- Emma Roulette
- Gainesville, FL
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Why be a good person?
If everyone in the world were altruistic, the net amount of suffering would be lower. But If I am selfish, my individual suffering is much lower than others'. What then, does one do?
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Linda Taylor 50+
The whole field of philosophy tries to define good so you're gonna have to narrow it down a little.
Some examples include life, selfishness, altruism, word of God, etc.
As you can see, some of these definitions are in direct conflict with each other so please clarify. Does 'good' to you mean lack of suffering? Or is altruism good? Can someone be altruistic without being selfish? A little help please.
pat gilbert 50+
What is the wost thing you can say to a man, that he is a pansy (although that has changed in recent years maybe now it is that he is stupid?) as his survival is based on how tough he is.
What is the worst thing you can say to a woman? that she is not attractive as this challenges her survival, the most attractive women get the most attention and marry into wealth.
Why do people become embarrassed? because their survival has been threatened. When a person feels pain his survival is being threatened.
You also survive through reproduction if something threatens the survival of a child, animal or human, the parent will do anything to protect that child.
This mechanism carries through to all aspects of live and explains how passionate the Tedsters are about the environment.
Better survival is better good.
Linda Taylor 50+
For example, if I take your definition of good, and answer the question from a culture that values society over the individual. And someone decides that the survival of the society depends on you flying a plane into say, some building someplace, being a good person would mean you would do it. And you would be dead. And you don't survive at all. And you had no choice except to do good (die) or be bad (survive). But the overall culture survives and you are heralded as a really good dead person. I don't think I would be a good person at all. And I would be proud to be a bad person.
See, the concept of good and values are intricately tied together. That is why I need the clarification.
And just FYI, 'you're not attractive' is not the worst thing you can say to a woman.
pat gilbert 50+
Linda Taylor 50+
But their sense of self may or may not be tied in to the concept of survival. Survival is way lower on Maslows hierarchy than self actualization for a reason. Nobody cares about their makeup if they are truly trying to survive.
pat gilbert 50+
As to the concept of self, the underlying dynamic to that is survival and not an exception to the rule.
Chetan Somani
sorry but i don't agree with this "People who are embarrassed are threatened with their survival".
people are embarrassed when they commit something that later makes them feel guilty for what they have done rather threaten there survival in the society.
pat gilbert 50+
I would say that guilt and embarrassment are different.
In the both cases I would say that the person's survival is being threatened. With guilt it is likely because they have done something that others would not approve of as in a moral code.
Linda Taylor 50+
The only difference is in who decides if you survive or not and when.
pat gilbert 50+
Bill Gates is surviving better than a bum, the guy who has 35 grandchildren is surviving better than someone with no kids, the military personnel are seeing to it that their country is surviving better and in effect they are surviving better as group than someone who whines about being a 99%, the cock roach survives better than other insects because they reproduce quickly and can live on anything.
No there are degrees of survival, you have not shown any examples to the contrary.
Linda Taylor 50+
So to say being a good person is to survive, preferably surviving better than the next guy based on your own somewhat nebulous definition of better, means that ultimately we are not good because eventually we will not survive.
So the concept of survival as the basis of good is logically incongruent.
But I have to say, I see individualistic, self-entitled people make decisions based on this definition of good every day.
pat gilbert 50+
The metric on this is you now compared to you before.
This concept is logical and workable.
You still have not pointed out any examples that do not follow this definition of good.
Linda Taylor 50+
And then, it's not your survival, but your offspring's survival that counts. Or maybe the species, or maybe just some random life form. That is how this classic argument goes. When it no longer applies to the individual, and well, we mean survival of something else.
Anyway, I posted earlier how values are integrated into the whole good concept. Posted an example of why the survival definition of good doesn't work. Obviously that wasn't enough. So here you go:
9 year old boy undergoing chemo/radiation for cancer decides not to continue therapy (recently in the news). Parents agree it is a good decision. Less survival is a good decision. Hmm.
Mother just gave birth to a baby and both are dying. To keep this from degrading into a medical scenario, lets just say you have enough magic potion to save one of them but not the other. Or you could split the potion between the two of them and they would survive but they would be in a perpetual vegetative state. According to survival, you should split the dose so they both could survive. (Take note with upcoming healthcare changes)
You are with your wife and two children. We are under attack and deadly gas has been released but you only have three gas masks. Who gets the masks? Who survives? Who dies? Who decides?
And the classic guy throws himself on the grenade. Survival as the basis for good almost negates the concept of sacrifice. Unless of course we get into the discussion of who survives again...
I see these types of decisions all the time. This is why survival as the basis of good does not work. I could go on and on but am running out of characters.
It always boils down to whose survival and who decides.
pat gilbert 50+
I don't see individuals as separate from certainly there family or their group or specious they are part of you.
You show some odd examples but the correct answer is the greatest good for the greatest number as is the case with the guy who throws himself on the grenade like Leslie Sabo who was awarded the Medal of Honor recently for just that act. This creates greater survival for his fellows.
This concept requires a bigger perspective.
Linda Taylor 50+
If you don't see the individual as the agent that is good, you are talking about a collective sense of self (family, group, species). Defining the parameters of the self is part of the greater discussion. So you are saying that is it the survival of the collective that is good. Based on your definition of your individual collective and your definition of good. Well you can see where that decision is going to lead. What if it is you that has to die so the collective can survive? Is your non-survival then good? What if you don't want to die? Can the collective force you to die so they can survive? After all, it is survival of the collective that is good. Do you then just change your collective? I mean it just gets circular from there.
So are you talking survival of the individual, survival of your collective sense of self, or survival of society (greater good)? They are frequently at odds with each other. Survival is not adequate for establishing good.
pat gilbert 50+
We are not talking about things we are talking about the survival of life.
I'm saying that the individual survives though others. I would not call others a collective as collective is a pejorative term.
Yes as with Leslie Sabor his death meant more survival for his fellow soldiers. There is nothing circular about it. You just have to take the bigger perspective. Once again the correct answer is the greatest good for the greatest number.
Linda Taylor 50+
One last time. I am going to take what I posted and just change a few words. Maybe it will help.
What if it is your business that has to fail so corporate can survive? Is your business failure then good? What if you don't want your business to fail? Can corporate force you to fail so they can survive? After all, it is corporate survival that is good. Do you then just change your corporation?
Whose survival, who decides.
pat gilbert 50+
The corporate scenario illustrates my point as well. In the free market a clever person comes up with a way to transmit want ad on the internet since this is how newspapers make most of their revenue it brings them to their knees. But at the same time you can now place an ad on Craigs list for free. The market place decided that it would rather have free ads instead of better reporting in newspapers.
Or should we outlaw cars as it takes away the buggy whip manufactures. The greatest good for the greatest number is that people move around with more convenience at the expense of buggy whip manufacturers.
Another example the ice man used to deliver ice to all houses after world war 2 they invented refrigerators and overnight the ice men were out of work. Should we out law refrigerators because of this?