DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: 73109 on April 28, 2011, 08:21:55 PM
-
So DTF, I want your opinion on this matter. What initially sparked my interest in this subject was my first viewing of Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. I don't want to give away spoilers, so I'll just say that the movie left me thinking that what defined a person's "goodness" was not there actions, but their thoughts. If a sadistic little teen wanted to rape and murder but couldn't, did that make him a good person? Of course not! I kept this opinion in the back of my head until my vacation in Florida a few days ago.
Now, some background information about me before I continue this. I've always admired "go with the flow people" and try my best to be like them. I personally believe it takes a lot to get me pissed, however, I get very annoyed very easily...moving on.
So, my family was at the dinner table eating dessert, and I was already in some pissy mood for some reason. My mom asked me to try a pistachio, and I politely refused. She insisted and, jokingly, started shoving a pistachio in my face. I was already have way annoyed and in the last minute, I just reached maximum capacity and raised my arm and was about to swipe the nut from my mom's hand and send it flying, but right before I was about to do it, my brain just went, "Yo! Not a good idea!!!!" and I stopped. My step dad was all like, "Oh! That's not good, even though you didn't do it! You thought about doing it," and for the first time, I was confused on how I feel about the subject. I told them that actions make someone good, not initial thoughts. This was completely contradictory to what I thought about for all this time. My mom then went on asking if good people have bad thoughts, and I returned everything to the usual status quo by messing with my mom talking about how I have the urge to kill people every day and I don't act on them...thus making me a good person. :lol It's a joke by the way...
Anyway, I come to you guys and ask how you feel. I know some might consider this a dumb idea, but others might not. I personally still lean toward thoughts making someone good not actions because even though I initially thought to be a douchebag, I caught myself at the last second and thought otherwise.
-
Many things. but one word that comes to mind is selfless.
-
If only it was that binary.
-
From the Bible's perspective, goodness can be viewed as doing righteous things when no one is looking.
-
lol
EDIT: lol at Cole, not Jamesman
-
lol at u
-
If only it was that binary.
Obviously it's not that binary, but I think it leans more toward actions than thoughts. Actions do way more to show whether you're a good person or not than thoughts do, and that's not just because thoughts are private.
-
There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.
Good is a relative thing. Everybody will see it something different. Furthermore, people are both good and bad at different times, or even the same time. The rightness or wrongness of thoughts or deeds can be in conflict. Best course of action is to be yourself. Try to be who you think of as good. Judge others as you will.
-
As a serious response, the best writings on the good, what is good, and how to live a good life, were written by Aristotle. No one since him has even come close.
-
hm.
well, to directly answer your question, actions. everyone has messed up thoughts from time to time, but it's how we choose to express them that matters, because your actions affect other people, while your thoughts don't. thats the distinction to me.
at least, that's my perspective.
-
I tend to think of thoughts as the only safe haven people have left to be as fucked up and horrible as they want to be with out actually causing harm to anyone else. In that way, I think that actions is the only answer. I'm sure the most benevolent person in the world has thought of killing someone. Hell, I have. Maybe that makes me a terrible person, but only to me. To the rest of the world I am fine, because it was just a thought.
Plus, your thoughts control your actions. Your brain chooses an action through process of thought. (much of which you have no control over) So it's not really a clean distinction, you see.
And to the pistachio story, your dad was making the judgment by the action of you raising your arm, not the thought of you slapping it away. If it was just a thought, he wouldn't have even noticed.
-
doing righteous things when no one is looking.
This. and also
Many things. but one word that comes to mind is selfless.
-
but right before I was about to do it, my brain just went, "Yo! Not a good idea!!!!"
Why don't you try doing that when you post?
-
My definition of being "good" is whenever one can look at an object and not wish to insert ones own phallus within said object.
What the fuck am I talking about?
-
I actually don't think it possible for a person to have "bad" thoughts. Now certainly, there are harmful thoughts, unhealthy thoughts, etc., but in my view, it should be completely up to a person what to clutter his/her mental living space with. Our brains are the one place where we are absolutely free. A thought should not and cannot be considered 'thinkable' or 'not thinkable.' If those thoughts get translated into actions, however, that's when good and bad manifest.
and :rollin :rollin :rollin @lonestar. :lol
-
I think you really have to qualify the terms good and bad. Ultimately, I'm inclined to say someone has had good life (or a life of value) if they more often acted in the interests self-actualization (or perusing virtue, which can entail things such as selflessness) as well as doing little to no harm (or contributed positively) to other peoples lives. That seems a more specific characterization then simply someone who 'does good deeds', because I don't think that's the be all and end all of being a human. It seems that what qualifies a good person in that regard (as someone who commits good deeds) is too indeterminate. How many good deeds must one do in order to be considered good? There is no number you can put to it. And it doesn't mention people who are miserable their whole lives but do a lot of good (which is very commendable and praiseworthy, but not necessarily living a good life and generally being 'good') and it doesn't mention people who commit lots of bad deeds as well as good deeds. My foremost definition makes more sense to me as it's probably easier to access.
In essence, it could come down to being good to others, or being good to yourself. I prefer the latter option, because it often leads to the former, whereas the opposite is much less the case. You really need to have self-confidence, a degree a selfishness and of self-worth in order to be a stable, intelligent person. That's all I think is required to live a life of value. BUT once you are this stable person, helping people should be easier and much less of a burden. Any additional good you do outside of that to yourself is more like a bonus. Not what actually makes a person good or not.
-
raised my arm and was about to swipe the nut from my mom's hand
This gave me a bad thought. So Cole, am I a bad person?
:neverusethis:
-
My definition of being "good" is whenever one can look at an object and not wish to insert ones own phallus within said object.
What the fuck am I talking about?
So. Are you good?
:neverusethis:
-
Nope. I just can't help myself. It basically has a mind of it's own.
-
So when you look at say, a lemon - do you want to insert your phallus into it, knowing that the lemon juice will totally burn your tip and you'll scream in agony?
:neverusethis:
-
The pain only gets me harder.
-
If only it was that binary.
Obviously it's not that binary, but I think it leans more toward actions than thoughts. Actions do way more to show whether you're a good person or not than thoughts do, and that's not just because thoughts are private.
Well, there's Kant as well with acting in accord with duty vs. from duty. Either you're doing good things to do good things, or for another reason. In this case, I'm sure a lot of people would do selfish/horrible things if they weren't held accountable for it.
-
Actions.
And it doesn't mention people who are miserable their whole lives but do a lot of good (which is very commendable and praiseworthy, but not necessarily living a good life and generally being 'good') and it doesn't mention people who commit lots of bad deeds as well as good deeds
So, even though I try to be a generally good person towards others, I'm still not a generally good person because I'm at least semi-miserable most of the time?
wat
-
Actions.
And it doesn't mention people who are miserable their whole lives but do a lot of good (which is very commendable and praiseworthy, but not necessarily living a good life and generally being 'good') and it doesn't mention people who commit lots of bad deeds as well as good deeds
So, even though I try to be a generally good person towards others, I'm still not a generally good person because I'm at least semi-miserable most of the time?
wat
Hah maybe I didn't word it well.
I mean someone who constantly sacrifices their own happiness for the happiness of others is not being good to themselves (but they are being good to others), and I think the phrase "being good" consists of both of those things (good to oneself and good to society). If you are truly miserable and always help others before yourself, I wouldn't necessarily say that's a good way to live. Admirable, like I said earlier, but not wholly good or desirable for a person.
-
Well then, I bring in the example from A Clockwork Orange. If someone wants to do bad...they are bad to their very core, and if given the opportunity, they would do bad, are they good just because everytime they start to do bad, they get too sick to continue the act?
-
If you are truly miserable and always help others before yourself, I wouldn't necessarily say that's a good way to live. Admirable, like I said earlier, but not wholly good or desirable for a person.
Ah, makes more sense now that you've worded it in a clearer manner.
Well then, I bring in the example from A Clockwork Orange. If someone wants to do bad...they are bad to their very core, and if given the opportunity, they would do bad, are they good just because everytime they start to do bad, they get too sick to continue the act?
I would say that that is different. Alex requires negative outside stimuli to prevent bad behavior, rather than rational thought and a strong, positive moral code.
-
But to all those saying "actions," Alex is acting like a perfect member of society...but is he a good person, negative outside stimuli or not?
-
But to all those saying "actions," Alex is acting like a perfect member of society...but is he a good person, negative outside stimuli or not?
No.
-
Why? He is now the perfect citizen.
-
I'll be a douchebag ethicist here and, for once, agree with Kant, in that the intention of doing it for the 'right reason' is the only thing that matters.
Cliched example: helping an old lady to cross the road because I think it'll look good =/= being good. There's Aquinas' stuff on interior and exterior acts as well, and again, I actually agree with him for once.
-
Why? He is now the perfect citizen.
But he WOULD do it if he could.
-
I'll just say that the movie left me thinking that what defined a person's "goodness" was not there actions, but their thoughts. If a sadistic little teen wanted to rape and murder but couldn't, did that make him a good person?
You're lumping all people who have bad thoughts as being people who want to do the bad things but are unable to.
Lets say a sadistic little teen got hot off the idea of raping people, but also felt that they doing that was wrong and hurtful to the other party and chose not to do the act, is that kid bad/evil? And by saying that it's the bad thought itself that makes them bad, then raping a person and not raping them are equally bad, which seems pretty bizarre to me.
-
Yeah, Alex in ACO is repressed.
Someone who's good is, in broad brushstrokes, someone who resists the temptation to be bad. If the temptation didn't exist in the first place, there'd be no virtue in being good - you'd just be on autopilot.
Decisions require conflicting possibilities, or else it's not a decision. It's just a thing. That happened.
Alex isn't good because he makes that choice reflexively. There's no option, he's just incapable of doing bad things.
-
I tend to think thoughts make you a good person more so than actions (although I think actions are also a significant contribution to a person's overall 'goodness' and that one really can't be good without both) because, as is my nature, I tend to be quite shy around a lot of people if I don't know them (sometimes in school for example) and if I see someone who, say, drops their books or something, I'm a bit too shy to help them but I want to and I feel bad that I don't.