Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Everyone is good, because everyone does what their minds tell them is the right thing Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah so just coming to this epiphany. All the people we dislike

    -People who patronise
    -People who break rules a lot
    -People who have killed
    -Liars
    -good two shoes
    -silly

    etc whatever part of your personality you repress is the part of other peoples personalities you unconconsciously dislike. Or you dislike someone who is a threat to you or is bad for "you" your self image.

    And I make this argument for pedophiles, people like hitler/bush.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sinbad23)
    Yeah so just coming to this epiphany. All the people we dislike

    -People who patronise
    -People who break rules a lot
    -People who have killed
    -Liars
    -good two shoes
    -silly

    etc whatever part of your personality you repress is the part of other peoples personalities you unconconsciously dislike. Or you dislike someone who is a threat to you or is bad for "you" your self image.

    And I make this argument for pedophiles, people like hitler/bush.
    I don't think it's obvious that everyone does what they think is right. I think that there are some people who know that what they are doing is wrong, they just don't care. So I'd have to hear an argument as to why everyone does what they think is right.

    In any case, merely doing what you think is right isn't enough. If you should know better (eg. if you're a homophobe or racist) then you can be justly condemned, even if you're doing what you think is right.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RawJoh1)
    I don't think it's obvious that everyone does what they think is right. I think that there are some people who know that what they are doing is wrong, they just don't care. So I'd have to hear an argument as to why everyone does what they think is right.

    In any case, merely doing what you think is right isn't enough. If you should know better (eg. if you're a homophobe or racist) then you can be justly condemned, even if you're doing what you think is right.
    If someone does something that they know is wrong- thats not a possibility because they would have some thought form or strong chemical feeling which somehow tells them it would be better to do that thing eg get attention, feel special, feel more in control.

    They dont care, because right/good and bad and fair and unfair are subjective. Eg the concept of self determination someone may see their self determination as jewish or turkish self determination but is that really who they are or is that who they think they are. Their self image (which is ultimately an illusion)

    Homophobe/ Racist- stereotyping is natural and can arguably be a good thing. If aliens came to earth and 350 million of them where "bad (for us) " and then a handful were kind that we didnt know about would it make sense for our mind to come to the conclusion that that race is good/bad. Homophobia is a complex issue I think it has to do with masculinity and social norms. I think its far too complex to label someones "hate" in a negative way. Eg jew hater /homophobia/islamophobic/anti-authority/left wing.

    Should know better. But to you (your self image) It isnt better its according to someone else's thought form, whos to decide what is wrong or right. Death could be a good thing? Whos to decide. How is someone a bad person for doing what they think is right. Pretty much all thoughts are irrational.
    • Offline

      0
      (Original post by sinbad23)
      If someone does something that they know is wrong- thats not a possibility because they would have some thought form or strong chemical feeling which somehow tells them it would be better to do that thing eg get attention, feel special, feel more in control.
      Are you so sure about this? I'm sure there are many anecdotal examples of people doing something they consider wrong, and here's a (possibly stretched, but interesting) example that's come up before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by sinbad23)
      Yeah so just coming to this epiphany. All the people we dislike

      -People who patronise
      -People who break rules a lot
      -People who have killed
      -Liars
      -good two shoes
      -silly

      etc whatever part of your personality you repress is the part of other peoples personalities you unconconsciously dislike. Or you dislike someone who is a threat to you or is bad for "you" your self image.

      And I make this argument for pedophiles, people like hitler/bush.
      I came up with a very similar theory/if not the same one a few years back and have been using it in uni ever since (doing philosophy) so its good to know others are thinking the same way!

      It follows Socrates' idea that we only ever act in a way that is right for us, it is impossible to act in a way that is (in our own view) 'wrong'.

      If combined with the theory that there is no objective morality, there is only subjective opinions of what is right and wrong (subjectivism) then that means that we can only ever do 'good' acts, as they are morally justifiable to the one who is 'acting'. Thus, examples that you have given (hitler and all that lot) aren't morally wrong.

      jolly good show and all that jazz
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      amused at "hitler/bush", bit harsh on poor georgey, wasnt that bad
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Saichu)
      Are you so sure about this? I'm sure there are many anecdotal examples of people doing something they consider wrong, and here's a (possibly stretched, but interesting) example that's come up before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
      Someone may do something they believe is wrong after they have done it. But during the moment before they did it, maybe they had a thought like "I know this is wrong, but I (FEEL) like doing it and I cant help myself so I will/ "I am going to do this wrong thing because I am experimenting with it so I can then go and do something good about it and it is good to experiment or "I know this is wrong but I have a part of me that likes to cause pain and receive it and right now I cant control it"
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Innately_Hedonistic)
      amused at "hitler/bush", bit harsh on poor georgey, wasnt that bad
      lol just an example and I dont even think hitler was that bad, I think he had some very revolutionary ideas and his beliefs were responsible for his actions. I watched an interesting documentary about Hitler and Alien technology, dont know how much of that is true but if it is, he was arguably doing what he thought was good.
      • Offline

        0
        (Original post by sinbad23)
        Someone may do something they believe is wrong after they have done it. But during the moment before they did it, maybe they had a thought like "I know this is wrong, but I (FEEL) like doing it and I cant help myself so I will/ "I am going to do this wrong thing because I am experimenting with it so I can then go and do something good about it and it is good to experiment or "I know this is wrong but I have a part of me that likes to cause pain and receive it and right now I cant control it"
        Perhaps, but your argument has been defeated. The person 1) Believes the action is wrong and 2) Does it anyway. This contradicts the very thesis of your thread.

        (Original post by angrydanmarin)
        It follows Socrates' idea that we only ever act in a way that is right for us, it is impossible to act in a way that is (in our own view) 'wrong'.
        Unfortunately, the ancient Greeks were notorious for not empirically testing the ideas they came up with!
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        Well, what you said in the content of your post seems a completely different argument to the thread title, so I'll deal with them separately.

        So, the thread title. 'Everyone is good because everyone does what their minds tell them is the right thing'. I disagree with this. Firstly, there's things I do which I know are wrong, and other people do the same. For example, I've lied to get out of trouble. I'm not proud of it, and I've never done it in a serious situation, for example, with the police - nothing like that, I mean in family disputes and things. I know it's wrong, because it normally means someone else getting into trouble. But I do it anyway, although I know it's wrong. Other people also do this. Secondly, while in many situations right and wrong may be subjective, I don't agree that there's no such thing as good or bad and that it's completely subjective. Someone tried to convince of this, and doubtless the argument has its merits, but I just don't agree with it. Just because one person thinks it's right to blow up innocent people, doesn't make it morally right.

        And now moving on to the argument in your post. The idea that the things we criticise in other people are the parts of our personalities we try to repress. While this is true on some levels, I don't think you can make such a blanket statement. One characteristic I really dislike is apathy about the world. Not caring about fellow human beings. I really don't think I'm apathetic - I suppose you could argue there are things I don't care about and so this is a characteristic I share, but it's a very specific apathy I dislike. The attitude that others aren't as important as me, or that I don't have to do anything to help people. I'm fairly sure this is in no way a characteristic I have, repressed or otherwise, and yet I can recognise it in others and criticise them for it. Sorry if I've misunderstood what you've said here; it's an argument I've heard many times before and while it has its true points, I just don't accept it as the be all and end all.
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Saichu)
        Perhaps, but your argument has been defeated. The person 1) Believes the action is wrong and 2) Does it anyway. This contradicts the very thesis of your thread.



        Unfortunately, the ancient Greeks were notorious for not empirically testing the ideas they came up with!
        Not really because someone may see negatives in taking an action but see greater positives so they think it is the "right decision" and thus are doing the right thing.

        Also someone may "think" somethings is wrong. But in their body lies a strong emotion which is just as influential in governing behaviour so they feel it is the right thing while "thinking" it is wrog. But that couldnt be possible because thoughts and beliefs form emotions and they must subconsciously strongly believe it is the right thing to do.
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by d123)
        Well, what you said in the content of your post seems a completely different argument to the thread title, so I'll deal with them separately.

        So, the thread title. 'Everyone is good because everyone does what their minds tell them is the right thing'. I disagree with this. Firstly, there's things I do which I know are wrong, and other people do the same. For example, I've lied to get out of trouble. I'm not proud of it, and I've never done it in a serious situation, for example, with the police - nothing like that, I mean in family disputes and things. I know it's wrong, because it normally means someone else getting into trouble. But I do it anyway, although I know it's wrong. Other people also do this. Secondly, while in many situations right and wrong may be subjective, I don't agree that there's no such thing as good or bad and that it's completely subjective. Someone tried to convince of this, and doubtless the argument has its merits, but I just don't agree with it. Just because one person thinks it's right to blow up innocent people, doesn't make it morally right.

        And now moving on to the argument in your post. The idea that the things we criticise in other people are the parts of our personalities we try to repress. While this is true on some levels, I don't think you can make such a blanket statement. One characteristic I really dislike is apathy about the world. Not caring about fellow human beings. I really don't think I'm apathetic - I suppose you could argue there are things I don't care about and so this is a characteristic I share, but it's a very specific apathy I dislike. The attitude that others aren't as important as me, or that I don't have to do anything to help people. I'm fairly sure this is in no way a characteristic I have, repressed or otherwise, and yet I can recognise it in others and criticise them for it. Sorry if I've misunderstood what you've said here; it's an argument I've heard many times before and while it has its true points, I just don't accept it as the be all and end all.
        But lying to get out of trouble is not wrong. In fact one could argue that its very smart and an advantageous trait for human survival. But if you really identified your self with everything then you wouldnt do so. But because you have an ego like everyone you see "other" and do not see hurting "other" as hurting self.

        Someone may think its right. But that doesnt make it wrong. Morally right is a set of opinions eg Ten commandments. Morals are very flexible if you look at things like game theory. It may not be right to you. It may not feel right to think that everyone is always right to you, and that is right for you, but not right for your mind.

        Oh and apathy about the world if someone feels disconnected to the world and see "I" in terms of family, race, and accomplishments and not a tree in africa. Then it wouldnt feel sensible to put greater brain acitivity and concentrate more of your resources on a "useless" activity.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        I believe that people need to be bad when the circumstances force them to. I am not talking about Hitler/Bush..but am talking about the petite robbers or murderers or silly 2 faced people.
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by sinbad23)
        But lying to get out of trouble is not wrong. In fact one could argue that its very smart and an advantageous trait for human survival. But if you really identified your self with everything then you wouldnt do so. But because you have an ego like everyone you see "other" and do not see hurting "other" as hurting self.

        Someone may think its right. But that doesnt make it wrong. Morally right is a set of opinions eg Ten commandments. Morals are very flexible if you look at things like game theory. It may not be right to you. It may not feel right to think that everyone is always right to you, and that is right for you, but not right for your mind.

        Oh and apathy about the world if someone feels disconnected to the world and see "I" in terms of family, race, and accomplishments and not a tree in africa. Then it wouldnt feel sensible to put greater brain acitivity and concentrate more of your resources on a "useless" activity.
        But if someone else gets into trouble as a result of my lying, then it is wrong. Even if it helps me survive, it's still wrong, as morality is not necessarily related to the extension of the self. I don't have a deontological or absolutist view of morality - while I think it's flawed, the theory that most convinces me so far is situation ethics, as it's based on the principles by which I try to live my life. Morals may be flexible, but there are still certain things that would normally be wrong - there will always be exceptions, but that doesn't mean that morality doesn't exist. It certainly isn't to be conflated with what is smart or sensible.
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Insiya)
        I believe that people need to be bad when the circumstances force them to. I am not talking about Hitler/Bush..but am talking about the petite robbers or murderers or silly 2 faced people.
        exactly "bad traits" are good too.

        If you are desperate for money for your country and it would be good for "you" to get oil, then you may plan an elaborate scheme or manipulative plan to get your oil.

        If someone killed your parents, you may have a biological urge to remove that threat from existance because the very thought form of it existing angers your mind.
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by d123)
        But if someone else gets into trouble as a result of my lying, then it is wrong. Even if it helps me survive, it's still wrong, as morality is not necessarily related to the extension of the self. I don't have a deontological or absolutist view of morality - while I think it's flawed, the theory that most convinces me so far is situation ethics, as it's based on the principles by which I try to live my life. Morals may be flexible, but there are still certain things that would normally be wrong - there will always be exceptions, but that doesn't mean that morality doesn't exist. It certainly isn't to be conflated with what is smart or sensible.
        But is it really wrong? What if they get into trouble and then never break the rules again/go on to believe they are bad and then become rebellious then become a revolutionary and then when that new society is formed it is also very abusive.

        I dont understand the last half of your post. If you mean values that make your life seem "right" and allow your self image to gain the "things" it needs to feel complete then again it is "wrong" to you, but not everyone.
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by sinbad23)
        lol just an example and I dont even think hitler was that bad, I think he had some very revolutionary ideas and his beliefs were responsible for his actions. I watched an interesting documentary about Hitler and Alien technology, dont know how much of that is true but if it is, he was arguably doing what he thought was good.
        so you argue that sin is contrary to reason? acting badly is merely misunderstanding the situation. do you argue that no one would ever do what he knew to be wrong?



        i disagree. i do things sometimes knowing fully that the consequences will be bad, and thus the decision wrong, but i still do it? explain that to me..
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by sinbad23)
        But is it really wrong? What if they get into trouble and then never break the rules again/go on to believe they are bad and then become rebellious then become a revolutionary and then when that new society is formed it is also very abusive.

        I dont understand the last half of your post. If you mean values that make your life seem "right" and allow your self image to gain the "things" it needs to feel complete then again it is "wrong" to you, but not everyone.
        Do you mean you don't understand the part about situation ethics? This means that everything should be done according to what would be the most loving action, and that's the morally right thing to do. Of course, it's flawed, as all ethical systems are, but from my, admittedly limited thus far, study of ethics, it seems better to me than a purely deontological system, or anarchy etc.

        Or if you meant the very last sentence, no that's not what I'm saying. It's nothing to do with my self image, it's about a belief that morality exists. You can't say that right and wrong are purely subjective or that they don't exist. Well, you can say that, and you're welcome to believe that, but I just don't. There are some things which are right and some which are wrong. Kidnapping a child and torturing him or her to the point of death, purely for your own amusement is wrong. I struggle to see any justification for that or way in which it could be right. Feel free to correct me, of course.
        • Offline

          0
          (Original post by sinbad23)
          Not really because someone may see negatives in taking an action but see greater positives so they think it is the "right decision" and thus are doing the right thing.
          So you think the people in Milgram's experiment saw "greater positives" in torturing the puppy, rather than that they were simply suffering from learned helplessness?
          Offline

          13
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Saichu)
          Unfortunately, the ancient Greeks were notorious for not empirically testing the ideas they came up with!
          It's a thought experiment that doesn't require empirical observation. Supposedly, it is impossible to do an action that you genuinely believe to be wrong, as the reasons to not do it outweigh the reasons to do it. Although it seems that i can choose to disregard reason and choose the wrong action anyway, Socrates would say that this is impossible. If you do seem to choose the wrong action, there must be an underlying reason for the unreasonable act. such as gaining power, getting reputation, anything that outweighs the cons.

          I can't remember which of plato's dialogues it's in, but you should definitely read up on it.
         
         
         
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • Poll
        What newspaper do you read/prefer?
        Useful resources
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

        Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

        Quick reply
        Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.