Poll: Good or Evil?

[Churro]

With regards to the topic on altruism, I'll admit that in a way it's selfish since people often expect some sort of reward, like the feeling of good that may come of it. Because of this I don't know if by objectivist standards it can be considered immoral. If someone was altruistic simply because they either knew they'd get a reward for it, or they felt good because of it, doesn't that fall into the catagory of rational self-interest? The altruism would be motivated by selfishness, thus pretty much conforming with objectivism...at least what I know of it.

And as to democracy...only in small groups, i.e. city-states or smaller (I'm looking at you, Athens), would it accurately represent most of the population's views. On a global or national scale, it would just be tyranny by majority, or if you look at the U.S., a complete stalemate. The only way to make a democracy work on a large level like a country is for people to discover the long lost art of compromising.

 

[Dealin Burgers]

Frankly I am disgusted by homeless people and those who help them. It's nothing personal, but regardless of how they arrived in that situation, I see nothing stopping them from helping themselves to get out. People who help them are just enabling them to continue leeching off the rest of society. Anyone else feel as though we need to let survival of the fittest be the means of determining who lives and dies?

 

[John Galt]

Now that we've since shifted towards democracy in the discussion, I'll chime in again.

I think that democracy is probably the worst thing you can do for a society as large as the United States, essentially it boils down to 'my gang is biggest so we rule now' rather than 'my gang has some pretty good ideas'. While I'm all for liberty and individual rights, I'm pretty much a meritocrat. When you give a yokel who barely got out of high school the same voice as a world renowned economist, then you've clearly done something wrong. I feel our leaders should be determined by their overall competence rather than their ability to gather votes in elections.

 

[John Galt]

On the homeless:

My view on the homeless is generally apathetic, I just flat out don't care. This is my view of homeless persons in general, however should I get into personal contact with one, my opinion will either be that of respect or of downright contempt. I've no warm feelings towards panhandlers and bums, however, I was aquanted with one homeless man who'd lost everything to a drug addiction but was busting his ass off to get back in control of his life. Needless to say, I saw him as a respectable person who could do quite a bit of good if given a little help, a good return on society's investment so to speak.

 

[Easykill]

I would like to partially revise my stance on always going for to greater good- In the mood I'm in now, it just wouldn't happen. So mostly greater good with a few bloody rampages.
On the homeless- Meh.

 

[Haliwali]

You know, for the thread that got me to join this forum, I sure took my sweet time posting on it.
Anyway, If I had that kind of power, I would use for any good action I could. And justice. Someones about to get mugged? Shazam, I'll stop it.
(Assuming my power works that way) I'd help the homeless get jobs and homes and become productive members of society.

 

[sidhe3141]

There's an interesting essay on why people act altruisticly toward others, even outside of their own species right here [http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/Miscellania/Morality.html].

 

[Lord Krunk]

In never found being evil that fun. Every time I try, I just get bored of it. Being good provides more of a challenge, as well.

 

[John Galt]

In never found being evil that fun. Every time I try, I just get bored of it. Being good provides more of a challenge, as well.

Being a dick is plenty of fun, every time the Internet ruins someone's life, I can't help but smile. Besides, antagonizing people who try to be moral is one of the most fun things ever.

 

[tooktook]

It occured to me a while ago that it is not what a person does that makes them good or evil, it's what they WOULD do if they could do whatever they wanted with no personal repercussions, other than what was intended, of course. How you behave in Fable or games like that reflect this. So, how about you? Would you act for the greater good, your own good, or the good of everyone? Me? I try to tell myself I'd be good, but I sympathize with Light from Death Note and I often find myself thinking about what I'm capable of. The greater good I would guess.

In th politest words I can muster, I completely disagree with you. You never know what someone will do in a tough situation until they're in it. To think otherwise is, in my opinion, misinformed and naive.

 

[ForestFox]

I went for happieness of others. I don't know, the great good sounds too evil because really, what is the great good? Religion will probably believe that it's god and kill countless people for him. As long as you're keeping others happy, it's all good.

I quote this message for it says the exact same thing I would have said.

 

[Easykill]

Heey! No propaganda on my threads, ya hear?

Oh, and it pleases me somehow that my thread spawned the trollslayer king, Haliwali, even if he had been lurking before.

 

[Reaperman Wompa]

If it's me or a few then it's gonna be them but if i can either survive or a lot of people then i would probably go with greater good, really depends on situation and amount of people.

 

[Kraj]

why argue a moot point. this is just as sad as the argument between chaos and order. You cannot have one without the other, so saying that one is or is not the other would mean nothing with the others absence. If there were no people being "evil" good would have no meaning. They are by their actions ensuring the existence of good. the same is true of the inverse. So i choose ordered anarchy, and enforced evil.