2/ If "good" is defined as people generally on board with civilizing process (ie don't want to cause needless pain), what % of us are good?
Conversation
Replying to
3/ In answering this q we tend to replace moral absolutes of good/evil with shades of grey, to acknowledge complexity of trying to be good
2
1
9
Replying to
4/ Ie we assume that most people *try* to be good in our sense, but complexity and moral ambiguities of world defeats them. Is this true?
1
1
9
Replying to
5/ Alternate theory: being good is not as hard as we make it out to be, the grey areas aren't that grey.
2
2
11
Replying to
6/ What if people AREN'T mostly good in the sense of not wanting to cause pain? What if causing pain in central to lives of many?
2
2
15
Replying to
7/ I call this "shades of red" theory as opposed to shades of grey. To varying degrees a lot more people *want* to cause unnecessary pain
1
1
15
Replying to
9/ We are raised to believe only small % ("criminals") _want_ to cause pain for gain. Most don't. A few saints suffer for others (top left)
1
1
7
Replying to
10/ Shades of red theory asserts that majority - everybody to right of "apathetic" - gets off on others' unnecessary pain at least a little
2
1
11
Replying to
11/ Shades of red is based on a deontological notion of evil -- finding pleasure in causing/witnessing pain. Good is negatively defined.
1
9
Replying to
12/ By this theory, most "good" people are actual bad: they define "evil" to dehumanize, to justify causing pain for pleasure
Replying to
13/ Our penal system implicitly assumes shades-of-red theory. Prison guards and cops I suspect have at least a small streak of sadism.
2
1
12
Replying to
14/ Stanford prison experiments: almost all of us are capable of finding pleasure in causing/witnessing pain
2
1
11
Show replies
