NationStates Jolt Archive

I thought i'd throw some questions at you, feel free to answer some or all of them or none, but i'm interested on your opinions on the following...The poll question is one i'm most interested in.

1) People should have control over their own destiny…

2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God…

3) Change is a good thing…

4) Change involves struggle and pain…

5) People are basically good underneath…

6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships…

7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem…

8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change…

and again in case you want to add comments to this one.
9) All people are equal and therefore are equally deserving of my help regardless of who they are or what they have done…

1) People do have control over their own destiny. Those who don't take control are either lazy or afraid of hurting others for their own benefit.

2) Take responsibility when it's in your own long term self-interest. Otherwise, don't.

3) Only if it leads to a better situation.

4) Sometimes.

5) People are motivated by self-preservation at the most basic level, then preservation of their genes through their children and immediate family. There is no such thing as "good". It's a word invented by humans, it holds no intrinsic meaning within a chaotic, uncaring universe.

6) Sometimes. Other times, a strong leader works best, especially if the "equals" are stupid, uninspired or otherwise mentally impaired.

7) Yes. Alternatively, they're best helped by themselves.

8) There is no such thing as an intrinsically bad person. It's a label society places on those who do not conform to their wishes.

9) No, all people are not equal. This is self-evident. Some are stupid, some are smart. Some are proactive, some are lazy. Some deserve help, some don't.

I believe an eminent Russian American philospher conclusively proved that altruism is a bad thing - you should acquaint yourself with her works.

1) People should have control over their own destiny…

(substitute "destiny" with "life"...) That would be ideal. Still both objective external conditions and peoples' own attitudes prevent that.


2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God…

As there is no deity of sorts (or at least this is what I think)...


3) Change is a good thing…

Not necessarily.


4) Change involves struggle and pain…

Not necessarily.


5) People are basically good underneath…

Absolutely not all people are "basically good".


6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships…

Between adults, generally it is. Not necessarily in a teacher-pupil or parent-child relationship.


7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem…

False. If I have cancer I don't give a fuck if my doc has had a cancer, too... I want him be good at his job!


8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change…

Actually I believe the exact contrary. People are born "bad" (that is, egoistical and antisocial) and can become eventually "good" (that is, altruistic and respectful).

and again in case you want to add comments to this one.
9) All people are equal and therefore are equally deserving of my help regardless of who they are or what they have done…
Logical fallacy. All people are equal (that is, have equal rights), yes.
This doesn't imply that all of them deserve my help, or that they deserve my help in the same amount.

Call me a cold-hearthed bastard, but I wouldn't raise a finger to save Berlusconi.

I believe an eminent Russian American philospher conclusively proved that altruism is a bad thing - you should acquaint yourself with her works.

Boring meme is boring!

Boring meme is boring!

Damn young people and their short attention spans, always craving something new.....

I thought i'd throw some questions at you, feel free to answer some or all of them or none, but i'm interested on your opinions on the following...The poll question is one i'm most interested in.

1) People should have control over their own destiny…
I fervently believe it should be like this.

2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God…
I agree until you mention the God factor.

3) Change is a good thing…
It can be.

4) Change involves struggle and pain…
It can, but doesn't necessarily involve it.

5) People are basically good underneath…
No. I do believe some people are bad.

6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships…
Yes, unfortunately is not always like that.

7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem…
No.

8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change…
I'm almost positive Hitler was born bad.

and again in case you want to add comments to this one.
9) All people are equal and therefore are equally deserving of my help regardless of who they are or what they have done…
I'm a bit out of it to answer this coherently.

Mine are the bolded answers.

I thought i'd throw some questions at you, feel free to answer some or all of them or none, but i'm interested on your opinions on the following...The poll question is one i'm most interested in.

1) People should have control over their own destiny… true

2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God… true/false.....depends

3) Change is a good thing…depends

4) Change involves struggle and pain…usually

5) People are basically good underneath…false

6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships…I don't know

7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem…not always

8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change…I'm not sure I agree

and again in case you want to add comments to this one.
9) All people are equal and therefore are equally deserving of my help regardless of who they are or what they have done…true

I answered in bold. Feel free to question my answers.

I thought i'd throw some questions at you, feel free to answer some or all of them or none, but i'm interested on your opinions on the following...The poll question is one i'm most interested in.

1) People should have control over their own destiny…

2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God…

3) Change is a good thing…

4) Change involves struggle and pain…

5) People are basically good underneath…

6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships…

7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem…

8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change…

and again in case you want to add comments to this one.
9) All people are equal and therefore are equally deserving of my help regardless of who they are or what they have done…

1) People on the whole do have control overtheir own destiny, the majority of us are too lazy to do so.

2) Yes indeed, but all praise belongs to God.

3) Undoubtedly

4) Yes most of the time

5) Most of us I think

6) Understanding of the differances between us is better I belive

7) There is some truth in this

8) The jury is still out on the nature vs nuture debate, but honestly it is a bit of both

9) All people should be treated equaly yes

Damn young people and their short attention spans, always craving something new.....

Not only us young 'uns.

I had a guy who shouted out "leeeroyy Jenkinssss" at full volume during a lecture today, only to get told by the 60 year old philosophy lecturer that he was "so 2005". Made my day.

I believe an eminent Russian American philospher conclusively proved that altruism is a bad thing - you should acquaint yourself with her works.

I don't think she did, I think that is her philosophy but one that obviously has no grounding in the actual way that people are or act.

I don't think she did, I think that is her philosophy but one that obviously has no grounding in the actual way that people are or act.

Of course, since ethical philosophy is prescriptive rather than descriptive, whether or not people actually follow the tenets of a given ethical philosophy is not a relevant factor in determining its validity.

1) No (until I you explain this more I will assume your asking me to let you do heroin)

2) No, watch that suncream video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTJ7AzBIJoI) (also I think it was Lenin who said that self pity is addictive and one should avoid that)

3) don't be silly

4) Nope but it may involve work

5) good and evil don't exist so kinda

6) I've always found a mutual will to dominate one another forms the best relationships

7) we have empathy for a reason

8) depends on what you mean by bad but certain genetic dispositions can lean a person towards being "bad"

9) no they have to be willing to change and quite frankly I care about some people more

Boring meme is boring!

a forced NS-made meme being rubbish? somebody stop this madman!

1) People should have control over their own destiny…
Not "should"--they "do" have control over their "destiny."

2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God…
Minus the invisible-man-in-the-sky part, this is correct.

3) Change is a good thing…
Not necessarily. "Change," in the abstract, could be anything from Hitler to more sex.

4) Change involves struggle and pain…
Not necessarily.

5) People are basically good underneath…
Individuals choose to be what they are.

6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships…
Tautology.

7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem…
Not necessarily.

8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change…
Incorrect. An individual chooses whether he is good or bad.

and again in case you want to add comments to this one.
9) All people are equal and therefore are equally deserving of my help regardless of who they are or what they have done…
Incorrect.

I'm almost positive Hitler was born bad.

I don't know about this one I mean Hitlers life was really rather shitty and you can see how his world view was heavily distorted by it (as was Genghis Khans), in the end though what he wanted was to help people even if it was a select few

I believe an eminent Russian American philospher conclusively proved that altruism is a bad thing - you should acquaint yourself with her works.

Win. :D

1) People should have control over their own destiny…

To a degree. While it is for instance nice to say people should not drown in horrible accidents, life sometimes dictates otherwise. That you desire to be a famous singer does not mean we have to think the sounds emanating from your throat are wonderful. And so on.

2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God…

Hell yeah.

3) Change is a good thing…

Sometimes. And sometimes not.

4) Change involves struggle and pain…

Often, yes.

5) People are basically good underneath…

Undecided.

6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships…

Undecided, but the succes of micro credit seems to point that there is a grain of truth in there.

7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem…

Not necessarily.

8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change…

Not necessarily.

and again in case you want to add comments to this one.
9) All people are equal and therefore are equally deserving of my help regardless of who they are or what they have done…

Disagree. See question 2.

Of course, since ethical philosophy is prescriptive rather than descriptive, whether or not people actually follow the tenets of a given ethical philosophy is not a relevant factor in determining its validity.

True enough I guess, but then if people don't follow it then it is rather worthless yes?

What is the point of a philosphy if not to be followed?

1) People should have control over their own destiny… Yes, they should. And do.

2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God… Yes. What you do is your fault. Accept it.

3) Change is a good thing… Yes. Most of the time.

4) Change involves struggle and pain… Not always.

5) People are basically good underneath… Absolutely not. People are motivated by self-interest. Morality exists primarily to alleviate guilt or other psychological consequences, which are damaging to self-interest. "Doing the right thing" is considered an ideal because it makes the doer feel that he has accomplished something, not because it is objectively "good".

6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships… Some relationships. In other relationships, such as parent to child or government to citizens, there must be someone in charge and someone to serve.

7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem… Not always.

8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change… No. Some people are born bad. Society, however, prefers to call these "personality disorders", and some of them can fit into society if they work at it.

9) All people are equal and therefore are equally deserving of my help regardless of who they are or what they have done… No. Not all people are equal. Not all people deserve to be treated equally. Rights are granted to those who have earned them, not conferred by default.

I thought i'd throw some questions at you, feel free to answer some or all of them or none, but i'm interested on your opinions on the following...The poll question is one i'm most interested in.

1) People should have control over their own destiny…

2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God…

3) Change is a good thing…

4) Change involves struggle and pain…

5) People are basically good underneath…

6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships…

7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem…

8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change…

and again in case you want to add comments to this one.
9) All people are equal and therefore are equally deserving of my help regardless of who they are or what they have done…

1) They ought to, and strictly speaking everyone has the capacity to make choices regardless of situation. Are you asking to what degree should our choices be limited, and who has that right?

2) If you act, then take responsibility for your action. It's up to you how you judge yourself in light of your actions. But again, that's still your choice.

3) Not necessarily

4) Not necessarily

5) Not necessarily, but it's a reasonable maxim to work under. You will never know how someone really is, but without enough evidence I would err on this side. It really depends upon what you would be using this assertion to justify. Practical ethical action, like point 9?

6) No, people are different and have different needs and structures (the teacher pupil thing was a good example)

7) Not necessarily. Skills that apply to your problem are most applicable. It's even possible that it could have a negative effect (if being reminded of the experience they had, by you, affects their ability to help)

8) Nature nurture? I thought the general consensus on this was "a bit of both"? You can be predisposed and have capacity for something, but this can be enhanced or suppressed by your environment.

9) Would you stop Hitler being killed in an accident early in life by helping him (say, staunching the wound), knowing what he would do later? (in first for Godwin - yay!). More seriously, if this is predicated on 'everyone being basically good' then yes, that becomes a reasonable maxim.

But the world is too complicated to use something that simplistic. All you're really doing is following the easy way out from a moral conundrum.

I don't know about this one I mean Hitlers life was really rather shitty and you can see how his world view was heavily distorted by it (as was Genghis Khans), in the end though what he wanted was to help people even if it was a select few

You are so optimistic, CTP.:fluffle:

I don't think she did, I think that is her philosophy but one that obviously has no grounding in the actual way that people are or act.

People are people because A = A. Hence objectivism includes also the actual way people act and the areual way people are.

The eminent russian-american philosopher Ayn Rand just pwned you, and now does a silly little dance of triumph.

Felt it best not to read through the thread until I posted my own answers.

1) People should have control over their own destiny…
Short answer, yes.
I think one should strive to feel happiness through means of engaging in a (to them) meaningful interest.
Granted it is not harming anyone (else?) of course.

2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God…
Agreed.

3) Change is a good thing…
Not necessarily, but it can be.

4) Change involves struggle and pain…
Again, not necessarily.
Preferably not.
It depends on one´s mindset of course.

5) People are basically good underneath…
More along the lines of neutral I would say.
Some are selfish(evil) and some selfless(good), but neutral overall.

6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships…
In an ideal world, definitely.
But sadly, humans require hierarchies for the most part.

7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem…
Not necessarily, but it probably helps both parties to get into the right frame of mind to help and be helped.

8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change…
For the most part, yes.
But some are just outright egotistic to the core.

9) All people are equal and therefore are equally deserving of my help regardless of who they are or what they have done…
Yes.
Though it does greatly depend on what they want help with.


Now to read everyone else´s response.

True enough I guess, but then if people don't follow it then it is rather worthless yes?

Why?

Those people are wrong. That doesn't mean there's no value in me trying to be right. Being right is desirable for its own sake.

(in first for Godwin - yay!)

Our Neko-lady beat you to it.

People are people because A = A. Hence objectivism includes also the actual way people act and the areual way people are.

The eminent russian-american philosopher Ayn Rand just pwned you, and now does a silly little dance of triumph.

Bwahahahahha! And so people do not act aultaristicly then?

Not everyone is equal..

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g284/JRT6/ATT00038.jpg

Our Neko-lady beat you to it.

Eh? I made a Godwin?:confused:

Why?

Those people are wrong. That doesn't mean there's no value in me trying to be right. Being right is desirable for its own sake.

No. The way people are is the way people are. That is right, if people act selfishly then that is the right way to act, doing is being. We don't though, we love, we nurture, we look out for each other, we treat each other with a modicum of respect(sometimes) in short we as a species are more aulteristic than we are not.

We act this way, this way is right, we cannot act in a way that is alien to us as a speices, doing is being.

If a cat barks, is that correct behavouir for a cat or incorrect?

Bwahahahahha! And so people do not act aultaristicly then?

I don't know what this word means, but it confuses and angers me.

I don't know what this word means, but it confuses and angers me.

Then sound it out phoneticlay.:D

No. The way people are is the way people are. That is right, if people act selfishly then that is the right way to act, doing is being.
Men are creatures of volition; each individual is in total control of how he acts.

Men are creatures of volition; each individual is in total control of how he acts.

Nope I don't belive that for a second. Are you quoteing for me here, or are these your own words?

Our Neko-lady beat you to it.

Gah! That'll teach me to think about my response instead of just typing it as quickly as possible! :tongue:

1) People should have control over their own destiny…

people should have a modest amount of control over their own destiny

2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God…

we should take responsibility for our actions but sometimes the consequences cant be predicted. i dont see where god comes into it.

3) Change is a good thing…

some change is good, some change is bad, some change is neutral

4) Change involves struggle and pain…

sometimes. but mostly it is small changes that go unnoticed day to day

5) People are basically good underneath…

people are good and bad in differing ways.

6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships…

i have no opinion on that

7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem…

not necessarily

8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change…

people are not born bad. sometimes it is too late to help a person to change

and again in case you want to add comments to this one.
9) All people are equal and therefore are equally deserving of my help regardless of who they are or what they have done…

people's past actions may make them undeserving of my help.

I thought i'd throw some questions at you, feel free to answer some or all of them or none, but i'm interested on your opinions on the following...The poll question is one i'm most interested in.
The poll premise, as written, strikes me as faulty. It contains both the question of whether people are equal, and the presuppostion that if I think they are equal I am going to help them in some way. Why do you assume that people need help and why do you assume that equality of people would form the basis of me choosing to help people? Because of that I did not vote.

1) People should have control over their own destiny…
I agree with the above statement.

2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God…
This statement is laden with presuppositions for which I see little or no justification or relevance.

Yes, I think we each should take responsibility for our own actions. However:

> Why suppose that the granting of either praise or admonishment would be part of that process at all?

> Why suggest the assumption that if people are not praising or admonishing themselves then they are doing that to god(s)?

> Why suggest the assumption that praising/admonishing oneself and praising/admonishing god(s) are mutually exclusive, meaning that a person would not or could not do both (or neither)?

3) Change is a good thing…
Change is inevitable. Whether any given change is good or bad depends entirely on what it is and how it affects any given person. The assessment of change as "good" or "bad" is subjective to individual perspectives.

4) Change involves struggle and pain…
Difficult and painful changes involve struggle and pain. Other kinds of change do not.

5) People are basically good underneath…
There is no universal good/bad standard applicable to all human beings. Each person is their own case.

6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships…
I agree with the above statement.

7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem…
I do not think that is necessarily the case. It depends on what the problem is that a person needs help with.

8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change…
I do not know enough about the fundamentals of human nature and human development to form an opinion as to whether this is true or not, therefore, although I do believe that people deserve to be offered help to change (as in criminal rehabilitation programs), if they do not choose to make such a change, then they won't make it. That falls under my beliefs about personal responsibility and the right of all people to control their own destiny.

and again in case you want to add comments to this one.
9) All people are equal and therefore are equally deserving of my help regardless of who they are or what they have done…
This version of the poll premise still has problems for me. It still assumes that people need or want help. It assumes that if I believe people are equal that means I think they are "deserving" or "good." A belief in equality does not equate to a belief in universal goodness.

Men are creatures of volition; each individual is in total control of how he acts.

Really? Let's see you go and punch the Pope, then?

1) People should have control over their own destiny…

True

2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God…

I choose both conditions described here.

3) Change is a good thing…

It depends.

4) Change involves struggle and pain…

Sometimes.

5) People are basically good underneath…

True.

6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships…

True.

7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem…

True.

8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change…

True.

and again in case you want to add comments to this one.
9) All people are equal and therefore are equally deserving of my help regardless of who they are or what they have done…

True.

I believe on a certain level that all people are deserving of help--or rather, maybe, I believe that my duty to the world extends to all living things, that who I feel compassion for is predicated on what kind of person I am, not what kind of people they are. I try to practice compassion, understanding and love for everyone--especially for those people I find personally reprehensible, because many of them need it the most.

However, if I had to choose between giving $20 to a starving child or a starving child molester, I'd give it to the child. And then kick the child molester in the nuts/vag. So clearly I still struggle with this.

1)Yes, definitely, No one's about to tell me what I can and cant do...

2)Well, yes and no...On a judicial level, most assuredly not, but on a personal level, hey whatever floats your boat...

3) If its in the right direction, i.e the direction that I want, lol...

4)Most of the Time

5)No, People being good or bad are dependent on their actions in my book...

6)Yep, if all the decisions are one sided, is it really a relationship?

7)Depends on the subject, if its like a math problem or something,yeah...If its an addiction, you need someone to monitor the situation as well as the people with experience...

8)Morality is something you have to determine for yourself, not something you are born with...

9)No, I have to draw the line at people who directly harm other people...I seem to remember a line from somewhere "your freedom ends at the other person's face"...

1) People should have control over their own destiny…
They should but don't, we are a product of nature, nurture and nothing else. What we do is determined by one or of the two

2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God…
We should take responsibility for our actions and all that but not seek the forgiveness of God.

3) Change is a good thing…
Sometimes

4) Change involves struggle and pain…
Depends on the change

5) People are basically good underneath…
Most people are but not all

6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships…
Yes

7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem…
Sometimes

8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change…
Sometimes the way they are is so heavy enforced that it cannot be changed, but it is still always worth a try.

9)All people are equal and therefore are equally deserving of my help regardless of who they are or what they have done…
Yes

Rights are granted to those who have earned them, not conferred by default.
Ummmm....

I thought i'd throw some questions at you, feel free to answer some or all of them or none, but i'm interested on your opinions on the following...The poll question is one i'm most interested in.

1) People should have control over their own destiny…

2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God…

3) Change is a good thing…

4) Change involves struggle and pain…

5) People are basically good underneath…

6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships…

7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem…

8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change…

and again in case you want to add comments to this one.
9) All people are equal and therefore are equally deserving of my help regardless of who they are or what they have done…

1. Yes, though forces outside of people's control impact their lives, it is up to each individual to live their lives.

2. Yes, people should take responsibility for their lives.

3. Change is not intrinsically good. It can lead to things getting worse. The change over the last few months (economic wise) sucks ass, for example.

4. It can.

5. I think some people are just plain rotten. Though even someone 'bad' can do 'good' deeds.

6. I guess. Sometimes a leader figure is necessary to make people don't fuck up.

7. Makes sense.

8. For the most part, though some people are just born bad, I think.

9. Fuck no. Friends and family come before anyone else.

1) People should have control over their own destiny…

It depends what you mean, but I'm leaning towards 'no.'

2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God…

No, when we do good, we should praise God that He makes us able and willing and accepts the good (though accompanied with many imperfections and sins) as truly good through His Son. When we do wrong we should repent and seek forgiveness.

3) Change is a good thing…

Change from what to what?

4) Change involves struggle and pain…

Usually.

5) People are basically good underneath…

Nope. They're totally depraved, radically corrupted. We are by nature children of wrath and we flee from all good. We don't do the worst we can do (We aren't utterly depraved. Some are certainly more evil than others), but everything we do is tainted by our evil hate toward good.

6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships…

I'd need a fuller understanding of what is meant to comment.

7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem…

99% of the time, I think.

8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change…

No. See answer to number 5.

and again in case you want to add comments to this one.
9) All people are equal and therefore are equally deserving of my help regardless of who they are or what they have done…

We are all evil and are all therefore deserving of nothing but eternal damnation. I am not God and am not good, so I must not usurp Him and call damnation upon others. Rather, because He has had grace and mercy on me, I am to have grace and mercy on others. One form of grace and mercy is help.

As for how I help and who I help, those are very much dependent on situation and context. The person who lost his job and couldn't pay the rent and is out on the street is going to get a much different form of help from me than the murderous drug-dealer. And that's as it should be, I think.

I thought i'd throw some questions at you, feel free to answer some or all of them or none, but i'm interested on your opinions on the following...The poll question is one i'm most interested in.

1) People should have control over their own destiny…

Absolutely true.


2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God…
Disagree with seek forgiveness angle. We should take responsibility in both cases.


3) Change is a good thing…
Change is not always good. Change is not always bad. It is what it is.


4) Change involves struggle and pain…
Sometimes, but it does not have to.


5) People are basically good underneath…
I would say most people and then I agree.


6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships…
Some relationships, yes.


7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem…
Disagree. Depends on the problem. Normally the best you can get is how they solved the problem, assuming they solved the problem.


8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change…
This is most often true.


and again in case you want to add comments to this one.


9) All people are equal and therefore are equally deserving of my help regardless of who they are or what they have done…

I would agree with this statement. I answered a qualified yes in the poll.

When we are ready we need to discuss this. Starting from #1. Anyone who said no or depends to the first question, please explain.

People should have control over their own destiny?

When we are ready we need to discuss this. Starting from #1. Anyone who said no or depends to the first question, please explain.

People should have control over their own destiny?

Why should they? Sounds like an arbitrary assumption to me.

1) The question is irrelevant. People don't control their destinies, our actions are determined by the actions of those before/around us, and those actions were determined by ...[etc]... until you get back to the Big Bang when the first subatomic particle started to twitch.

2) No. We don't really do anything, we're just vessels for the momentum established before we were born.

3) Change is relative.

4) The difficulty involved in change is relative.

5) People are basically social. We tend to get along with members of our own species, and there is a certain amount of intangible good which people attach to the success and happiness of those around them. This is normally good, but it can be exploited for negative purposes (fascism and militarism, for instance, are corruptions of natural tendencies to form societies).

6) Yes.

7) Yes.

8) People can be born genetically inclined to do things which one might be inclined to view negatively. Much of what happens is a result of surroundings, however.

Why should they? Sounds like an arbitrary assumption to me.

I guess we should have control over our own destinies to the degree that we have control over. If by that we mean can I prevent an airplane from crashing into my house. Of course we can not.

I think this is a free will question. I would say categorically yes we have free will. Events may play out that we do not have control over. We can however control our reactions to those events and take steps to prevent or allow similar changes to occur. You can not prevent the forest fire but you may be able to put it out if you try hard enough.

I guess we should have control over our own destinies to the degree that we have control over. If by that we mean can I prevent an airplane from crashing into my house. Of course we can not.

I think this is a free will question. I would say categorically yes we have free will. Events may play out that we do not have control over. We can however control our reactions to those events and take steps to prevent or allow similar changes to occur. You can not prevent the forest fire but you may be able to put it out if you try hard enough.

The question isn't 'can we shape the world to our will'... that can be answered fairly definitively, for our technology, and at certain levels. I can control certain factors, but I can't make electrons dance around atoms. I can pick my route to work, but not how the worlds will circle their stars.

No - the question is SHOULD we have control over our destiny. And that requires some kind of ideological assertion - either religious or political... or something much like.

If you assert we should have control over our destinies... by what authority do you claim it?

And 'free will' doesn't fit - that would explain how you CAN, it doesn't justify that you SHOULD.

1) The question is irrelevant. People don't control their destinies, our actions are determined by the actions of those before/around us, and those actions were determined by ...[etc]... until you get back to the Big Bang when the first subatomic particle started to twitch.

2) No. We don't really do anything, we're just vessels for the momentum established before we were born.

3) Change is relative.

4) The difficulty involved in change is relative.

5) People are basically social. We tend to get along with members of our own species, and there is a certain amount of intangible good which people attach to the success and happiness of those around them. This is normally good, but it can be exploited for negative purposes (fascism and militarism, for instance, are corruptions of natural tendencies to form societies).

6) Yes.

7) Yes.

8) People can be born genetically inclined to do things which one might be inclined to view negatively. Much of what happens is a result of surroundings, however.

So you are arguing predestination then or cause and effect?

Your life is a script played out at some level?

Or

Basically stuff happens, we react, more stuff happens?

From your argument I think you are leaning toward stuff happens line. I am picking on you because your argument is diametrically oppose to mine.

The question isn't 'can we shape the world to our will'... that can be answered fairly definitively, for our technology, and at certain levels. I can control certain factors, but I can't make electrons dance around atoms. I can pick my route to work, but not how the worlds will circle their stars.

No - the question is SHOULD we have control over our destiny. And that requires some kind of ideological assertion - either religious or political... or something much like.

If you assert we should have control over our destinies... by what authority do you claim it?

And 'free will' doesn't fit - that would explain how you CAN, it doesn't justify that you SHOULD.

That is amazing how different people interpret the question.

See I would have said not only should you, but you do, have some level of control over your own destiny and you should use what you have control over to the best of your ability.

I would say yours is do we have control over reality.
In which case I would win the lottery every night. I haven't been able to do so yet.

So you are arguing predestination then or cause and effect?
That depends on whether there is a god or not.
If there is one, then it, at some point in the past, wrote out a script which we (including it) are now bound to follow until the end of time.
Otherwise stuff just happens. I'm inclined to believe in the second one, but I'm not willing to rule out the existence of some sort of preternatural, driving force.
I am picking on you because your argument is diametrically oppose to mine.
We both agree that it is better for relationships to be founded on cooperation among equals, that's something.

This drives me crazy.

No. We don't really do anything, we're just vessels for the momentum established before we were born.

vessels for the momentum -> This reminds me of predestination and this makes me crazy. We don't really do anything it is all a script in the matrix. We are programmed from day one.

This drives me crazy.

No. We don't really do anything, we're just vessels for the momentum established before we were born.

vessels for the momentum -> This reminds me of predestination and this makes me crazy. We don't really do anything it is all a script in the matrix. We are programmed from day one.

Seems reasonable. What have you got that opposes it?

That depends on whether there is a god or not.
If there is one, then it, at some point in the past, wrote out a script which we (including it) are now bound to follow until the end of time.
Otherwise stuff just happens. I'm inclined to believe in the second one, but I'm not willing to rule out the existence of some sort of preternatural, driving force.

We both agree that it is better for relationships to be founded on cooperation among equals, that's something.

Yes we do agree on that. That is something. It is just interesting to me to see how other think.

Seems reasonable. What have you got that opposes it?

Who is writing the script?

If you believe in God, then why would he punish you for following you programming?

If you don't believe in God and this is all cause and effect, then I would have to be a cause for everything that happens wouldn't there?

Define "destiny." Define "control."

Was it my destiny to exist? How should I know?

Is it my destiny to die? Yes, everything dies, eventually.

Between those two, I'd say it's problematical issue.

Also, I would say there is a difference between "can people control their own destiny?" and "should people control their own destiny?"

I said that people should control their own destiny because I assumed that the alternative would be either (a) someone else would try to control it or (b) they would accept no responsibility for their own lives. Since I believe that each person should be the master of their own life, obviously I would not accept either of those alternatives. So, assuming those are the options, I picked "people should control their own destiny."

Now whether we can do that is an entirely different question.

Define "destiny." Define "control."

Was it my destiny to exist? How should I know?

Is it my destiny to die? Yes, everything dies, eventually.

Between those two, I'd say it's problematical issue.

It was because you are here, I think. Otherwise I would be talking to nobody. I sometimes feel I do that but I chalk that up to paranoia.

What is problematic? Did anyone force you to get into art or did you just come by it. If you believe in cause and effect what was the cause of your ability in art?

What was the cause of Mozart being so good with music at such an early age? Just good breeding, some really enlightened genes? It is possible to find two excellent musicians and their child might not be gifted in music. I can also find two that are completely tone deaf and they could have child that is truly gifted in music.

Also, I would say there is a difference between "can people control their own destiny?" and "should people control their own destiny?"

I said that people should control their own destiny because I assumed that the alternative would be either (a) someone else would try to control it or (b) they would accept no responsibility for their own lives. Since I believe that each person should be the master of their own life, obviously I would not accept either of those alternatives. So, assuming those are the options, I picked "people should control their own destiny."

Now whether we can do that is an entirely different question.

I agree on this point.

It was because you are here, I think. Otherwise I would be talking to nobody. I sometimes feel I do that but I chalk that up to paranoia.

What is problematic? Did anyone force you to get into art or did you just come by it. If you believe in cause and effect what was the cause of your ability in art?

What was the cause of Mozart being so good with music at such an early age? Just good breeding, some really enlightened genes? It is possible to find two excellent musicians and their child might not be gifted in music. I can also find two that are completely tone deaf and they could have child that is truly gifted in music.
I meant that it is problematical because people's ideas of what constitutes "destiny" and "control" over it vary so much. Unless we define terms to work with, we will not be able to proceed very well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destiny

Destiny refers to a predetermined course of events. It may be conceived as a predetermined future, whether in general or of an individual. It is a concept based on the belief that there is a fixed natural order to the universe.


con·trol
1. Authority or ability to manage or direct:

Should is problematic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destiny

Destiny refers to a predetermined course of events. It may be conceived as a predetermined future, whether in general or of an individual. It is a concept based on the belief that there is a fixed natural order to the universe.


con·trol
1. Authority or ability to manage or direct:

Should is problematic.
If those are the definitions you're going with, then it is impossible to control destiny.

Does or should a human have the authority and ability to manage and direct his or her own life?

Not only should that person but I think that person does. The effects of those decisions and actions may workout for benefit or detriment or have no effect for that individual.

If those are the definitions you're going with, then it is impossible to control destiny.

Right if by destiny we mean the events of one life then yes to some degree we can and should have influence. If you mean by destiny that it was predetermined, then I personally don't think anything is predetermined.

Does or should a human have the authority and ability to manage and direct his or her own life?

To some degree. People have the responsibility to make choices affecting their own lives, even if those choices are only regarding their reactions to events beyond their control.

This is a different question than the one about destiny.

Right if by destiny we mean the events of one life then yes to some degree we can and should have influence. If you mean by destiny that it was predetermined, then I personally don't think anything is predetermined.
Then why did you post the predestination definition of destiny?

Who is writing the script?


There doesn't HAVE to be a script, just for everything to be following some kind of projection path. Two rocks collide in space, each goes bouncing off at a set trajectory, decided in the moment of the imapct, but scripted by no one other than the mathematics of collision.


If you believe in God, then why would he punish you for following you programming?


Because he's evil.


If you don't believe in God and this is all cause and effect, then I would have to be a cause for everything that happens wouldn't there?

There would have to be cause, but that doesn't imply scripting. Every thought and movement could just be stimulus reaction.

This drives me crazy.

No. We don't really do anything, we're just vessels for the momentum established before we were born.

vessels for the momentum -> This reminds me of predestination and this makes me crazy. We don't really do anything it is all a script in the matrix. We are programmed from day one.
we are boats travelling the river of life. we can try to go in a certain direction or dock at a certain point but the conditions might not allow us to do so without more effort or more understanding of the currents than can manage.

1) People should have control over their own destiny…

2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God…

3) Change is a good thing…

4) Change involves struggle and pain…

5) People are basically good underneath…

6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships…

7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem…

8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change…

and again in case you want to add comments to this one.
9) All people are equal and therefore are equally deserving of my help regardless of who they are or what they have done…

1. Yes
2. I'm not clear on the question, are you saying we should or should not praise a god?
3. Not always
4. Not always
5. Anyone who believes that about everyone is destined for a harsh lesson.
6. Cooperation between anyone is the best way to structure helping relationships
7. It depends on the kind of help.
8. People can be born or made bad, and the other way around.
9. That really depends on the kind of help.

Then why did you post the predestination definition of destiny?

Destiny implies predestination. It took wiki's definition. However some people mean "future" when they say destiny.

So should you be able to change / affect your future.

There doesn't HAVE to be a script, just for everything to be following some kind of projection path. Two rocks collide in space, each goes bouncing off at a set trajectory, decided in the moment of the impact, but scripted by no one other than the mathematics of collision.



Good, I agree that predestination is almost right out. So then you are saying cause and effect are the main causes of everything.

If we were to put in mathematical form something like

Cause + uncertainty = Effect

Many cases + a lot of uncertainty = reality

If we were to examine say the sinking of the titanic

The cause was running into an iceberg

Not a lot of uncertainty in this case

Effect was small holes in the hull along the water line caused the ship to take on water until it became not longer able to stay afloat.

If we ask why was that iceberg there?

Then it is mostly uncertainty

Cause is reduced to near zero. We can make guesses but we will never know for sure

Uncertainty is the iceberg was just there

Effect was the iceberg was in the path of the titanic


Because he's evil.

Even for an evil entity making rules that are pointless is a waste of time.



There would have to be cause, but that doesn't imply scripting. Every thought and movement could just be stimulus reaction.

This very much true.

Good, I agree that predestination is almost right out. So then you are saying cause and effect are the main causes of everything.

If we were to put in mathematical form something like

Cause + uncertainty = Effect

Many cases + a lot of uncertainty = reality

If we were to examine say the sinking of the titanic

The cause was running into an iceberg

Not a lot of uncertainty in this case

Effect was small holes in the hull along the water line caused the ship to take on water until it became not longer able to stay afloat.

If we ask why was that iceberg there?

Then it is mostly uncertainty

Cause is reduced to near zero. We can make guesses but we will never know for sure

Uncertainty is the iceberg was just there

Effect was the iceberg was in the path of the titanic


I'm not sure what you're trying to invoke when you say 'uncertainty'. The iceberg was neither 'certain' nor 'uncertain'. It was where it was for complex, yet ultimately mathematical reasons... thaw times, season effects on flotation, currents and drift rates, etc.

If you had sufficient technology, theoretically, you could have mapped the path and eventual incident zone, with absolute accuracy.


Even for an evil entity making rules that are pointless is a waste of time.


Not my problem. It's one of the failings of the Biblical god.

I'm not sure what you're trying to invoke when you say 'uncertainty'. The iceberg was neither 'certain' nor 'uncertain'. It was where it was for complex, yet ultimately mathematical reasons... thaw times, season effects on flotation, currents and drift rates, etc.

If you had sufficient technology, theoretically, you could have mapped the path and eventual incident zone, with absolute accuracy.

Right by uncertainty/randomness/ lack of data/lack of understanding the iceberg was where it was. Since we did not have sensors on the iceberg we will never know for sure. There is that x factor in a lot of equations. I may be able to tell the conditions that cause an earthquake to occur but I may not be able to predict when will occur. I may be able to tell you the conditions are right for a tornado to occur but not when one will occur.



Not my problem. It's one of the failings of the Biblical god.
I know better than to go there some wars/battles are not winnable. I accept that.

1) People should have control over their own destiny…Yes

2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God…No

3) Change is a good thing…Maybe

4) Change involves struggle and pain…Maybe

5) People are basically good underneath…No, people are basically people.

6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships…No idea

7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem…Yes

8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change…No. People are not bad or good. Its all relative

Destiny implies predestination. It took wiki's definition. However some people mean "future" when they say destiny.

So should you be able to change / affect your future.
Also impossible. The future does not exist. To refer to Ashmoria's analogy, we can steer towards a desired future outcome of any given event or action, but we cannot guarantee an outcome because we cannot know the future.

The past cannot be undone and the future is on availabe to be directed. We can only control the present, and even that is limited by circumstances. So in reality, we can only 100% control our own reactions to events and outcomes.

That doesn't sound like much, but in practice it adds up to quite a lot.

Is it your destiny to be a victim or a victor? In most cases, that will be determined not so much by what you do or what happens to you but by how you react to the events of your life.

At this point, I suppose I should make it clear that I don't believe in destiny, as in a predetermined future outcome. When I use the word "destiny" I think more in terms of "destination" and a person's condition when they get there.

wow, so many responses ahm i'll try and answer them as best as i can could take me a while though.
(most pleased with numbers of people who took part thanks guys)
:wink:

now to save myself some time i think i'll answer each of your opinions on question 9.
1) People do have control over their own destiny. Those who don't take control are either lazy or afraid of hurting others for their own benefit.

2) Take responsibility when it's in your own long term self-interest. Otherwise, don't.

3) Only if it leads to a better situation.

4) Sometimes.

5) People are motivated by self-preservation at the most basic level, then preservation of their genes through their children and immediate family. There is no such thing as "good". It's a word invented by humans, it holds no intrinsic meaning within a chaotic, uncaring universe.

6) Sometimes. Other times, a strong leader works best, especially if the "equals" are stupid, uninspired or otherwise mentally impaired.

7) Yes. Alternatively, they're best helped by themselves.

8) There is no such thing as an intrinsically bad person. It's a label society places on those who do not conform to their wishes.

9) No, all people are not equal. This is self-evident. Some are stupid, some are smart. Some are proactive, some are lazy. Some deserve help, some don't.
So what happens to people who are judged as cruel or benevolent from a young age, is it really their fault they turn out cruel?
I believe an eminent Russian American philospher conclusively proved that altruism is a bad thing - you should acquaint yourself with her works.
mm'kay
(substitute "destiny" with "life"...) That would be ideal. Still both objective external conditions and peoples' own attitudes prevent that.


As there is no deity of sorts (or at least this is what I think)...


Not necessarily.


Not necessarily.


Absolutely not all people are "basically good".


Between adults, generally it is. Not necessarily in a teacher-pupil or parent-child relationship.


False. If I have cancer I don't give a fuck if my doc has had a cancer, too... I want him be good at his job!


Actually I believe the exact contrary. People are born "bad" (that is, egoistical and antisocial) and can become eventually "good" (that is, altruistic and respectful).


Logical fallacy. All people are equal (that is, have equal rights), yes.
This doesn't imply that all of them deserve my help, or that they deserve my help in the same amount.

Call me a cold-hearthed bastard, but I wouldn't raise a finger to save Berlusconi.
good points made, i might also point out here that i'm glad you folks picked up on the faults with the questions, most interesting to read.
So do you think people are born with predetermined behaviours regardless of their situation? or does their environment have some effect on their cognitions?
Mine are the bolded answers.
ahm hang on i'll post another post because i can't see the answers currently.
I answered in bold. Feel free to question my answers.
same again i'll post another reply to your opinion.
1) People on the whole do have control overtheir own destiny, the majority of us are too lazy to do so.

2) Yes indeed, but all praise belongs to God.

3) Undoubtedly

4) Yes most of the time

5) Most of us I think

6) Understanding of the differances between us is better I belive

7) There is some truth in this

8) The jury is still out on the nature vs nuture debate, but honestly it is a bit of both

9) All people should be treated equaly yes
interesting, so may i ask what your experience with people is to say that we should all have a chance?
in relation to good or bad behaviour?

1) No (until I you explain this more I will assume your asking me to let you do heroin)

2) No, watch that suncream video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTJ7AzBIJoI) (also I think it was Lenin who said that self pity is addictive and one should avoid that)

3) don't be silly

4) Nope but it may involve work

5) good and evil don't exist so kinda

6) I've always found a mutual will to dominate one another forms the best relationships

7) we have empathy for a reason

8) depends on what you mean by bad but certain genetic dispositions can lean a person towards being "bad"

9) no they have to be willing to change and quite frankly I care about some people more
a forced NS-made meme being rubbish? somebody stop this madman!
I'll watch the video in a bit kind of snowed under at present, lets see...
so what happens if the person was brought up with irrational ideas about others, to lead them to behave unfairly to others? should we hold them wholly to account even though they may not have had a choice in their lifestyles?
Not "should"--they "do" have control over their "destiny."


Minus the invisible-man-in-the-sky part, this is correct.


Not necessarily. "Change," in the abstract, could be anything from Hitler to more sex.


Not necessarily.


Individuals choose to be what they are.


Tautology.


Not necessarily.


Incorrect. An individual chooses whether he is good or bad.
Incorrect.
what choice do people have in how they are good or bad?
Isn't the terms of good and bad our judgements of others? i mean would you consider yourself good or bad, would you like to be judged by your behaviour at all times?
1) People should have control over their own destiny…

To a degree. While it is for instance nice to say people should not drown in horrible accidents, life sometimes dictates otherwise. That you desire to be a famous singer does not mean we have to think the sounds emanating from your throat are wonderful. And so on.

2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God…

Hell yeah.

3) Change is a good thing…

Sometimes. And sometimes not.

4) Change involves struggle and pain…

Often, yes.

5) People are basically good underneath…

Undecided.

6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships…

Undecided, but the succes of micro credit seems to point that there is a grain of truth in there.

7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem…

Not necessarily.

8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change…

Not necessarily.

and again in case you want to add comments to this one.
9) All people are equal and therefore are equally deserving of my help regardless of who they are or what they have done…

Disagree. See question 2.
interesting, not many people i've seen post here say they think all people should be treated equally, what draws you to the conclusion we should help all people regardless of what they have done?
1) People should have control over their own destiny… Yes, they should. And do.

2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God… Yes. What you do is your fault. Accept it.

3) Change is a good thing… Yes. Most of the time.

4) Change involves struggle and pain… Not always.

5) People are basically good underneath… Absolutely not. People are motivated by self-interest. Morality exists primarily to alleviate guilt or other psychological consequences, which are damaging to self-interest. "Doing the right thing" is considered an ideal because it makes the doer feel that he has accomplished something, not because it is objectively "good".

6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships… Some relationships. In other relationships, such as parent to child or government to citizens, there must be someone in charge and someone to serve.

7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem… Not always.

8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change… No. Some people are born bad. Society, however, prefers to call these "personality disorders", and some of them can fit into society if they work at it.

9) All people are equal and therefore are equally deserving of my help regardless of who they are or what they have done… No. Not all people are equal. Not all people deserve to be treated equally. Rights are granted to those who have earned them, not conferred by default.
so what should we do or...what should be done with those who haven't earned their right to equality? just leave them to their devices?
1) They ought to, and strictly speaking everyone has the capacity to make choices regardless of situation. Are you asking to what degree should our choices be limited, and who has that right?

2) If you act, then take responsibility for your action. It's up to you how you judge yourself in light of your actions. But again, that's still your choice.

3) Not necessarily

4) Not necessarily

5) Not necessarily, but it's a reasonable maxim to work under. You will never know how someone really is, but without enough evidence I would err on this side. It really depends upon what you would be using this assertion to justify. Practical ethical action, like point 9?

6) No, people are different and have different needs and structures (the teacher pupil thing was a good example)

7) Not necessarily. Skills that apply to your problem are most applicable. It's even possible that it could have a negative effect (if being reminded of the experience they had, by you, affects their ability to help)

8) Nature nurture? I thought the general consensus on this was "a bit of both"? You can be predisposed and have capacity for something, but this can be enhanced or suppressed by your environment.

9) Would you stop Hitler being killed in an accident early in life by helping him (say, staunching the wound), knowing what he would do later? (in first for Godwin - yay!). More seriously, if this is predicated on 'everyone being basically good' then yes, that becomes a reasonable maxim.

But the world is too complicated to use something that simplistic. All you're really doing is following the easy way out from a moral conundrum.
So you're saying that yes but there are situations when people cannot be treated equally? (have i got this right?)
Felt it best not to read through the thread until I posted my own answers.


Short answer, yes.
I think one should strive to feel happiness through means of engaging in a (to them) meaningful interest.
Granted it is not harming anyone (else?) of course.


Agreed.


Not necessarily, but it can be.


Again, not necessarily.
Preferably not.
It depends on one´s mindset of course.


More along the lines of neutral I would say.
Some are selfish(evil) and some selfless(good), but neutral overall.


In an ideal world, definitely.
But sadly, humans require hierarchies for the most part.


Not necessarily, but it probably helps both parties to get into the right frame of mind to help and be helped.


For the most part, yes.
But some are just outright egotistic to the core.


Yes.
Though it does greatly depend on what they want help with.


Now to read everyone else´s response.
have done and i took agggess to read em all, that'l teach me to leave a thread alone for several days.
what things would you not want to help with in relation to other people?
Have you ever helped another family member or someone you know, i mean what would restrain you from helping others?
1) People should have control over their own destiny…

people should have a modest amount of control over their own destiny

2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God…

we should take responsibility for our actions but sometimes the consequences cant be predicted. i dont see where god comes into it.

3) Change is a good thing…

some change is good, some change is bad, some change is neutral

4) Change involves struggle and pain…

sometimes. but mostly it is small changes that go unnoticed day to day

5) People are basically good underneath…

people are good and bad in differing ways.

6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships…

i have no opinion on that

7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem…

not necessarily

8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change…

people are not born bad. sometimes it is too late to help a person to change

and again in case you want to add comments to this one.
9) All people are equal and therefore are equally deserving of my help regardless of who they are or what they have done…

people's past actions may make them undeserving of my help.
People shouldn't be helped, why?
The poll premise, as written, strikes me as faulty. It contains both the question of whether people are equal, and the presuppostion that if I think they are equal I am going to help them in some way. Why do you assume that people need help and why do you assume that equality of people would form the basis of me choosing to help people? Because of that I did not vote.


I agree with the above statement.


This statement is laden with presuppositions for which I see little or no justification or relevance.

Yes, I think we each should take responsibility for our own actions. However:

> Why suppose that the granting of either praise or admonishment would be part of that process at all?

> Why suggest the assumption that if people are not praising or admonishing themselves then they are doing that to god(s)?

> Why suggest the assumption that praising/admonishing oneself and praising/admonishing god(s) are mutually exclusive, meaning that a person would not or could not do both (or neither)?


Change is inevitable. Whether any given change is good or bad depends entirely on what it is and how it affects any given person. The assessment of change as "good" or "bad" is subjective to individual perspectives.


Difficult and painful changes involve struggle and pain. Other kinds of change do not.


There is no universal good/bad standard applicable to all human beings. Each person is their own case.


I agree with the above statement.


I do not think that is necessarily the case. It depends on what the problem is that a person needs help with.


I do not know enough about the fundamentals of human nature and human development to form an opinion as to whether this is true or not, therefore, although I do believe that people deserve to be offered help to change (as in criminal rehabilitation programs), if they do not choose to make such a change, then they won't make it. That falls under my beliefs about personal responsibility and the right of all people to control their own destiny.


This version of the poll premise still has problems for me. It still assumes that people need or want help. It assumes that if I believe people are equal that means I think they are "deserving" or "good." A belief in equality does not equate to a belief in universal goodness.
Sorry i couldn't fit in the more complete version of the question in the poll.
I thought i'd take a leap and see what people say, i notice alot of posters have pointed out several flaws and my response to your post does not do dignitiy to the time you have spent answering, but i think the question to help other people unconditionally will come across all people at some time or another.
damn good answer, i'm stumped as to how i'm going to respond.
give me a little time i'll think of something.
1) People should have control over their own destiny…

True

2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God…

I choose both conditions described here.

3) Change is a good thing…

It depends.

4) Change involves struggle and pain…

Sometimes.

5) People are basically good underneath…

True.

6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships…

True.

7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem…

True.

8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change…

True.

and again in case you want to add comments to this one.
9) All people are equal and therefore are equally deserving of my help regardless of who they are or what they have done…

True.
ah interesting, what makes you say people should be helped regardless of what they have done?
I believe on a certain level that all people are deserving of help--or rather, maybe, I believe that my duty to the world extends to all living things, that who I feel compassion for is predicated on what kind of person I am, not what kind of people they are. I try to practice compassion, understanding and love for everyone--especially for those people I find personally reprehensible, because many of them need it the most.

However, if I had to choose between giving $20 to a starving child or a starving child molester, I'd give it to the child. And then kick the child molester in the nuts/vag. So clearly I still struggle with this.
indeed quite a tough decision to make. interesting answer.
1)Yes, definitely, No one's about to tell me what I can and cant do...

2)Well, yes and no...On a judicial level, most assuredly not, but on a personal level, hey whatever floats your boat...

3) If its in the right direction, i.e the direction that I want, lol...

4)Most of the Time

5)No, People being good or bad are dependent on their actions in my book...

6)Yep, if all the decisions are one sided, is it really a relationship?

7)Depends on the subject, if its like a math problem or something,yeah...If its an addiction, you need someone to monitor the situation as well as the people with experience...

8)Morality is something you have to determine for yourself, not something you are born with...

9)No, I have to draw the line at people who directly harm other people...I seem to remember a line from somewhere "your freedom ends at the other person's face"...
what if the person had no choice? i mean what if that person considered it normal to hurt other people, would you still say they shouldn't be helped?
1) People should have control over their own destiny…
They should but don't, we are a product of nature, nurture and nothing else. What we do is determined by one or of the two

2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God…
We should take responsibility for our actions and all that but not seek the forgiveness of God.

3) Change is a good thing…
Sometimes

4) Change involves struggle and pain…
Depends on the change

5) People are basically good underneath…
Most people are but not all

6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships…
Yes

7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem…
Sometimes

8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change…
Sometimes the way they are is so heavy enforced that it cannot be changed, but it is still always worth a try.

9)All people are equal and therefore are equally deserving of my help regardless of who they are or what they have done…
Yes
aha but why do you say this. (your response to quest 9)
It depends what you mean, but I'm leaning towards 'no.'



No, when we do good, we should praise God that He makes us able and willing and accepts the good (though accompanied with many imperfections and sins) as truly good through His Son. When we do wrong we should repent and seek forgiveness.



Change from what to what?



Usually.



Nope. They're totally depraved, radically corrupted. We are by nature children of wrath and we flee from all good. We don't do the worst we can do (We aren't utterly depraved. Some are certainly more evil than others), but everything we do is tainted by our evil hate toward good.



I'd need a fuller understanding of what is meant to comment.



99% of the time, I think.



No. See answer to number 5.



We are all evil and are all therefore deserving of nothing but eternal damnation. I am not God and am not good, so I must not usurp Him and call damnation upon others. Rather, because He has had grace and mercy on me, I am to have grace and mercy on others. One form of grace and mercy is help.

As for how I help and who I help, those are very much dependent on situation and context. The person who lost his job and couldn't pay the rent and is out on the street is going to get a much different form of help from me than the murderous drug-dealer. And that's as it should be, I think.
okay so what would you do with the murderous drug-dealer?
what should happen to them? am i justified to judge his decisions, or your decisions?
Absolutely true.


Disagree with seek forgiveness angle. We should take responsibility in both cases.


Change is not always good. Change is not always bad. It is what it is.


Sometimes, but it does not have to.


I would say most people and then I agree.


Some relationships, yes.


Disagree. Depends on the problem. Normally the best you can get is how they solved the problem, assuming they solved the problem.


This is most often true.



I would agree with this statement. I answered a qualified yes in the poll.
oh okay, so why do you agree?
1) The question is irrelevant. People don't control their destinies, our actions are determined by the actions of those before/around us, and those actions were determined by ...[etc]... until you get back to the Big Bang when the first subatomic particle started to twitch.

2) No. We don't really do anything, we're just vessels for the momentum established before we were born.

3) Change is relative.

4) The difficulty involved in change is relative.

5) People are basically social. We tend to get along with members of our own species, and there is a certain amount of intangible good which people attach to the success and happiness of those around them. This is normally good, but it can be exploited for negative purposes (fascism and militarism, for instance, are corruptions of natural tendencies to form societies).

6) Yes.

7) Yes.

8) People can be born genetically inclined to do things which one might be inclined to view negatively. Much of what happens is a result of surroundings, however.
good points, but i have to ask what is your opinion on question 9?

Also, I would say there is a difference between "can people control their own destiny?" and "should people control their own destiny?"

I said that people should control their own destiny because I assumed that the alternative would be either (a) someone else would try to control it or (b) they would accept no responsibility for their own lives. Since I believe that each person should be the master of their own life, obviously I would not accept either of those alternatives. So, assuming those are the options, I picked "people should control their own destiny."

Now whether we can do that is an entirely different question.
ah okay.
1. Yes
2. I'm not clear on the question, are you saying we should or should not praise a god?
3. Not always
4. Not always
5. Anyone who believes that about everyone is destined for a harsh lesson.
6. Cooperation between anyone is the best way to structure helping relationships
7. It depends on the kind of help.
8. People can be born or made bad, and the other way around.
9. That really depends on the kind of help.
hmm why do you dodge the question?
i know it's not perfect but at some point people will wonder if i or you should help those we do not know.
1) People should have control over their own destiny…Yes

2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God…No

3) Change is a good thing…Maybe

4) Change involves struggle and pain…Maybe

5) People are basically good underneath…No, people are basically people.

6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships…No idea

7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem…Yes

8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change…No. People are not bad or good. Its all relative
fair enough, it's relative so would you say that we should help all people we can because each of our decisions are relative to our situations no matter who we are...
hmmm okay, sort of dodges the question.

Now i've answered as well as i can to these responses, if you want a better answer um, just keep bugging me and i'll see what i can do.
again thanks for the input.

I answered in bold. Feel free to question my answers.
okay i'll answer quest 9 because it's only fair to the others...
ah right, so can i ask why you think all people are equal?
What would you do if you helped a murderer or rapist unintentionally?
(i know this is taking a big leap but i'm curious)
i mean really, does it depend on the situation or does morality really play a part?
Mine are the bolded answers.

so if you say we have control over our destiny, then how can you say people are born bad? (i'm assuming you're leaning towards saying no to quest 9).

again thanks guys i appreciate the time you take to answer these questions....so now i'll give my opinion on question 9, from the poll answers taken into account it's clear there's a definite split between those who would help others regardless and those who wouldn't.
I'm not sure, i'm leaning towards yes and help all people but at the same time i wonder, if i did assist someone with a really really troubled past, how can i still be a moral person to their victims or those they hurt?
Do i play some role in helping them commit more crimes if i helped them?
what happens if we all just stopped helping unconditionally? would society cope? or rather your society cope?

-in short, i'm still pretty confused but i can understand why those of you take one side or the other-
( i know i'll have to get down off this fence soon but i'm still not sure)
peace out guys happy valentines.
:tongue:

I thought i'd throw some questions at you, feel free to answer some or all of them or none, but i'm interested on your opinions on the following...The poll question is one i'm most interested in.

1) People should have control over their own destiny…

2) We should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, praise ourselves when we do good admonish ourselves when we do bad not praise or seek forgiveness from God…

3) Change is a good thing…

4) Change involves struggle and pain…

5) People are basically good underneath…

6) Co-operation between equals is the best way to structure helping relationships…

7)People are best helped by someone who has had a very similar experience or problem…

8)People are not born bad they’re made bad by the world and can therefore be helped to change…

and again in case you want to add comments to this one.
9) All people are equal and therefore are equally deserving of my help regardless of who they are or what they have done…


1.) They SHOULD but may or may not.

2.) You should view what you do objectively, and not indulge in supernatural fairy-tales when forgiving or asking to be forgiven. You either forgive yourself internally or ask for forgiveness from those you have wronged.

3.) Depends

4.) Depends

5.) Also depends, but this time, on your view of human nature and depending on those views howthey are acting in regards to their own human nature. I would say yes, so long as people are greedy, put their individual goals, needs, and wants above those of everyone, and only use any "we" they are part of as a secondary goal/need/want.

6.) Depends on the kind of relationship

7.) What is the experience and what are the similarities. Again, it depends.

8.) They are made bad by society and those around them, or sometimes themselves, like how they shape themselves and their values. Sometimes they are just born fucked-up.

9.) No. Only people who would help you if able or who have atoned for wrongs committed against you deserve your help. If what I have mentioned is not correct in the case that they haven't done anything against you or cannot help themself and seem like they will not need your help recurringly, then you should help them.

People shouldn't be helped, why?


my answer being that there are people whose actions disqualify them from my help. as opposed to some people being not "good" enough for me to bother to help them.

so, for example, the other day i came across 2 men who had run out of gas on the highway. i gave them a ride to walmart so they could buy a gas can. (i might have helped more but i had things to do). if they were escaping from a triple homicide when they ran out of gas, i would not have helped them. (maybe they were? how would i know?)

have done and i took agggess to read em all, that'l teach me to leave a thread alone for several days.
what things would you not want to help with in relation to other people?
Have you ever helped another family member or someone you know, i mean what would restrain you from helping others?

It would first of all depend on my own opinions/convictions/morals of course,
but hypothetically, I could even help someone kill another person,
given that I thought the matter was so grave that it merited it.
(Killing a racist, genocidal, evil warlord for example)
Or I could refrain from helping someone if I thought they needed to be taught a lesson and would learn something from it.

I often help people with all manner of things all the time,
and do not expect anything in return.
I´m just doing it because that is who I am.

so, for example, the other day i came across 2 men who had run out of gas on the highway. i gave them a ride to walmart so they could buy a gas can. (i might have helped more but i had things to do). if they were escaping from a triple homicide when they ran out of gas, i would not have helped them. (maybe they were? how would i know?)

The police would show up at your house to question you in your role assisting in the escape of the notorious criminals, .... <.< hold on a sec.

*obtains police uniform, drives out to Ashmoria's place*

EDIT: Also, TVTropes acquainted me with an animated series whose premise I remember only rather vaguely, about a guy who saves a child's life only for it to grow up to be a sociopathic serial killer, and the moral questions involved in this. Never actually seen it though, so I don't really know much about it, or how relevant it is to the question here.

hmm why do you dodge the question?
i know it's not perfect but at some point people will wonder if i or you should help those we do not know.

I'm not dodging anything, I said that it depends on the kind of help. I'll help a total stranger load groceries into a vehicle for instance, if I am not on pressing business I'll help a someone jack their car up if they lose a tire, I'll lend someone use of my cell phone to make a call... but I'm not going to give a total stranger money, or let them come in to my house. I'll give different kinds of help to different people.

The police would show up at your house to question you in your role assisting in the escape of the notorious criminals, .... <.< hold on a sec.

*obtains police uniform, drives out to Ashmoria's place*

EDIT: Also, TVTropes acquainted me with an animated series whose premise I remember only rather vaguely, about a guy who saves a child's life only for it to grow up to be a sociopathic serial killer, and the moral questions involved in this. Never actually seen it though, so I don't really know much about it, or how relevant it is to the question here.
i dont subscribe to that notion that if you save someone's life you are responsible for them forever. you cant know the future eh? you can only do your best right now to do the right thing.

it would be shocking to see those men on the front of the newspaper as suspected murderers though...

Yes, yes, I had lasagna.