Good And Bad People

[placebo69a]

I think you're applying your own values to judge their intent. I'm pretty sure that according to their own values, their deeds were good. The problem here is that there is no moral equivalence between you and the people you're judging.

They probably had the best intentions at heart when they did those things. Hitler only wanted to solve the vermin infestation problem, I don't think he stopped to consider the millions of people he ordered put down as human beings. The extremist only wants to rid the world of infidels so there will be peace and prosperity for all Muslims, I don't think he stopped to consider these infidels as having valuable lives of their own.

Just because you don't agree with these views, that doesn't mean they didn't intend to do good. You perceive their intent as malicious but they perceived it as profoundly moral.

[catspiracy]

Act only on that maxim that you can logically will to universalize. --Immanuel Kant

Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. --The Golden Rule

Do unto yourself what you would do unto others. --Cat's Corollary

There are no ethics without community / context; there would only be self-gratification.

In my recent thought, I would hang a heavy emphasis on finding one's own god-seeds and self-actualizing them. This is what I call "finding the Harmony and subsuming yourself to it." I find such reflection and behavioral correction Transformative, and call raising them to their highest art "Shamanic". On the other hand, manipulating Power and contorting the Harmony for short term, personal, or gratuitous gain is "Sorcery".

Ethics come in two stripes: teleological (outcome based ethics) and deontological, rule-based. Sometimes we do things to maximize the positive outcome as far as we can humanly measure it, and other times we follow such laws as I stated above just because they are right in themselves. The Utilitarians have historically been confronted with dilemmas such as would you kill in cold blood three people to save 3,000? etc. Deontologists are forever being given more and more refined situations to address in an effort to prove that all situations ultimately boil down to personal ones that defy rule generalizations.

I would argue that we co-create our moral compass. Currently, I feel old and dismayed because all those freakin' young'uns keep running amok far worse than us good guys a generation older! Ha!

Is it a good thing or an evil thing that Schroedinger's cat's life is forever suspended before we open his box???

so, anyhow, bringing it all back to you, meme, can you will all humanity to make ethical choices devoid of empathy? or would that create logical inconsistencies in the basic underpinnings and institutions of us as a social animal?

[Roses]

Making ethical choices devoid of empathy sounds a bit too Vulcan for my tastes.

Sorry Sammy, I agree with Placebo Hitler was probably delusional and had delusions of grandeur and honestly believed he was doing the right thing. Moste dictators have this god complex and are devoid or compassion or understanding. Unfortunately one of the biggest monsters of all has been the Church. One of the biggest cults ever who have murdered without consequence over a huge span of time. Each time beleiving that they were 'saving' the persons soul from hell.

[Data]

Thank you for the intelligent and detailed reply, placebo. Tabula Rasa is the closest thing (that you mention) to my beliefs.

[Data]

I am beginning to think that Sammy is right. I should judge myself by my actions (and intent). And you are correct, a person knows best whether he/she is acting morally or hurting others in an unjustified way.

I often lack empathy but I am not some sort of robot with no emotions. And if I can't offer empathy, I can often offer consideration. I do have a tendency to want people to fulfil my needs which is why relationships are hard for me but it is something I have to work on.

I care very deeply what others think of me (probably too much!) and am very sensitive and easily hurt. I just have to always be careful that I am not putting myself first, when others needs require attention.

March, I think that what is good, bad and normal varies from one society and culture to the next.

Silverwolf, I agree that good is not the absence of bad. However, fighting against bad is often considered good. So in some senses they are opposite.

[roxy222]

just because hitler etc didnt think they were doing wrong didnt mean they knew they were doing wrong

and i dont think death is a great equaliser, i think thats an irrelevant concept. if hitler was alive today he wouldnt be saving kids in borneo of whatever, thats just rediculaously nieve. discussing an issue in theory when it is in reality a real and practicle issue is pointless. its only the practicle stuff that makes a difference, thats all that counts in life. ther theoretical concepts of good and bad are utterly irrevlenat to a child who has just been abused, or parents of a murdered kid, all that matters is the reality.

[Data]

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?

I would much rather you exercise your right to be indifferent to me than be my friend then suddenly decide that I am evil.

[placebo69a]

Well put meme, I can see where you're coming from even if I've never experienced a lack of empathy towards any person or even animal in my life.

I've got an aspie friend I think I've told you about already. She has a hard time empathizing with people because she has no grasp of non-verbal communication. She's face blind, unable to read body language or interpret changes in pitch and tone of voice. As a result an enormous amount of communication is lost on her and she is practically unable to get a read on another person's emotional state. This causes a great deal of social problems for her. She is often perceived as tactless, cruel and unfeeling because her reactions completely disregard the emotions of the people around her.

Being indifferent to something you can't detect is perfectly natural. There are, however, things you can do to balance this out a little:

• Rnadom displays of affection - These help people see you as more human because while you can be indifferent to emotions, you can come off as human too
  
• Written communication is a lot safer - When we're writing we have to communicate our emotions verbally. This allows a person who has problems with non-verbal communication to be on equal ground with a person who does
  
• Learning to read body-language - There are many self-help books and online guides to reading body language. It takes practice to use effectively but it is a great tool to have.
  
• Asking people how they feel - You may not put much stock in the role of emotions in interpersonal situations but most people do. Being indifferent to emotions is always an obstacle to interpersonal effectiveness. If you can't get a read on someone you can ask them how they feel. If you have an idea of what they might be feeling but aren't sure you can ask them: "Are you upset/angry/sad?". Try and mitigate their answer with their body language and tone of voice. A person who yells no when asked if they're angry is doing a poor job of concealing the truth. A person avoiding eye contact and looking at the floor while denying feeling sad is doing a poor job of concealing their emotion.
  

Can you think of other ways you could find out how other people are feeling? What comes to us naturally is usually the best way to do it. If you're indifferent because "that's how you are" and are unwilling to accept the fact that most human communication involves displaying, reading and reacting to feelings, I'm afraid you will have a hard time conducting yourself effectively with other people. That's practically choosing to be inconsiderate of people.

[Data]

Well put meme, I can see where you're coming from even if I've never experienced a lack of empathy towards any person or even animal in my life.

I believe you are mistaken here, since nobody can empathise with everyone all the time! There must have been times when you were in pain, ill, stressed etc when you were low on empathy. Also, there are some people whom you are just not going to like.

Rnadom displays of affection

Here's one for you:

If you're indifferent because "that's how you are" and are unwilling to accept the fact that most human communication involves displaying, reading and reacting to feelings, I'm afraid you will have a hard time conducting yourself effectively with other people. That's practically choosing to be inconsiderate of people.

I feel offended by this, since I did not choose my personality.

Perhaps you misunderstand. I am not indifferent to other peoples feelings. Its just that I have a tendency to inappropriately prioritise my own needs, and the only person's welfare that I worry about is my own. I can't help this, its the way I am. Fortunately, since I am aware of it, I can work to ensure I do not hurt people; however I am not perfect and slip up occasionally.

I have a VERY hard time conducting myself with other people. Emotionally, I am typically the outsider in a group, and feeling incompatible emotions to others. In many situations I have worked out the right thing to say to fit in, but my facial expression does not match my words. For example, I might say I am sad that someone has a problem, but my non-verbal communication is betraying the fact that I am in fact excited. And you can't just "be yourself", for example its rarely socially acceptable to say you find train crashes exciting.

Added to this I have anger issues, a massive fear of rejection, huge problems accepting criticism, and a constant need for approval and affirmation. This makes it hard to get on with people. I can see the confusion, puzzlement, pity and disgust in peoples faces when they react to me, but by then its too late - I've already put my foot in it.

[roxy222]

from what iv seen of you here since iv been here i dont think you are as unempathetic as you think you are. i know there is alot that you do not empathise with naturally, but there are plenty of times you appear to click and identify with what someone is saying and are then able to empathise. i agree that not everyone is totally empathetic, and the flip side is that it is unlikely that people are entirely unempathetic (in general, exceptions oviously). i also think there is an element of choice when it comes to empathy, i am highly empathetic, but there are times i intentionally close that of, the obvious example is that i do not empathise with the m, i understand why she became as evil as she was but i absolutely choose not to empathise as i think it is far more improtant to empathise with my side of things within this relationship. there are also other times i choose to do this, for self protection, because if i am not in a safe place myself i can over empathise and therefore over adapt or over extend myself which is not healthy. and i think this works the other way also, there are times when clearly you are trying to empathise or appear to want to, and this in itself will mean that it is something that you can to an extent improove on. just because someone is empathetic does not mean they are automaticly a good person, because there is ofcourse then choice about how to use that empathy.

[Data]

there are plenty of times you appear to click and identify with what someone is saying and are then able to empathise.

I find it easier to empathise with people when I see some common ground. Often, I can use my life experience to recall similar experiences to what people are going through to find that common ground.

You make some good points, Roxy, thanks.

[Barebones]

I dont want to be involved with descussing bad and good, however just wanted to put the example of empathy.

For a person's behavior to be felt as empathic it must feel both accurate and in tune with the other's particular toleration for recognition. Toleration is generally a matter of what a person has the skill or competence to handle. Not just any accurate understanding qualifies as or feels empathic. An accurate recognition can feel intrusive, overwhelming, sadistic, or just unkind. We are not stripped bare when we are empathetically encountered. An empathic recognition appreciates a person's limits, their capacity to be seen in a certain light. Empathy takes into account a person's vulnerability. Our vulnerabilities are located in the deficits and deficiencies in our knowledge and competence. A person feels vulnerable when they believe they lack sufficient knowledge, skill, or competence to effectively act

Here is link for the word empathy, if like me, words is hard to follow and understand, a person who is infront of me is better, however, placebo hit on something, if i am infront of a person, i can be either over sensitive or misreading there body language, that i know is not the topic, but knowing i guess whats in front of you, as even in front of you, you will never really see a person in true light. So meme you said you would like indiffrence? instead of somone who maybe thought knew you, but you show your true self and they find you evil.

Communication is very very hard to learn.

sry i went a bit to much in this here is site, i am sure many people have been here, but again it depends on your own perception in what it is saying. Anyone understand? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

[Sammy]

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?

I would much rather you exercise your right to be indifferent to me than be my friend then suddenly decide that I am evil.

Was a hypothetical situation about the discussion of good vs evil - not a personal judgment on someone. It was a situation that I was questioning because it's not so clear cut as the other situations I mentioned. I also don't believe you are indifferent.

Also I don't believe that someone should be condemned for giving another person a chance, befriending them etc...and later if finding out they are not the person they thought they were or someone that had behaviour they found unacceptable which came to light later, or the person changed in a way they could not accept and then decided to remove themselves from that relationship.

I can understand you feeling you would rather never have something than to have it then lose it and be aware of what you have lost but I think that would be your issue to deal with not the other persons who is protecting themselves.

Have you never met someone you liked from the start then later found out things you didn't like about them?

Also it's not in some people's character to be indifferent and it's very easy saying they should excercise the right to be so, but some people cannot do that.

With regards to Hitler - perhaps I prefer to remain in denial, because to accept he was delusional and did not know what he was doing suggests that he was not really evil and I'd prefer to continue to see him as evil so choose to stick by my views on him. However I am aware that many innocent people have been tortured and died and suffered in the name of politics and religion and so perhaps there are more evil people than we choose to awknowledge.

[roxy222]

i have just read this stuff again and have miswrote what i meant

i meant that i think hitler etc knew he was doing something wrong, even though he felt it was right

[Sammy]

That is exactly what I believe Roxy.

[placebo69a]

Yes, I'm getting what you're saying. I think that semantics have indeed played a role in this discussion, and I applaud your attempt to clarify the terms we're using to describe its subject. It is a complex term and it can mean a variety of specific states of sharing, understanding or even simply mimicking another person's emotions and feelings. The broader definition of doing either of a three, in any combination, and to an undisclosed degree is enough, I think, to go with as far as this little discussion is concerned.

I just wanted to reply to your remarks, meme:

I do feel empathy for others, all the time, even when I'm in an emotional state. It's easier for me to detach myself from the emotion in control and instead focus on the emotions and feelings of people around me. I can't help doing it, but I can see how it may be difficult for you to - For lack of a better term - Empathize with.

Even in my anger, disappointment, jealousy and fear from a specific person my focus is not on my feelings or emotional state but on their feelings instead. I sometimes find myself completely involved in the state of mind of the person who evokes such strong feelings in me, leaking my own emotions for them to see but entirely unconscious of them and completely focused on understanding "their side of things". I'm not very proud of this but it's how I'm wired and I'm working on rewiring myself.

Thanks for the random display of affection, it was right on cue!

I'm sorry you were offended by my remarks. I tried to word them so you wouldn't and apparently have failed. Of course you're not choosing to be inconsiderate, you're just being yourself. I really meant to say that refusing to develop one's non-verbal communications skill on the grounds of inexperience is choosing to be inconsiderate.

If you know you smell bad, you take a shower before meeting with people - You do it out of consideration. If you find out people think you're loud, you try and talk more softly around them - You do it out of consideration. If you find out your non-verbal communication skills are lacking, you learn to improve them - You do it out of consideration. You don't have to do it for them. Being considerate often has very selfish motivation. You want people to accept you and to like you so you do what you can to improve your chances to be accepted and liked. You simply realise that if you stink, talk too loud or fail to respond appropriately to non-verbal communication it may put people off, and harm your chances to be accepted and liked.

Also, displaying empathy is not about denying yourself the pleasure of expressing yourself. You can say train crashes excite you (disasters excite many people - hence all the tv programmes), it's not the same as saying the fact that lots of people die in train crashes excites you. They even made a movie about people with sexual obsession with car crashes. But you are expected to match your expression and tone of voice to match your statement. If you use a tired, monotonic voice and look bored while you say it, people will think you mean the opposite and are being sarcastic.

Sometimes the verbal content is completely immaterial to the message being delivered. Ever see a commercial where the guy and the girl talk about coffee but are constantly making sexual innuendo, teasing expressions, breathy voices? That's obviously not a conversation about coffee but if you read the transcript that's all it is. If you don't develop some kind of sensitivity to how people say things and instead focus almost entirely on what words they are using you will lose a good chunk of information being sent your way. Aren't you the least bit curious about the complete message people are transmitting to you?

You can concentrate on words alone. There is a lot of insight to be had from studying what words people use, why they phrase themselves in one way and not in another, what they're not saying and so on... This is harder to do and takes more time. By the time you've reached a conclusion your response window will have passed. Facial expressions and voice allow you to instantly grasp this information without digging into the words so much, so most people don't bother concentrating on the words.

Autistic people, even the highest-functioning ones have a physical disability. Their brains are wired differently than most people's. They can not grasp facial expressions or notice changes in the voice because that part of their brain is inactive. Instead other parts of their brain are bigger and much more active to compensate. If this is the case with you then, obviously, you can't do anything about improving your non-verbal communication. The best you can do is alert other people that you are this way so they know not to judge you for misusing it.

I found a wonderfully informational and link-rich website about communication. It has a whole section on non-verbal communication. It might interest you to visit. :)

[Data]

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?

I would much rather you exercise your right to be indifferent to me than be my friend then suddenly decide that I am evil.

Was a hypothetical situation about the discussion of good vs evil - not a personal judgment on someone. It was a situation that I was questioning because it's not so clear cut as the other situations I mentioned. I also don't believe you are indifferent.

Also I don't believe that someone should be condemned for giving another person a chance, befriending them etc...and later if finding out they are not the person they thought they were or someone that had behaviour they found unacceptable which came to light later, or the person changed in a way they could not accept and then decided to remove themselves from that relationship.

I can understand you feeling you would rather never have something than to have it then lose it and be aware of what you have lost but I think that would be your issue to deal with not the other persons who is protecting themselves.

Have you never met someone you liked from the start then later found out things you didn't like about them?

Also it's not in some people's character to be indifferent and it's very easy saying they should excercise the right to be so, but some people cannot do that.

With regards to Hitler - perhaps I prefer to remain in denial, because to accept he was delusional and did not know what he was doing suggests that he was not really evil and I'd prefer to continue to see him as evil so choose to stick by my views on him. However I am aware that many innocent people have been tortured and died and suffered in the name of politics and religion and so perhaps there are more evil people than we choose to awknowledge.

Sammy I now see that you were making general comments and not personal judgements on me, perhaps I was a little blunt and defensive with you.

You are correct that people are not always what they seem and so the rejection is my issue to deal with. However, in my experience BPD people often practice idealisation and devaluation, so can be prone to very quickly rejecting people.

I don't even understand whats going on in my own head a lot of the time so I ain't even gonna try with Hitler!

[Sammy]

I think also some people - not sure if it is related to bpd specifically - accept people on face value to quickly, which means if this person is not who they present themselves to be at first meeting, they have set themselves up for a lost friendship.

I know for a long time even if I had a bad gut instinct about a person I felt I had to give everyone a chance - this made me prone to being taken advantage of, being hurt and also losing friends frequently when I realised what kind of person they really were. I'm sure they felt some loss when they no longer had me to walk over and use - but that's not my problem.

Luckily I have learnt from past mistakes and am more cautious now, perhaps even too cautious.

[sanctuary]

Bad people are defective people.

No conscience, no morals, no guilt, no affection. Torturers, serial killers and serial rapists.

People like this are rare, thank god.

[Sammy]

hrm not sure they need all that to qualify! Pretty sure some bad people that commit terrible crimes that class as evil/bad also have/do feel affection for one person in their life at least. Not all but some. Also I am sure there are people that have no affection for another person yet are not bad.

However this is similar to my own difficulties that I am having in describing a bad person - because I can list things that I feel make someone bad but to be bad they would need to have some of those things + have acted out on them.

Also I can list bad things that could label a person as bad but again sometimes there are exceptions.

And what if someone has committed great evil but then changes?

Hear all the time about people on death row finding god and such and then feeling remorse, does this then mean they are no longer bad? Because I'm sure victims families will still view them as bad as well as others.

So therefore is badness a matter of an individuals own moral compass and perspective?

Is it much like beauty where it is in the eye of the beholder?

Is it based on how we feel about ourselves or how others view us? Is it how the majority view us? Or the minority? Or those that are closest to us?

[Sammy]

Perhaps good and evil does exist but there is no tangible answer as to what qualifies as good or evil - except by our own instinct.

[roxy222]

Bad people are defective people.

No conscience, no morals, no guilt, no affection. Torturers, serial killers and serial rapists.

People like this are rare, thank god.

no they are not rare at all, thats the problem, that and the fact that people are so blind to it

[Sammy]

Thing is I know some people that have been lucky and never come into contact with someone who could be seen as bad - and so they live in blissful ignorance - they know there are bad people out their - but it is not real to them so much.

I feel the world is full of bad people because I have experienced too many of them personally - perhaps my view on the world as a bad place is an exaggerated view because of my experiences. I don't know the actual facts and statistics and I think it would be hard to guage because as shown here it's hard to know how to label who is bad and who is good in the first place, and then there is whether enough people witness the bad to account for it statistically.

Myself and my friend live in different worlds where she sees much good and little bad and I see much bad and little good. However it does make me appreciate the good more - I almost idolise people I feel are good (not actual idolisation but trying to get the point across of how appreciative I am of them, how important I feel they are etc..)

[roxy222]

sammy i feel also that my perspective is skewed by coming across so many evil people, but then also i feel that i would hate to be one of the ignorant many who are in denial about this reality. those who only come across the good, well they ahve it easy, they already have the right ot a voice and support and safety in a way those of us brought up in the bad never get, so i think its of far more value to stand by those who experience the bad and are constantly over looked as toodifficult for other to face, its getting their voice heard that counts

[Data]

I think I had a childhood that would be viewed as idyllic by many. A mother who doted on me.

Perhaps if I had the abandonment and abuse issues that many here have then I would have a different opinion about what evil is.