I'm not being sarcastic here - are you sure this is a response to my post? I can't see how your comments correspond to anything I said.

Even Hitler justified his actions as doing the right thing, for what he believed to be true, and decent. — charleton

Hitler may have seen goodness as a weakness.

I am not sure doing the right thing equals being good because people can say "I have to do this horrible thing because it will benefit us in the long run."

Do you consider yourself a Good person?

I consider my state a mixed bag: some good, a little bad. Most of the time the bad things were motivated by good intentions. That the bad-acts-which-were-well-intentioned didn't turn out very well is part of my bad understanding of the way the world works. Once in a while I have been cruel or dishonest quite deliberately. On the other hand, I have done and been good, too--just plain good. In being good I wasn't being heroically good. I felt confident and good about doing and being good, so I was.

Most of the time we, people including me, are indifferent -- being neither good nor bad. We are fulfilling the minimum expectations that are well within our operating capabilities. We aren't doing anything bad or good, because either one would require arousal from our zombie routine. We just chug along. We do not earn any points while being on cruise control.

Hitler may have seen goodness as a weakness. — Andrew4Handel

Hitler, and other Nazis, inverted some normal ideas of good and evil, so that "to be soft in time of war is weakness" and "to be cruel and remorseless in struggle is a strength". Killing the Jews was purifying the nation. Letting inferior people live contaminated the blood of the nation.

Christian virtue was viewed as a weakness, so was much of secular philosophy, and humanistic culture.

Of course, most Germans had enough to do just surviving the war -- not starving, not getting killed by the Gestapo, or killed by the allied bombing.

As for the rest of us, we're fine. Not good, not bad. Human. I like people - almost everyone. I really don't dislike anyone, although there are people I don't want to hang around with. I love lots of people - most of them normal, fine, but not good in the sense I'm talking about. — T Clark

I am tired of this idea that 'good' people somehow stand apart as though they are martyrs, saints, pure, deep, but that is simply not true. If I see an elderly person and I want to help them, I am not being 'good' and if I meet a girl with a bad attitude and treat her sternly, I am not being 'bad' because it is all about intent. It is like an equal playing field where I am balancing the scales in order to effectively create the best outcome for everyone because my motivation is happiness both for myself and for others; supporting and empowering the vulnerable is to remind the arrogant to be humble. Being good is to simply be confident to have empathy and show kindness, to do the best that you can do without following the herd; genuine kindness and compassion is only possible when one can articulate their own autonomous moral trajectory. That is why a person who cannot love themselves cannot love others.

If there is something 'bad' it is those people that hide who they really are, shut down their own happiness because they are afraid to take risks, to disappoint, and such people are not really alive anyway.

"To fear love is to fear life, and those who fear life are already three parts dead."

I really don't dislike anyone, although there are people I don't want to hang around with. — T Clark

I'm more like "I've never killed anybody, but there are obituaries that I very much enjoyed reading," Mark Twain? Clarence Darrow? (CD said, "I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure."

If there is something 'bad' it is those people that hide who they really are, shut down their own happiness because they are afraid to take risks, to disappoint, and such people are not really alive anyway. — TimeLine

Yes we are alive. How would you know?

Not a joke, so don't send me any angry crap.

No, being good concerns only the good in a person, so their meaning good, not what consequences on the outside.

That does n`t denote a bad person, that denotes an unfortunate person. Are you simply trying to set it up such that you can consider yourself good?

Seems like you are responding to TimeLine, not me.

Yes we are alive. How would you know? — T Clark

Be kind to yourself. If you are conscious of shutting down intentionally then I would probably suggest a psychologist. If you are consciously being mean than I would pity you.

If there is something 'bad' it is those people that hide who they really are, shut down their own happiness because they are afraid to take risks, to disappoint.... — TimeLine

This is a very good description of my life.

No, there is no good or bad. Right and wrong are prefered delusions for some, and prefered simplifications for others.

It is no more wrong to shove your fngers down a little girls throat so you can see her vomit and cry; than it is to inject me with a 30 day dose of Haldol.

Most likely, but as long as we make worthwhile points.
I agree with Xander, and right and wrong can be beholden upon which side of the fence one is standing, it is perceptual, right or wrong for whom?.

It is no more wrong to shove your fngers down a little girls throat so you can see her vomit and cry; than it is to inject me with a 30 day dose of Haldol. — XanderTheGrey

Well, by that standard I guess it couldn't possibly have been wrong to have injected you with a permanent dose of banning.

Maybe being truthful is a good in one's self?

At least it something I definitely value in myself.

Self discovery?

This is a very good description of my life. — T Clark

Then I pity you.

I know ethics is a philosophical subject but have we made any real progress in it? Can we, very clearly, distinguish good from bad; a necessity if one is to answer the question.

Personally, I think every individual carries the mark of both good and bad. One is good sometimes and bad at other times. So, it's impossible to identify yourself with either in an exclusive sense.

I could perform some calculus and say ''I'm good/bad most of the times'' but that still hasn't removed the minor good/bad as the case may be. Take the example of a group of 12 men. 11 are bad but 1 is good. The weight of 11 bad men doesn't affect the 1 good man. Likewise if the case was the reverse. So, while one part (good/bad) may be lesser in degree it still has weightage.

So, I'm good AND bad.

Personally, I think every individual carries the mark of both good and bad. One is good sometimes and bad at other times. So, it's impossible to identify yourself with either in an exclusive sense. — TheMadFool

I don't get this level of relativism. If one is 'bad' because he takes hard drugs and almost everyone around considers this to be bad, but is 'good' because he is otherwise an upstanding citizen, who has influenced the lifes of everyone around in in such a positive way that no one could ever say they regret anything about that person, wouldn't it be appropriate to say that that person is a good person? That whatever flaw he has are entirely dismissable?

I guess what I mean is that, even in morality, isn't there multiple scales to the universe? That however much good can one do a one local scale might be undone by a single wrong done at a higher level? Or that a generality of wrongness at lower scales might not be enough to account for all the good done at a higher one?

One way or the other, the answer is : Trump was a mistake.

I don't get this level of relativism. — Akanthinos

I'm only giving due importance to both sides so to speak. We do it in practice actually. Say a person does something bad. If we are to be good judges his good deeds must be factored into our judgment. Similarly, if someone does a good thing then in our valuation of him his bad deeds must also be considered.

Look at the sexual abuse scandal in Hollywood. People are judging others on both points of the moral scale.

Pity is the same as contempt.

You are such a compassionate person, I am always surprised when you are so quick to judge those of us who do not live up to your standards.

You are such a compassionate person, I am always surprised when you are so quick to judge those of us who do not live up to your standards. — T Clark

I did not set those standards. If you see a crime and choose to look the other way when you are at capacity to assist, telling yourself that the choice is justified and that you are not morally contemptible, that is really your problem and it is a shame. The contempt here is moral and not personal.

I did not set those standards. If you see a crime and choose to look the other way when you are at capacity to assist, telling yourself that the choice is justified and that you are not morally contemptible, that is really your problem and it is a shame. The contempt here is moral and not personal. — TimeLine

I catch myself feeling contempt for someone from time to time. It is one of the darkest, ugliest emotions. I feel dirty, sick to my stomach. One thing I have come to recognize - when I feel contempt for someone because of something I see in them, it is because I see that same thing in myself and can't face it.

One thing I have come to recognize - when I feel contempt for someone because of something I see in them, it is because I see that same thing in myself and can't face it. — T Clark

It is presumptuous of me to question what you perceive going on in your own mind. But I do wonder whether you have contempt for an other because they mirror something in yourself. It could be that what you are perceiving is precisely labeled, and it may be a very common mechanism. The reason I doubt it is that we generally apply this theory only in negative ways. Do I like a comedian's physical slapstick humor because I am like the comedian? Do I admire bravery in someone because I recognize in myself bravery? Do I admire someone's piety because I am pious? I don't think so.

Would you (or I) not feel contempt for an other because they so thoroughly violate what you or I think is clean, right, and proper?

Whatever the mechanism, it is not a good idea to give too much free play to our feelings of contempt, loathing, disgust, and so on, because such feelings make it difficult to perceive and judge others fairly, and it makes it difficult to live in this world if we see ourselves surrounded by contemptible loathsome people. (Unless, of course, we are--but that's another thread.)

I catch myself feeling contempt for someone from time to time. It is one of the darkest, ugliest emotions. I feel dirty, sick to my stomach. One thing I have come to recognize - when I feel contempt for someone because of something I see in them, it is because I see that same thing in myself and can't face it. — T Clark

Because your perceptions are flawed. You have attempted arrogance, then guilt, now shame.You are having some imagined battle with me but the effort here is merely to justify your flawed perceptions.

When I speak to some men in the field of science and sometimes philosophy, as a woman, it does not matter how logical and correct I am, I am wrong. They have a perception that women are not capable or intelligent enough to discuss certain topics and sometimes their sexism is so entrenched that even with quotes from actual scientific figures, it is still not enough. And, others follow suit because a man is supposed to be more right than a woman. Just like the delusion of neo-nazis who deny the holocaust, the imagined ideology remains fixed despite the evidence to the contrary.

So, when men speak to me in general, they often assume that being a woman I am required to give more leniency, that I am supposed to be genteel and support others emotionally, that I am not allowed to say no or that is wrong and if I do then I am 'fierce' or 'angry' because the idea is that women are supposed to be unconditionally obedient. So, it is paradoxical to such men that I am morally compassionate but not exempt from conditional standards.

Try all you like but the continuity of my pity towards you remains unchanged.

Try all you like but the continuity of my pity towards you remains unchanged. — TimeLine

Now the real timeline has stood up. Just joking. I can't tell whether your self-presentation is realistic or a false front.

BTW, I know men who treat women the way you describe them: they think women are silly, trivial, shallow, stupid, etc. They don't like working for or with women. They don't like taking orders from a woman. They don't think women are smart. But almost all the time, these are men on their 60s or older. (of course, once they were in their 20s and were probably the same way then.)

I don't see this kind of behavior so much in younger men, like 20s to 40s. Younger men do seem to usually have better attitudes toward women. Do you find this to be true?

It is presumptuous of me to question what you perceive going on in your own mind. But I do wonder whether you have contempt for an other because they mirror something in yourself. — Bitter Crank

This is something I've paid a lot of attention to - both in myself and watching others. I see people do lots of things I don't like. Some make me angry, even resentful. Contempt is something completely different. It is judgment on the other person. I know what it feels like to feel contempt and to have people express contempt towards me. I have watched others show contempt for each other. It is a denial of the value of the other person.

It is absolutely clear to me why I feel contempt when I do. It is exactly as I said - hiding from things I see in myself. I see the same thing in others. People bully other people because of the weakness they see that they can't face in themselves. Contempt is an act of cowardice.

I have seen ugly things inside myself. Contempt is one of the worst and I try hard not to lose sight of that.

But almost all the time, these are men on their 60s or older. — Bitter Crank

Ahem...

Of course, some of us in our 60s and above are the very models of modern enlightenment.

I disagree that contempt is denial of value, for one can hardly hold a whole person in contempt, even should it feel like it at the time. One feels contempt as consequence to an action or inaction. Sure, one may suffer from psychological projection, but my position is that one can feel contempt without so doing. Just because one may feel contempt for somebody that refuses to pay them back money, it does not follow that they have a problem with being honest over money themselves..

B.Crank, sounds intelligent, but what is a model of modern enlightenment for god`s sake, does that even make any sense? My position is between the two of yours, that whilst the tendency over time is in becoming more judgmental in some areas that it is in becoming less so in others, those areas by individual. Two things are tending to happen, we are tending to become more set in our thinking whilst at the same time more broad minded. Such, there is a broader framework of thinking but one which we are not prepared to ever venture beyond. I just put this notion forward as a social tendency, it is not borrowed from anywhere, nothing I suggest to ever is, and this tendency has nothing to say for individuals..

I believe that younger people tend to being faster to react, so less well consider others actions, and coupled with this they have less experience of people that they can afford greater breath of consideration. The tendency is that young people are more judgmental but you only find this out by becoming a young person/by first having been invited into their social circles. However I do n`t consider that how fast one is to judge has anything whatsoever to say for whether they are a good or a bad person. I very much think of this in terms of where the heart is, where the heart genuinely is, and certainly before I have consideration to what`s happening.on the outside.

Of course, some of us in our 60s and above are the very models of modern enlightenment. — Bitter Crank

Well, of course.