Poll: Do you think you are a good person ?
- Thread starter krazykidd
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I view morals and rules as mere guidelines. As long as the advantages of obeying them outweigh the advantages of breaking them, then I will not act.
So no, I would not consider myself a good person. But then again, who is these days?
So no, I would not consider myself a good person. But then again, who is these days?
The poll is now at 44,4% "yes", 33,3% "meh" and 22,2% "no".
I Love it.
Anyway, yeah I'm a good person. I almost find it physically impossible to be mean to people on purpose.
I Love it.
Anyway, yeah I'm a good person. I almost find it physically impossible to be mean to people on purpose.
I'm far from I good person these days. I use to be one when I was younger but I got tired of being the friend / person that everybody placed responsibility on. I got into so much trouble because I didn't stop somebody from doing something and everybody was placing a majority of blame on me. It wasn't far that I was getting punished because I didn't stop somebody from doing something. I just got tired of people needing me to do for them, yet they wouldn't do shit for me when I needed it. I hate doing favors for people without being paid for them. Overall im a decent people I just can't stand being used people.
I believe I am. I help people and save lives. I try my best to be good to my own moral code, even if it isn't always convenient for myself or for others. Other may not see me as good, I know they certainly didn't a few years ago when I had my long hair, a lot of piercings, and dressed in a lot of black with death metal t-shirts. I find it funny how people think I am different because I don't wear that stuff as much anymore. I'm still the same person, just in a uniform now.
- Nov 27, 2009
- 5,792
- 712
- 118
- Country
- The Dreamlands
- Gender
- Lose 1d20 sanity points.
I like helping people but at the same time I hate people and talking to them so I insult the people and then help them and then insult them again so I'm not sure
One of the problems of questions such as Are you a good person is the lack of clear definition of what constitutes a good person. Consider:
~ Does the man who murdered in passion as a youth qualifies if he spends the rest of his years doing works of compassion?
~ Can an ordinary family man qualify if he occasionally double-parks to visit the ATM?
~ Does a child sexual predator qualify if he does his time, is born again as an evangelist and never recidivizes?
~ How about a second story thief who steals to feed his family?
~ From large corporations?
~ Is a person who is respectful and considerate, doesn't swear or litter, yet is sustained on welfare a good person?
~ Any less or more so if she lost her legs in action as a soldier?
~ For a different country?
Also, asking for a self assessment, Do you think you are a good person? is often not so valuable. Most jackasses think they are good people, and are thus not driven to try to better themselves, while most (proverbial) saints see themselves as despicable and are eternally driven towards good works as a means to redemption.
In my own case, I avoid causing harm and provide care when I see the need and am able to act. I cling tightly to the ethic of reciprocity, even preferring to do so over reflecting bad attitudes. (I don't always succeed.)
On the other hand, I don't trust or respect authority based solely on their position (e.g. the footnote to my sig). I see loyalties to small groups (such as churches or sports teams) as dangerous when it becomes greater than loyalty to the community or the state.[footnote]On that note, I see loyalty to the state as profoundly different than loyalty to the current administration. Carl Schurz' full quote is My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.[/footnote]. And I renounce the enforcement of policies against moral corruption, since no one can agree on what morally corrupts.[footnote]For example, the current concern against violent video games, and their affects on our children, which remain current despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.[/footnote]
Firstly, it presumes that we are judged by a higher authority [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_judgment] in the first place, which is not accepted by everyone, certainly not by those outside the Abrahamic faith. We naturalists acknowledge that we are far from achieving our moral ideals, but these are based on the social constructs of the human species. Even our worst atrocities, from genocide to torture to slavery to even cannibalism are mirrored to a greater magnitude in the animal kingdom, so our evils are far from unique[footnote]Since we have become so effective at mastering our environment, our evils have far reaching repercussions, but even then, it was the elephants who deforested Africa.[/footnote]
Secondly, different denominations interpret Christian salvation in different ways. The Roman Catholic Church has recently reaffirmed Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus], acknowledging only fellow Orthodox churches (and excluding all protestant ones). Other faiths have their own lists of excluded groups. Some faiths say Jesus only provided a one-time tabula rasa event, and sins after that are not forgiven. Others, still, say that Jesus decides who gets a free pass, but he didn't specify that acceptance of him was the qualifying factor, only that he's the gatekeeper.
There are a lot of denominations, and a lot of differing opinions. So it's debatable as to what dying for our sins actually means, or whether it was good that Jesus did that. Outside of Abrahamism, for example, it looks more like selling a false product to push a religion rather than a selfless sacrifice for all mankind.
238U.[footnote]In the event that Escapist requires me to view a commercial before getting a code, I will simply not post. Depending on the frequency, this may temper or cease my future participation in the Escapist community. Apologies in advance, if this policy prevents me from replying to you when it is proper to do so.[/footnote]
~ Does the man who murdered in passion as a youth qualifies if he spends the rest of his years doing works of compassion?
~ Can an ordinary family man qualify if he occasionally double-parks to visit the ATM?
~ Does a child sexual predator qualify if he does his time, is born again as an evangelist and never recidivizes?
~ How about a second story thief who steals to feed his family?
~ From large corporations?
~ Is a person who is respectful and considerate, doesn't swear or litter, yet is sustained on welfare a good person?
~ Any less or more so if she lost her legs in action as a soldier?
~ For a different country?
Also, asking for a self assessment, Do you think you are a good person? is often not so valuable. Most jackasses think they are good people, and are thus not driven to try to better themselves, while most (proverbial) saints see themselves as despicable and are eternally driven towards good works as a means to redemption.
In my own case, I avoid causing harm and provide care when I see the need and am able to act. I cling tightly to the ethic of reciprocity, even preferring to do so over reflecting bad attitudes. (I don't always succeed.)
On the other hand, I don't trust or respect authority based solely on their position (e.g. the footnote to my sig). I see loyalties to small groups (such as churches or sports teams) as dangerous when it becomes greater than loyalty to the community or the state.[footnote]On that note, I see loyalty to the state as profoundly different than loyalty to the current administration. Carl Schurz' full quote is My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.[/footnote]. And I renounce the enforcement of policies against moral corruption, since no one can agree on what morally corrupts.[footnote]For example, the current concern against violent video games, and their affects on our children, which remain current despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.[/footnote]
It's dangerous to attribute salvation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_salvation] to Jesus Christ to circles outside your faith (perhaps even outside your own denomination).CM156 said:
Firstly, it presumes that we are judged by a higher authority [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_judgment] in the first place, which is not accepted by everyone, certainly not by those outside the Abrahamic faith. We naturalists acknowledge that we are far from achieving our moral ideals, but these are based on the social constructs of the human species. Even our worst atrocities, from genocide to torture to slavery to even cannibalism are mirrored to a greater magnitude in the animal kingdom, so our evils are far from unique[footnote]Since we have become so effective at mastering our environment, our evils have far reaching repercussions, but even then, it was the elephants who deforested Africa.[/footnote]
Secondly, different denominations interpret Christian salvation in different ways. The Roman Catholic Church has recently reaffirmed Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus], acknowledging only fellow Orthodox churches (and excluding all protestant ones). Other faiths have their own lists of excluded groups. Some faiths say Jesus only provided a one-time tabula rasa event, and sins after that are not forgiven. Others, still, say that Jesus decides who gets a free pass, but he didn't specify that acceptance of him was the qualifying factor, only that he's the gatekeeper.
There are a lot of denominations, and a lot of differing opinions. So it's debatable as to what dying for our sins actually means, or whether it was good that Jesus did that. Outside of Abrahamism, for example, it looks more like selling a false product to push a religion rather than a selfless sacrifice for all mankind.
238U.[footnote]In the event that Escapist requires me to view a commercial before getting a code, I will simply not post. Depending on the frequency, this may temper or cease my future participation in the Escapist community. Apologies in advance, if this policy prevents me from replying to you when it is proper to do so.[/footnote]
I think I'm good most of the time but by all means when I'm bad I don't act like a proper douche.
woops i meant to say "good lawful, good neutral, good chaotic"Hafrael said:Lawful chaotic does not makes sense :lgmaverick019 said:haha that's pretty cool, I might have to get a shirt like that sometime.CM156 said:Don't you know?gmaverick019 said:
Also, Sand is LN, not LG.
and yeah I thought so, the lawful goody goody part I said was based more on the fact of "following rules" as does sand to the T, not actually based on "lawful good, lawful neutral, lawful chaotic"
OT: I'm a good person, I satisfy my own morals.
fixed it! thanks for that error
I'm a very good person. But nice? No. Too many people get those things messed up. "good" is the right thing. "nice" is the thing that emotionally benefits the most people. Example: a nice person negotiates with the hostage taker. A good person will mess with his head until he snaps and makes a mistake, then would rip his head off.
So good, yes, nice, no.
So good, yes, nice, no.