Do you consider yourself a 'good person'?

[Anti-Flag]

Failing to save people who cannot be saved is not failing as a doctor, its failing as a god.

However if a doctor fails to save a lot of people and there is evidence they could have been save then he is found to be a bad doctor and eventually his license is yanked.

http://homepage.mac.com/atdipietro/ddocs.html

That's not what you said though, you're talking about laziness or a preventable incompetence, not the simple aspect of success or failure being the determining factor.
I'd suggest if a doctor fails frequently he is bad as a doctor, but is probably good at something else as nobody is good or bad at everything and that says nothing of his moral standing as a person. I was under the impression the thread was about morals, not ability. His morals and intent may still be that he wants to help people, unlike someone who desires to hurt them.
You can think of it as a spectrum, the one's with intent to cause pain and a success of doing so will be the bottom(least good) those with intent to help and a success to do so will be the most good. Now who do you think would rate higher inbetween? The ones with intent to help but who can't, or the one's with intent to hurt but who fail? I don't think those two groups are the same level. That's without mentioning those who could help but don't bother.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s5HMZYwdQo

 

[wynn]

If you are at the point where the law is trying to consider your intent, you not only failed in some way, you got caught.

Many places the law only gives you 3 chances at failing.

I asked about why you think that

If you are at the point of considering intents, you failed.

I gave the Law as an example. Another example: Someone who has been a friend for a long time, hits you one day. Do you consider his intent or not and call the police?


-

I'm sorry you think being mentally ill makes you a bad person.

Awww.

 

[Challenger78]

Because it's all about intention. How can you be a bad person if you're trying to do good ?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Enmos]

Living in psych wards or on the streets or something like that isn't exactly the mark of a good person, is it?

I really don't see how it prevents them from being a good person..

 

[Enmos]

Your example assumes omniscience, which you don't have. You never truly know what another's intent is. You only know their actions and their stated intent.

So what if you can't know a persons intentions
The reason you think a person is good for doing good things is because you ASSUME that they had good intentions doing them.

Also I never said a single example was sufficient.

wtf ?

Let's make the person a lifeguard at a pool. a single kid died and it was tragic.

Now over the course of the summer the body count rises.

Exact same scenario. Kid is drowning, the life guard says they intended to save them but they got there too late.

Are they still a good person after 10 deaths? 100 deaths? Your death?

I can't know the answer to that question.

We all live in a world where circumstances can get beyond our control, but there is also a point where "good intentions" become lame excuses and "failing" becomes criminal negligence.

Good intentions are not a lame excuse at all. Just saying you had good intentions may be though.
And failing is never a criminal negligence, not even trying is.

Its not enough to just want to be good while you do otherwise. You have to do good as well.

Because if you want to do good and you do everything in your power to realize it but fail you are not a good person ?
Please !!

 

[Enmos]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I don't know what that means. And it being a proverb doesn't mean it's the truth.

 

[werzil]

Thinking "I am good" is more encouraging than thinking "I am not good".
But all persons think both, throughout any lifetime. When life is ending, the person has little time to think about being encouraged, or about how good or bad they were, since all persons are good and bad in lifetime.
There is only time to be either, and only judgement during lifetime. At the demise, there is not enough time left to be "good or bad", since soon you will be neither.

This is good, and bad. Death can be bad, but also some "die well", since they accept that being persons they are both.

To quote movie: "it is inevitable, Mr Anderson"

 

[cosmictraveler]

This is good, and bad. Death can be bad, but also some "die well", since they accept that being persons they are both.

Death isn't "bad" it is part of life itself.

 

[Challenger78]

I don't know what that means. And it being a proverb doesn't mean it's the truth.

It means that we're likely to do more harm than good to others, despite our good intentions.

 

[MysteriousStranger]

What's a good person? Someone who does what he ought to do rather than what he ought not to do?

I don't believe there are such things that determine what we should do. There aren't things we should do and things we shouldn't do.

Because it's all about intention. How can you be a bad person if you're trying to do good ?

Nietzsche argued that there were two fundamental types of morality: 'Master morality' and 'slave morality'. Master morality weighs actions on a scale of good or bad consequences unlike slave morality which weighs actions on a scale of good or evil intentions.

. . .

Nietzsche defined master morality as the morality of the strong-willed. What is good is what is helpful; what is bad is what is harmful.

. . .

For these strong-willed men, the 'good' is the noble, strong and powerful, while the 'bad' is the weak, cowardly, timid and petty.

. . .

Master morality begins in the 'noble man' with a spontaneous idea of the good, then the idea of bad develops as what is not good.

. . .

Masters are creators of morality; slaves respond to master-morality with their slave-morality.

. . .

Unlike master morality which is sentiment, slave morality is literally re-sentiment (ressentiment)--revaluing that which the master values. This strays from the valuation of actions based on consequences to the valuation of actions based on "intention". As master morality originates in the strong, slave morality originates in the weak. Because slave morality is a reaction to oppression, it villainizes its oppressors.

. . .

he essence of slave morality is utility: the good is what is most useful for the whole community, not the strong. Nietzsche saw this as a contradiction, "And how could there exist a 'common good'! The expression is a self-contradiction: what can be common has ever been but little value. In the end it must be as it has always been: great things are for the great, abysses for the profound, shudders and delicacies, for the refined, and, in sum, all rare things for the rare."

 

[Enmos]

It means that we're likely to do more harm than good to others, despite our good intentions.

Ah ok, but I don't agree that doing harm while having good intentions gets you into hell (even if it did exist ).

 

[swarm]

That's not what you said though

what I said:
"A good person is some one who strives to do good and avoid doing ill and is able succeed at this reasonably more than they fail."
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2260224&postcount=33

"but is probably good at something else"

1) We aren't talking about being skilled. We are talking about if you are a bad person if you are an unskilled doctor and continue to practice even though you are harming your patients. I'd say yes.

2) When its not longer probable and he is doing that instead of being a doctor that's fine ss far as I'm concerned.

I don't see good/bad as immutable.

Now who do you think would rate higher inbetween? The ones with intent to help but who can't, or the one's with intent to hurt but who fail? I don't think those two groups are the same level. That's without mentioning those who could help but don't bother.

Certainly reality and people are both more complex than just good or bad, but that was the op.

 

[swarm]

I asked about why you think that

A good person is some one who strives to do good and avoid doing ill and is able succeed at this reasonably more than they fail.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2260224&postcount=33

Someone who has been a friend for a long time, hits you one day. Do you consider his intent or not and call the police?

Anybody hits me once or twice under peculiar circumstances is no big deal. Its happened before and will probably happen again.

Some one who hits me often isn't my friend.

Where is the cut off point, well it varies but if you are hitting me often enough to worry about it you are over the line already.

Not being telepathic I don't have access to true intentions and personally I rather hear an apology than a bunch of lame excuses/"intentions."

 

[swarm]

I really don't see how it prevents them from being a good person..

Being sufficiently crazy can prevent you from being good or bad. There is a point where you are just crazy and out of touch. Unfortunately such people can be dangerous because they don't know if they are causing harm to themselves or others, or they perceive and respond to imagined threats.

 

[swarm]

So what if you can't know a persons intentions
The reason you think a person is good for doing good things is because you ASSUME that they had good intentions doing them.

No, I'm evaluating the actions themselves. Reported "intentions" are about useless because people with ill intent lie.

Some one who consistantly does good things I accept as a good person until evidence to the contrary arrises.

Some one who consistantly does ill things while claiming "good intentions" I presume is either lying or deluded.

wtf ?

A good person is some one who strives to do good and avoid doing ill and is able succeed at this reasonably more than they fail.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2260224&postcount=33

A single example isn't enough to draw a sound conclusion.

Are they still a good person after 10 deaths? 100 deaths? Your death?

I can't know the answer to that question.

So you would vote for Geogre W again?

Good intentions are not a lame excuse at all. Just saying you had good intentions may be though. And failing is never a criminal negligence, not even trying is.

Like I said: We all live in a world where circumstances can get beyond our control, but there is also a point where "good intentions" become lame excuses and "failing" becomes criminal negligence.

Because if you want to do good and you do everything in your power to realize it but fail you are not a good person ?

If you actually want to do good and you actually do everything in your power to realize it, you will succeed for the most part. If you are consistantly failing and that doesn't result in changes to your behavior, then you aren't actually wanting to do good, you are just saying you are.

Bottom line, actions speak louder than words.

 

[swarm]

It means that we're likely to do more harm than good to others, despite our good intentions.

No, it means people use "good intentions" to excuse continued ill behavior instead of correcting it.

 

[swarm]

What's a good person? Someone who does what he ought to do rather than what he ought not to do?

I don't believe there are such things that determine what we should do. There aren't things we should do and things we shouldn't do.

So basically you don't believe in any morality or social conscious?

 

[Enmos]

Being sufficiently crazy can prevent you from being good or bad. There is a point where you are just crazy and out of touch. Unfortunately such people can be dangerous because they don't know if they are causing harm to themselves or others, or they perceive and respond to imagined threats.

Well, I'm sorry but just you saying so isn't going to convince me.
Are you saying that if you trip over a baby and hurt your head on the coffee table the baby is a bad person ?

 

[Enmos]

No, I'm evaluating the actions themselves. Reported "intentions" are about useless because people with ill intent lie.
Some one who consistantly does good things I accept as a good person until evidence to the contrary arrises.

So you accept them as a good person because, from their actions, you assume they must have had good intentions i.e. there is no evidence of malintent.

Some one who consistantly does ill things while claiming "good intentions" I presume is either lying or deluded.

Lying: These are bad intentions.
Deluded: So you deny that a good person can fail at anything ?

A good person is some one who strives to do good and avoid doing ill..

In other words, they have good intentions

..and is able succeed at this reasonably more than they fail.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2260224&postcount=33

How does failing impact their status as a person, regarding good and bad ?
Why do you think they fail ?

So you would vote for Geogre W again?

What do you mean "again" ? I'm not even American, and I wouldn't have voted for him if I was.
Also, I don't see the relevance of that remark.

Like I said: We all live in a world where circumstances can get beyond our control, but there is also a point where "good intentions" become lame excuses and "failing" becomes criminal negligence.

Ignoring what I said and just repeating your own statement doesn't make it true.

If you actually want to do good and you actually do everything in your power to realize it, you will succeed for the most part. If you are consistantly failing and that doesn't result in changes to your behavior, then you aren't actually wanting to do good, you are just saying you are.

Perhaps you're dumb, inadequate, or retarded even. It doesn't take away that you want to do good and are doing everything in your power to realize it, which makes you a good person.

Bottom line, actions speak louder than words.

And you are actually saying that trying to do good isn't an action ?

 

[Enmos]

I have no clue what prompted you to take this (rather idiotic) position.
All I can conclude is that you have a very egocentric view of life, perhaps even solipsistic. Either that, or you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.