that takes place is not at all the question; but that reason of itself, independent on all experience, ordains what ought to take place, that accordingly actions of which perhaps the world has hitherto never given an example, the feasibility even of which might be very much doubted by one who founds everything on experience, are nevertheless inflexibly commanded by reason; that, e.g., even though there might never yet have been a sincere friend, yet not a whit the less is pure sincerity in friendship required of every man, because, prior to all experience, this duty is involved as duty in the idea of a reason determining the will by a priori principles."

- Immanuel Kant

;)

But why?

I breakdown of old functions of society.
In some cases this is good in others bad.
Why? that's a pretty big question, there's been changes in technology, employment, civil rights, industry and the increase in globilisation.
These are some pretty large reasons why morals appear to have changed.

It's true when you look at the news you see horrible things happen, but i think about it like this, if there is a probability of 1 chance in a million of someone killing another in a population of 100 million that's at least 100 a day, therefore even by rule of probability people are going to run into issues.

And there's a new idea that violence is fun, this is told to children through films, media books you name it so violence may become the norm.
Also areas of psychology the ideas of conformity mean you can be coerced to do anything because of the belief that if you are ordered to do something by an authority figure then you are acting on behalf of that figure.
This is also a huge area of psychology, obedience and conformity.

Another reason could be things are better reported now, two hundered years ago you relied on word of mouth and books now everything is faster.
Er i hope i've outlined roughly why bad things happen, but i think the main one is increasing populations across the globe.
Remember not all people are bad.:)

But why?

Why what?

"Although there should never have been actions which really sprang from such pure sources... whether this or that takes place is not at all the question; but that reason of itself, independent on all experience, ordains what ought to take place, that accordingly actions of which perhaps the world has hitherto never given an example, the feasibility even of which might be very much doubted by one who founds everything on experience, are nevertheless inflexibly commanded by reason; that, e.g., even though there might never yet have been a sincere friend, yet not a whit the less is pure sincerity in friendship required of every man, because, prior to all experience, this duty is involved as duty in the idea of a reason determining the will by a priori principles."

- Immanuel Kant

;)
I could point out the weaknesses of Kant's formulations, but i feel like being moral for today.
"be strong in your ignorance" -according to my english teacher.:p just kidding.

I could point out the weaknesses of Kant's formulations,

I am not advancing (or rejecting) Kant's formulations. I am simply noting that even the very worst conclusions about human nature are not likely to stop moral philosophy.

I am not advancing (or rejecting) Kant's formulations. I am simply noting that even the very worst conclusions about human nature are not likely to stop moral philosophy.

oh right, okay.
So it's like the invisible force that can never be stopped?

So it's like the invisible force that can never be stopped?

Philosophers are pretty stubborn people. And I think Kant and others make a pretty good case that our willingness to fulfill our moral obligations is irrelevant to their content.

There are very few truly evil people.
There are very few truly good people.

There are lots of people who are a little of both.

I was talking to my friend today, and some how the conversation made its way to drug addicts trying to sell stolen property, cds etc, to shops and people (dont ask how). I was quite adamant that alot of people would realise that the person was a junkie and not buy the stuff at knock off prices, simply because they would know that the money would go to drugs. But she said that people would never do that, i.e would buy stuff for way below market value not caring about the fact that the money funds terrible habits. I just said that not all people are like that, and the majority of people have good in them. Thoughts?

No; the human race is bereft of any virtue. They would be made in the image of Satan, except they lack his intellect.

No; the human race is bereft of any virtue. They would be made in the image of Satan, except they lack his intellect.

Actually it makes sense to be made in the image of God, consider this:
In the Bible it says that Jesus Christ was crucified for other people's sins (or something like that), now the idea that God allowed his own son to die shows he's evil. He then brings him back to life to live it as a zombie in torment for creating such a poorly structured religion, this would explain why suffering occurs in the world, thus God is evil.
(basically the problem of an evil God)
So if there is a Satan then he's the good guy, well the other guy at any rate.

Actually it makes sense to be made in the image of God, consider this:
In the Bible it says that Jesus Christ was crucified for other people's sins (or something like that), now the idea that God allowed his own son to die shows he's evil.

Theoretically, it has to do with a sacrifice on God's part. In actuality, I consider death the reward for a life hard-lived.


He then brings him back to life to live it as a zombie in torment for creating such a poorly structured religion,

Theoretically, he was not suffering all that much while a zombie. Aside: Christ did not create Christianity.

this would explain why suffering occurs in the world, thus God is evil.

Because he created the world?

(basically the problem of an evil God)
So if there is a Satan then he's the good guy, well the other guy at any rate.

The funnier guy, anyway.

There are very few truly evil people.
There are very few truly good people.

There are lots of people who are a little of both.

http://www.constitution.org/mac/disclivy1.htm#1:27

Chapter 27, Book 1.

this would explain why suffering occurs in the world, thus God is evil.
No. Evil is an absence of God.

No. Evil is an absence of God.

not if God himself is evil.

No. Evil is an absence of God.

That fails the test of reason. God created everything, including any absence of it that exists.

Yes. There we go.

i'm full of chicken and chips and beer, that was pretty good.

:p
I think that would put an abupt end to any philosophical moral questions.
I would agree.

And yet somehow my Ethics degree dragged out for several years.

I was talking to my friend today, and some how the conversation made its way to drug addicts trying to sell stolen property, cds etc, to shops and people (dont ask how). I was quite adamant that alot of people would realise that the person was a junkie and not buy the stuff at knock off prices, simply because they would know that the money would go to drugs. But she said that people would never do that, i.e would buy stuff for way below market value not caring about the fact that the money funds terrible habits. I just said that not all people are like that, and the majority of people have good in them. Thoughts?

I think that there are lines drawn in the sand of morality.

Most people would have no problems with buying fake 'label' clothing, most would buy pirated DVD's.

Not a lot of people would buy stolen property if they thought it had come from a burglary, or a mugging(although of course some would).

I don't think many people would have any qualms about taking the money if the ATM started spitting out more than you asked for.

So these lines represent our feelings or understanding for the 'victims'.

We have no problems taking money from banks, but reciveing a stereo from a burlgary may upset us more.

Hopefully we are not talking from a cannibal's perspective here...

I was talking to my friend today, and some how the conversation made its way to drug addicts trying to sell stolen property, cds etc, to shops and people (dont ask how). I was quite adamant that alot of people would realise that the person was a junkie and not buy the stuff at knock off prices, simply because they would know that the money would go to drugs. But she said that people would never do that, i.e would buy stuff for way below market value not caring about the fact that the money funds terrible habits. I just said that not all people are like that, and the majority of people have good in them. Thoughts?

My thoughts are: get a livejournal. :rolleyes:

well I spend extra money to buy eggs from non-caged hens, so if i care about hens stuck in cages why would i not care about people taking drugs? for an equal advantage, ie paying less money?
it seems pretty comparable, at least this way round, as people taking drugs is a more serious problem (from the human point of view) than caged hens.
And it's obvious that plenty of people buy organic, free to roam, or barn eggs. therefore i guess there are plenty of people who would not buy cheap goods if they knew it would fund drug habits :p

on the other hand, my drug habit funds terrorism, so prehaps doing good in one area doesn't mean i will do good in all.

Or prehaps i just like drugs more than i like eggs :P


and before you start thinking i'm an awful person, by 'drugs' i mean 'marijuana', i've never even tried any other illegal drug.

Oooh, lets have a drugs debate! that would off-topic this....
jk.

i tend to distrust stuff sold at knock-off prices because i doubt the quality of what i'm buying. i'd rather spend a little more and get something worth having. nothing to do with where the money is going (though i do prefer to support local shops over multinationals, as the money goes back into the local economy... but its not always possible to do in practice)

regarding "good in people"... i tend to assume people are just pretty shit until proven otherwise. my life experience so far has shown me that most people will shaft, stab, kick and cheat to get ahead, and there is little good in most people when it comes to fulfilling their own desires.

I should think so. It flies in the face of experience -- if there's a more sinister or unpleasant reason why someone's doing something, it's likely the true explanation -- but sticking with a gloomy attitude towards life gets frankly boring after a while. And people tend to be nicer to optimists. Especially if they know karate. *nod*

Yes.