Good And Bad People

[Data]

I am wondering if there is such a concept of good versus bad people. And, if so, do people fall into those two categories, or is there a spectrum of 'goodness' that people lie on? What makes someone good or bad? Is it their feelings, their thoughts, or their actions? Can a bad person have redeeming features, for example honesty?

Or, are we all of equal worth as people, with no concent of a good or bad person? If so, how is the concept of self-improvement valid?

I have been told by people in the past that I have no empathy for other people and that makes me a bad person. I have been told by others I am a good person. Perhaps its what I think of myself that matters.. but my self-esteem is terrible. I think if you don't know yourself well, its difficult to know other people well. Some days I am not sure if I know what I am. So, how can I know whether I am good or bad?

I have a bad habit of projective identification. I find people that are commonly thought of as bad, and I imagine that they have common characteristics with me. For example, I like to think that I am remorseful whenever I do bad things, and that I want to change and become a better person (whatever that means). I watched a program about a paedophile, and I then developed the false idea that paedophiles in general are remorseful and want to change. I then started to empathise with them, based on this false belief.

I realise now that 'projective identification' is silly. People here could not doubt confirm that a lot of paedophiles have no remorse, and have no intention of altering their behaviour. However, I feel really uncomfortable about the idea of judging other people, and I try not to do it. Then again, I constantly judge myself. I look at others and for a split-second I judge them, but then I look at my own faults and stop those judgements.

But if you don't judge anyone, does that mean you accept everyone as a person, no matter what horrible things they have done in their life or are about to do?

Perhaps life would be simpler if we all wore black and white hats like the old cowboy movies. I wonder what shade of grey my hat would be though.

[sanctuary]

Sorry Meme, what is it you are trying to find out here? I don't understand and think there may be something underlying that you haven't fully expressed?

Perhaps you feel you are 'bad' and want people to verify that bad people can be good, and this therefore makes you feel 'good' again.

[Data]

I really don't know if there are bad and good people or if we are all just the same. Its as simple as that.

[detroitguy]

All us have positive and negative qualities. I really must stress though that people can only be judged on how they act. Feelings and thoughts ultimately are really no one elses business! It took me a long time to realize that I may feel bad or have some bad thoughts but this does not make me a bad person. I try to keep going and treat people around me with respect when I am not feeling well. If we could be judged by what we think, people with OCD (obsessional type) might as well jump off of a bridge! This goes as well for people with depression and anxiety. That is why DBT therapy ultimately tries to get disfunctional BEHAVIOR under control (although trying to reduce painful emotions in the process).

[Data]

I really must stress though that people can only be judged on how they act. Feelings and thoughts ultimately are really no one elses business!

I get what you mean about actions, good point.

However, you can't have any sort of relationship without allowing other people to make your feelings and thoughts their businesss.

[Benway]

Have you ever watched that tv show - shown in uk & irl, called "Most Evil" ?

A psychiatrist who has a special interest in mass murderers/evil etc lays out a crime - say dennis neilson / the wests etc, and points out there levels of remorse, if any, mitigating factors, their crimes, any mental or neuroligical impairments etc,a load more stuff i can't rermember- and has come up with a '22 point scale' of evil.

Its actually pretty good, not a sensationalist program at all, and yer man has a rake of phd's in the forensic and psychiatric feilds.

sorry meme- dunno if i am off topic here, but thats what your post made me think of. Some of the results would suprise you,(like Dennis Neilson- 'killing for company' ). I like 'true crime' stuff .

Best wishes

anne marie

[Data]

Anne Marie, I sometimes like true crime stuff as well.

I think this about the program you are referring to:

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

I find it interesting that you cannot reach the highest scales of evil (9-22) without being a psychopath. So it is obviously judging people for what they are (i.e. people with antisocial personality disorder) as well as what they have done.

[placebo69a]

Ooh, an ethics discussion, how deliciously inviting. Here are some thoughts of mine, I don't hold these truths to be self-evident, but I'd like to think they reflect reality accurately.

Good and bad are two sides of a coin some of us call morality. Without meta-thought (thinking about thinking), the concept of morality wouldn't exist. In the animal kingdom no beast is labeled good or bad by its fellow. Things are taken at face value, there's no trust, rights or justice - If a snake eats a bird's eggs, the bird doesn't think the snake is bad. It can get mad and try and kill the snake, possibly risking its life, it can get sad and not sing for a while, making the chance of laying new eggs slimmer, but the bird won't cry out for justice. It won't go to the animal police and have the snake arrested for murder. In the natural world the concept of morality, and therefore its extremes of good and bad, do not exist.

So the human animal is the only one, that we know of, that makes the distinction between good and bad. Does that mean that we're somehow inherently good or bad? That's really a matter of perception and personal belief. What do you believe? Are we inherently good, bad or neither?

Some people believe that mankind is inherently evil, and that we have to fight our bad "instincts" in order to lead good lives. This is a popular concept among religions and totalitarian/despotic doctrines. By condemning the entire human race as bad it is then easier to justify the demand for sacrifice from each individual for a "greater good". No single life has value and the only reason for this evil existence in the real world is a "test" of sorts to gain rewards in some imaginary world. Catholicism is the easiest example to come up with in this regard. Catholics believe every single child born to man since Adam and Eve were tossed out of heaven carries within them that "original sin", along with the sins of their ancestors, and that only by baptism into the church can anyone be "forgiven". They also believe that other than the extremely devout even baptized people sin all the time, and therefore must be absolved of their evil-doings on a regular basis. This gives the church its moral superiority over all mankind, and thus the ultimate say in what's good or evil.

Some people believe that mankind is inherently good, and that only unfortunate circumstances can drive people to do bad things. They posit that if there was no poverty, there would be no stealing. If there was no loneliness, there would be no sexual misconduct. If there was no land owning, there would be no wars. This optimistic view of mankind, while standing in contrast with the bleak and very real history of mankind thus far, argues a case for utopia. Utopia is the concept of a "closed society", protected and shielded from the mass of mankind. A society based on the tenets of love and acceptance, where no laws are required, every need can be easily met, and no evil exists as a result. The Hippie Movement is the easiest example of this frame of mind. Hippies believe that urbanization and science are responsible for most of mankind's suffering today. They yearn for a return to paganism and spirituality, a life more like our ancestors' lives who lived in harmony with nature. Hippies believe love is the answer to any moral question, that if we act out of love towards everyone all the time there will be no more pain and no more suffering.

Some people believe that mankind is neither inherently good, nor inherently evil. That we are all born with a clean slate (Tabula Rasa is the latin term reflecting this belief - It means wiped slate). They hold the belief that when a person is born they carry no built-in mental content and therefore are outside the moral equation. This means that during our lifetime, we accumulate experiences and information which allow us to make informed decisions, and that these choices we make are the determining factor in whether we lead "good lives" or "bad lives". This allows a person to be both good and bad at once - I can choose to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Stealing is bad (yes, even from the rich, damn them all! ), and charity is good - So by choosing to do both I can be both good and bad at the same time. What makes a person wholly good or bad under this structure? There is no absolute good or absolute bad. The only way to determine if a person is good or bad is weigh all their choices, the good vs. the bad. against each other and try and determine which outweighs the other. This is common to many religions, including some Christian faiths, ancient Egyptian religion, Judaism and many many more. Surely you've heard the myth of an angel sitting at the doors of paradise, with a big book of "deeds" before him, who determines by weighing everything you've ever done in your life - The list of good deeds against the list of bad deeds in the book - whether or not your soul is allowed to enter.

Who's right? That's something each of us has to decide for themselves. The strongest argument against morality is the idea that it is relative. There is no universal code. For every law against a "crime" in one culture there is evidence of it being the norm in another somewhere around the globe. Incest, cannibalism, murder- Some consider these crimes or sins universally immoral (Moral Universalism stands in contrast to the idea of Moral Relativism), and yet we find cultures around the world that not only accept them as the norm but embrace them as tradition and tenets to society. This can lead to the belief in the lack of any coherent moral structure (Also known as Moral Nihilism), and that we each make up our own rules for what's good and bad and have no reason to expect others to abide by the same rules. This negates the idea of society because it lacks a basic tenet of society - Moral Equivalence.

Moral Equivalence is the notion that while people can have individual judgement of what's good and bad, there is a common ground to be reached. Without moral equivalence there is no basis for negotiation, which leaves only brute force as a means to protect one's idea of morality. There was a dark time in our species' history where brute force was indeed the only tool that allowed morality to manifest. Today we have, as a society, embraced a very wide base of common morals to build on. This allows us to avoid forcing our morals on our fellow man, and instead accept that there is room for compromise in order to achieve a peaceful resolution in case of moral conflict. For instance, if my neighbour plants a tree next to the fence dividing our lands and some of its fruit falls on my land - I can discuss the situation with my neighbour on the basis of the shared moral principals that the tree and its fruit are his, and the land is mine. We can then reach a compromise that's acceptable to both sides - I can enjoy the fruit of the tree that grows on my property and he can enjoy the fruit that grows on his property. The neighbour compromised on his ownership of the fruit and I compromised on the ownership of my land to create a new moral principal we both agree to.

An important aspect of moral equivalence is what happens in its absence. We see this a lot these days on the news with the advent of the concept of terrorism. Extremists often hold rigid world views, and the idea of Moral Universalism is popular among them. As a result they often perceive most of mankind(!) as morally inferior to them, and more often than not, condone blatantly immoral acts against them. I explained the idea that you can act immorally (using brute force for instance) to protect your own morality when there is no moral equivalence in the last paragraph. This creates a regression from peaceful negotiation and compromise to violence. There is no way to compromise with someone with whom you do not have Moral Equivalence. The American government recognizes the truth of this with its stance on negotiating with terrorists (in its policy that it never does).

Trying to compromise with someone who does not share your morals can be explained with the example: I believe in every human being's right to life as the highest moral value, but my neighbour doesn't. Every time we have an argument my neighbour threatens to kill me if I don't comply. I hold life to be dearer than anything else so I compromise and my neighbour gets his way. If I keep this up I'll find that the life I hold so dear is meaningless because my neighbour is in complete control over it. I've bartered everything else I hold dear to defend this value and in so doing, it has lost its meaning.

A life under the tyranny of a brute is hardly worth living. So when we are facing a situation where there is no moral equivalence between two sides, the only possible outcome is the application of enough brute force by one side to subdue the other. If we give in to a hostage taker's demands we teach him that by taking hostages he can get his way and our morals be damned. If we give in to our fear of a terrorist's actions and do what he wants he can get his way and our morals be damned. If we want our morals to be safe, we must in turn apply brute force to enforce them. We have to shoot the hostage taker before he can kill anyone else. We have to bomb the terrorist training grounds before they can receive their assignments to kill and maim us.

I've got more to say but I think that's enough for one post. :D

[Wobbles]

A very impressive and enjoyable read placebo. Thank you for that.

[Roses]

I'm sorry I didn't read all your post Placebo (you can whip me later)

In a nutshell I perceive the 'good' and 'bad' arguement to be the soul battling the animal. It is God's cruel joke on us. He 'blessed' us with a soul and then left us alone to cope with it. Sick puppy.

[placebo69a]

*whips Roses*

It's an interesting read and it's not that long! :D

[Sammy]

I believe that some people are good, some are bad, some are good but trip up and do bad things in the moment and that bad people can do good things but this does not over-ride the terrible things they do.

I believe it is not our thoughts or feelings that determine whether we are good or bad, but our intentions and choices we make.

I believe a bad person has bad intentions - regardless of whether they act upon them or not - although I would think they would act on those intentions if given opportunity - and this makes them dangerous people.

I believe good people have good intentions - but sometimes forget those intentions and act on impulse - later regretting their choices and behaviour.

I don't believe that regret is always a determining factor of whether someone is good or bad - because sometimes someone for example can act out of extremes of emotion in cases such as revenge when extreme bad has been done to the person - and because of the bad done to them feel justified in their actions, whilst still having good intentions towards the rest of mankind. This does not make their actions right but understandable and therefore the person is not inherently bad because of their bad actions.

I don't believe that these 'rules' always apply to children because some children are not taught right from wrong - but would think that as adults they learn the acceptable behaviour within society and learn to recognise their own behaviour as well as the repurcussions on themselves and others caused by their behaviour - then after that stage their behaviour becomes a choice - even if taking the straight road is harder for them because of habits and a way of thinking that has been formed early on.

I also think many people view selfish people as bad - leading to many people neglecting their own needs in order to fit in with societies way of thinking. I think as with all things it is about balance and moderation and that sometimes we need to be selfish. I also think that often people rarely give themselves credit or praise for doing good because this is seen as self indulgent - and again I think this is wrong and in both cases leads to negativity in ones own life.

I also think that many groups of people are stigmatised and viewed as bad because of media depiction of these groups - such as addicts and those with mental health problems (not all but some) when in reality many people with mental health problems are in fact suffering because of past poor treatment, neglect or abuse and because of that actually are more sensitive and understanding and tolerant of others.

Also I think that some people with mental health problems act more often on impulse in a negative manner and then are seen as bad, rather than looking into what is causing the behaviour and helping them they are shunned and treated badly in return which only serves to worsen the situation. Where I do not feel they are bad for acting negatively on impulse regardless of whether the behaviour is bad in and of itself, I do feel that mental health problems should not be used as an excuse to continue negative behaviour - but that the person should look to self discovery and find coping skills in order to alter their negative behaviour - in other words - regardless of mental health we are still responsible for our own actions.

Phew hope I've not missed anything out and this is readable lol

edit to add: I do get the impression meme that you are questioning whether you are good or bad perhaps??? What I'd like to say about that is that each of us has to live with ourselves and what we have done or what we do. Those closest to us may also be affected by the choices we make. What we have to do is work out what is in all of ours best interest - those who are affected by us and ourselves.

If you can live with the choices you make and are not doing anything illegal or that intentionally hurts another person (unless it can't be helped and is something that must be done for the longer term better good) then it is only you that can say "I am a good person".

Yes others could say you are, but they don't know what goes on when they are not with you, they don't know you are not lying about anything or hiding anything etc...so their opinion can only count if it is based on all the facts being in their hands and knowing both sides to every story.

I guess really it comes down to the fact that the truth is only ours to know.

I think I am bad or evil sometimes (in the past most the time) because of many nasty evil intrusive thoughts I had/get. However the fact is I don't like those thoughts and would never act on them. If I hurt someone intentionally or not I feel bad for it and in most cases try to make ammends where possible.

My answer to the question of whether I am a good person or a bad person is that I am a good person.

I guess confusion could come in because you feel no empathy for others. I can't answer whether that makes you a good person or not because I think there are many more factors of whether you are a good person or bad person than just empathy.

I would also find it hard to decide based on people that don't care about others, wouldn't care if others were suffering or dying etc... Those that only care about their own comfort and noone elses. Does it make you bad? As long as you're not the one causing the suffering? As long as you have no ill intent towards anyone?

Does indifference make you bad? I don't know.

Perhaps the question is if you are indifferent to others why care what they think of you? why care if you are bad or good? If you are indifferent to them should they not have the right to be indifferent to you also?

And then of course if the answer is you want them to care about you, fulfil your needs and wants but you are unwilling to give the same back to them, then you risk causing hurt to others without regret (because you are indifferent) - and maybe that would make a bad person?

[Roses]

OK I read it now and it is a very good read, thank you. The one thing that stook out for me was the paragraph about 'evil' people being accepted in some societies eg: cannibalism and murder. It was interesting to me as I remember someone saying to me once that quite often people with mental health problems ended up in very hig up positions in tribes/communities for instance shamans and herbal healers and the such. I do find it interesting when we think of the modern day stigma attatched to mental health.

*runs off to wrestle Placebo to the ground*

[Sammy]

Although murder and canabalism is accepted in tribes - it is a form of punishment for what is seen as unacceptable behaviour within tribes - for example another tribes member trespassing, stealing or murdering a member of the other tribe for example - so although they may not view it as evil per se - it is seen as unacceptable behaviour that is punishable. They tend not to eat members of their own tribe - they do not do canabalism in order to eat and survive - it is a ritualistic display of power over the other tribe - with the knowledge that it instils fear.

[Roses]

I wasn't OK'ing cannabalism and murder though. I used it as a springboard to discuss mental health acceptance as it does fascinate me how it is accepted in some cultures so freely and yet stigmatised in others. Let's not get off the point here please.

[Sammy]

lol I didn't think you were ok'ing it I was just responding - and I feel it is on topic as it was raised as an issue with regards to what is perceived as good vs evil in different cultures.

With regards to your view on mental health and acceptance or non acceptance - I'd already discussed that point in my previous post.

[roxy222]

im not a big fan of the concepts of good and evil

i believe everyone is born innocent which equates with the potential to be good, caring, compassionate

some, probably more than everyone would like to admit, have this goodness stolen. they then treat the world the way it has treated them, replay their own version of normal onto others as it is so much easier to push away pain that face it. i doubt all of these people are all bad, its likely they have some redeeming features somewhere. but there are some i think grow up and choose allways to use others to transfer their pain onto, hitler for example, and those who profit from the child porn industry also are evil in my book. i think relate to daisys post about power, anyone who has power has a responsibility to use it fairly, and some dont and those are the people i would think of as bad people.

[Roses]

K Sammy, sorry babe, love 'ya. xxx

[Sammy]

It's ok love ya too - I wasn't upset at you or anything I thought it was funny you'd think I thought you were saying canabilism is ok! lol - like I dunno you might serve human heads at dinner parties or something! hehe

[Silverwolf]

Hmm, this is a very interesting discussion.

Plac, that's a very in depth answer you've given and I note, covers many philisophical and religious points.

Ok .. *clicks knuckles* ... Personally, I used to have the typical black and white thinking and divided people into good or bad. But since, have come to realise that it's not so simple and that it's more of a sliding scale where good peolple can do bad things and vice verca.

Hence people and actions can be divided:

ie I like you but don't like that particular behaviour.

That particular behaviour doesn't make that whole person good or bad. just the experience of that behaviour.

But may I go one step further and ask what is good or bad? Is it not our own interpretation of whether something is harmful or helpful that dictates whether s/ones action was good or bad. and 2 different observers could have 2 different judgements on whether that was good or bad.

Good and bad are not even logical opposites.

ie it is bad to murder someone, but am i considered good if i didn't murder someone? no.

if i gave my husband a car that might be good, but if i didnt give him a car would that be bad? no

although if i gave him a snake that might be bad, but in some cultures that might be a delicacy and considered good.

So good is not really an absence of bad and bad is not an absence of good therefore not logical opposites.

But without bad could we really appreciate the good? As we would not have any comparisons. If the sun was shinning every day would we still appreciate it and think of it as good?

Anyway sorry meme i may have strayed a bit there and i've probably not answered your question but instead raised 10 or more extra ones

In short i think it's a sliding scale and peope /objects are not necessarily good or bad. These are just lables we attach to them as descriptions but not permanent conditions of being. It is the interpretation of the experience that makes it good or bad. the experience is neutral.

oh gosh i'm off again, i'll shut up now .... someone gag me!! :rolleyes:

[Marchmadness]

Hey -

Thanks for the reading material. There is so much thought and insight

put into the replies it really is a very interesting. I love a good

debate.

Who are the ones that decide what is good and bad - right and wrong -

are they the same ones who tell us what is "Normal"

March

[placebo69a]

First of all, I've gotta say I'm really loving this thread. It's always fresh to air out our basic concepts of how we grasp the world around us. It's always a positive thing to hear other people's views and have something to compare our own to. I find the discussion on this thread in particular to be lively and interesting.

Now I'd like to ask you some questions about your views on good and evil as you expressed them here:

Sammy -

You proposed that good and evil have to do with choices and intent. I'd like to ask you a few simple questions: Have you ever heard of a criminal who admitted what he did was wrong without getting some kind of reduction in sentence or anything else in return? Do you think Hitler thought he was doing something bad when he ordered the culling of jews from the third Reich? Do you think Bush thought he was doing something bad when he ordered the invasion of Iraq on the grounds of outright lies?

Sometimes the worst things in our history as a species have been done with the best intentions. Meaning to do good but doing great evil does not a good a person make. Actions speak louder than "intent" in my honest opinion. Meaning to do evil but doing good does not a bad person make, either. Intent is not a factor in judging one's morality because intent is entirely subjective and morality is relative. You can do awful, awful things in the name of good and it won't make you a good person, rather quite the opposite.

Silverwolf -

Good and Bad aren't logical opposites? Of course they're not. You can't define them as logical opposites, because in order to do so they have to, when united, include all actions. Some actions are neither good nor bad and so you can't define the group of {all bad actions} as the logical opposite of the group {all good actions} because they do not encompass, together, the group of {all actions}.

Also your examples are inaccurate. The opposites you gave are not really opposites, they're just lack of the action in question. Correct opposites for your examples would be:

The opposite of murdering someone is saving their life. (not simply not murdering them - the opposite of murder, as in taking a life, is rescue from death, as in giving a life)

The opposite of giving your husband a car is taking a car away from him. (not simply not giving him a car - same reasoning, the opposite of give is take)

In both these cases (good-bad, give-take) you can imagine these as opposites on an axis of numbers. One on the positive side and one on the negative side. They are opposites because one is made entirely of negative numbers and one is made entirely of positive numbers. They're not logical opposites because there is a 0 in the middle, so the logical opposite of each of them includes instances with the value 0 on the axis, as well as the the opposite group of numbers.

roxy -

You say everyone is born innocent, so how can they "turn" bad or good? If Hitler were alive today and fed millions of starving kids in Africa with spoils from his war on mankind, would that make him turn into a good person? If Mother Theresa were alive today and went on a killing spree in a high-school, would that make her turn into a bad person? If we are all born equal, shouldn't it make sense that we all die equal, whether we did mostly bad things in our lives or good things? They call death the great equalizer because no matter who you are, where you come from or what you did, everyone dies.

Roses and Sammy -

With regards to cannibalism and murder in primitive societies - Yes, we "enlightened' people reject those ideas whole heartedly - I have this to say:

Isn't human sacrifice, which is still practiced in some remote regions of the world, murder that's not punishment at all? Isn't it ritualistic murder that actually bestows honor on the victim and his surviving family? Isn't sending a suicide bomber to blow himself up to bits murder that bestows honor on the victim and his surviving family, in extreme Muslim twisted idea of holy war? Killing a tribe member that's broken the laws of the tribe isn't murder, it's justice (no every intentional killing is murder, we as a society accept intentionally killing someone who is about to take a life as a heroic act). On that note, killing a person that's not a member of the tribe on the grounds of trespass can also be considered an act of defense, and not murder at all - Crude, yes, but effective.

I've never heard of cannibalism as a punishment either. I've heard of primitive tribes eating the dead of their enemies' warriors in order to gain insight into their plans, or in order to gain their strength, even to dominate their spirits and keep them from haunting their killers... I've heard of tribes eating their elders' flesh in order to to keep their spirits bonded to the tribe, or in order to gain their wisdom... I've not heard of any tribe that eats a member that's committed an offense, that sounds way too modern to me.

You both agreed that cannibalism and murder are not acceptable in modern day society, so I'll ask you the following questions: If you could kill some random stranger in China by pushing a button, or die in 5 seconds, would you push the button? If you are part of a group of survivors of a plane crash with no supplies, no rescue, stuck in a blizzard for ten days, watching yourselves die one at a time and starting to succumb to exposure to the elements because you haven't eaten a thing in two weeks - Would you consider eating one of your dead in order to survive?

There are always conditions in which moral dilemmas can result in suspension of moral values. It's ok to murder someone to save your own life. If it's their life or yours then nobody would expect you to take the altruistic approach. It's ok to eat man-flesh if it's cannibalism or death. If it's your life or eating a dead guy, nobody would expect you to die for what's right.

[Sammy]

Ok haven't read it all yet but want to answer as I go along - I believe Hitler had intent to harm many people, as I believe some criminals have intent to harm people too as I believe most the people we view as evil in the world had intent to harm others. So yes I still believe it is about intent - regardless of whether he believed that harming others would be for a greater good - the intent was still to harm others that had done nothing to him based on a belief system that others were not equal to himself but inferior.

Of course it's a significant point that there can be a mixed intent - one of a belief of a greater good such as a suicide bomber may have - but there is also an evil intent there too. So I would have to reassess what I said before and alter it slightly to account for the fact that it is not as simple but more complicated - but still involves intent to a large degree.

I just don't know how to put it in words properly.

With regards to what I said about tribal killings and canabalism in primative societies, although I don't like the idea of it - I don't view them as evil either because this is more about lack of knowledge - much like I have said that the rules are different for children that know no better, I guess the same could be said for primative society.

There are tribes in Borneo that were participating in the same behaviour no more than 50 years ago, but no longer practice this anymore due to being taught a different way. This shows that they are willing to reassess and change their ways when given the knowledge - just as a child when growing into adulthood.

without a doubt I would kill for survival or self defence or to protect my children.

Without a doubt I would eat another human if it was the only way to survive.

Which is why I say it's not just about actions but about the intent too. Which is why I said good people do bad things - although I wouldn't see doing something for survival or self defence as a bad thing.

[placebo69a]

Sammy -

Did Hitler think he was harming people? Didn't he hold the belief that jews weren't in fact people but an inferior race of parasites - In his mind wasn't he in fact doing good by exterminating a vermin infestation?

And I wasn't talking about the intent of the suicide bomber himself, I was talking about the intent of the person sending them to die - The ones murdering the suicide bomber by talking him into blowing himself up. Do they not believe in the morality of their actions? Killing infidels grants the faithful a place in heaven and 72 virgins (last I've heard) so they're not sending the man to kill himself in order to end his life, they are sending him to kill himself in order to instantly be rewarded in the after life. Isn't that, by their standards and not yours, good intent?

[Sammy]

Yes he might have referred to them as that, but he wasn't stupid - he knew they were human beings with feelings that could feel pain, he knew they had families that would feel pain - calling them a parasite would be a metaphor (is that the right word?) not literal. He was filled with hatred and his intent was to harm other human beings whilst knowing the consequences of his actions.

Same goes for those that send suicide bombers. The know the consequences upon the targets and their families.

Whether you hate the target or not, whether you see them as inferior or not, whether you believe there is a greater good or not, whether you will be rewarded or not - if it is not suvival, if it is not self defence, then it is evil intent.

Is like me saying everyone should die except me and my family and my best mate and her family because then we would have more space to live in, more food, no financial difficulties etc... sounds like a greater good for us at least? But it's not really a greater good for humanity is it? Just us. But hey so what if everyone else is inferior to me? It would still be an evil intent to harm others whatever I thought about the 'others'.