Someone who is pure good is not as good as someone who is impure

[S@tanicoaldo]

Imagine someone who is unable to do evil.

They have been shield away form all things evil, they are not allowed to drink, smoke, use drugs and all that jazz.

They have been raised to do nothing but good.

To me that person is not as good as someone who is impure but does good things.

If you can do nothing but good, that means that you no option but do good, but if you can do both good and evil and chooses to do good that good is more valid then someone who does good by default.

What you guys think?

[Brother Oni]

This seems to be along the lines of 'a person who can feel fear but acts in spite of it, is more courageous than a person who can't feel fear but does the same action'.

The end result is the same - the action is performed, or the good is done. Does it really matter what the personal motivations are behind it, whether it's the 'right thing to do' or scoring some karmic brownie points for whatever faith system involved?

Doing good for ulterior motives falls outside the scope of this answer.

[Peelee]

In addition to that, assuming free will still exists, not being able to do Evil doesn't mean must do Good. Inaction is still a choice.

[Telonius]

If a person has no option but to act (or not act) in a certain way, then there is no moral choice involved. Neither the action nor the motive is morally good (or morally evil for that matter).

[Jay R]

My disagreement starts at the very beginning. I cannot imagine somebody with free will who cannot do evil. This theoretical person would not even consider taking somebody else's food when hungry, would not stop to rest when somebody else needed help, would never desire something belonging to somebody else. This is sufficiently different from any person I have ever met that the very idea is alien.

If the free will is gone, then it's no different from a car, and cannot be good or evil. The good or evil is done by the driver (whoever programmed choice out of the software).

So it seems to me that you are inventing a hypothetical but impossible entity that is irrelevant to the concepts of good and evil, and then trying to apply the concepts of good and evil to them.

[AuthorGirl]

Imagine someone who is unable to do evil.

Lacking free will, they cease to be "someone" in any meaningful sense.

Or do you mean that they want to do evil but are prevented from doing it?


They have been shield away form all things evil, they are not allowed to drink, smoke, use drugs and all that jazz.

First, you're assigning a moral value to addiction, and that's all kinds of repulsive.

Second, okay, this person has been sheltered from harm (like I have been). That doesn't mean they're incapable of evil thoughts, words or actions (trust me :smallwink:).


They have been raised to do nothing but good.

Awesome. Your upbringing doesn't define your choices. Totally mundane example: I was raised to keep my hair cropped to my ears. It's now almost to my hips and I don't intend to cut it for several years. No doubt you've done many things (both small and large) that you weren't "raised to do."


To me that person is not as good as someone who is impure but does good things.

And now you're assigning moral value to purity.

To continue with your previous example: Person A is perpetually kind and charitable. She also has a nicotine addiction. Person B is perpetually kind and charitable to the exact same degree and does not have a nicotine addiction. I would say they are equally "good" from a moral standpoint; Person A is sick, and that's not a moral failing*, nor is it a credit to her morality. It says nothing about her good deeds. It says nothing about her generosity of spirit. It says nothing, really, at all.

*If she's careless with her smoking, and harms other people with it, that's not a good thing to do.


If you can do nothing but good, that means that you no option but do good, but if you can do both good and evil and chooses to do good that good is more valid then someone who does good by default.

My default choice is to do good, because I firmly believe in a moral system that requires it of me. By your logic, that makes me (and my friends and family who operate under the same system) automatically less good than someone who has to think, every time, "am I going to be evil or not?".


What you guys think?

I think your basic premise is flawed and your purity-system-type "moral" examples aren't helping your case.

[Tvtyrant]

I think you should read Kant. He makes a big deal about whether someone who is impulsively good is as good as someone who is logically good.

[JeenLeen]

If you can do nothing but good, that means that you no option but do good, but if you can do both good and evil and chooses to do good that good is more valid then someone who does good by default.

What do you mean by "valid"?
I get the gist of what you mean, I think, but defining may help.

I don't think one is more good than the other. The one who is struggling against temptation might be more laudable or worthy of respect/honor than the other, since they had a harder time accomplishing the same good. But in a way that isn't saying much about the person, but rather about how we can view that person as a model for emulation or source of inspiration. I've read examples of folk from real life at least described as being in both 'camps' (that is, not really aware of evil and thereby always choosing good, or aware/tempted but always choosing good), and I find the latter more inspirational. But I wouldn't them better.

[veti]

What you guys think?

I think you are framing your question in terms of pure fantasy. From "pure good" and "unable to do evil", "raised to do nothing but good", "impure"... your question has absolutely no point of contact with reality.

So my ideas of "good", "evil", "choice" and for that matter even "someone" - are not really relevant to your question. I think if you take the time to define exactly what you mean by all these things, then the answer will become clear.

In general, we don't agree on what constitutes "good" even in the real world. In utilitarian terms, motives are irrelevant - someone who always and only does good things is by definition better than someone who does good things, but also occasionally doesn't. (And if the second hypothetical person doesn't occasionally do less than pure good, then I'd also ask you to define what you mean by "can choose".) In Kantian terms, motives are the only thing that matters - but your idea of a "pure good" being doesn't seem to have anything that could be called "motive", because that implies choice.

[Jay R]

In the long run, how good you are is based on your actions.

Somebody with more powerful temptations to be evil may have a harder time being as good as somebody with lesser temptations, but how good each of them is is still based on their actions.

Similarly, It's harder for me, with short arms and legs, to be as good a fencer as the people with long arms and legs, and it may take more knowledge and practice and training for me to reach a certain level of fencing ability, but how good I am is not determined by that; it's determined by whether I can hit my opponent and avoid being hit.

[Zebalas]

So you think being completely good is not as good as someone who chooses to be good? I don't know... Good is good in the end isn't it?

I belive Aristotle wanted us to be so virtuous that virtue started to be or second nature and we start to do it naturally.

[AuthorGirl]

I belive Aristotle wanted us to be so virtuous that virtue started to be or second nature and we start to do it naturally.

I'm pretty sure you're right, and this (entirely lovely) idea pokes large holes in OP's argument.

[AMFV]

The difficulty is that by definition somebody who struggles to become pure, has a point where they will give into temptation. Whereas the perfectly pure point doesn't.

[2D8HP]

Speaking of which, there's a temptation that I can no longer resist that the thread title immediately brought to mind:

"Even a man who is pure in heart,
And says his prayers by night
May become a Wolf when the Wolfbane blooms
And the autumn Moon is bright"

-Curt Siodmak for The Wolf Man (1941)

[Aotrs Commander]

So (because I am really, really bored, yet unable to muster the energy to do sensible or useful things), let's take this question and turn it around, because might show... something right?

So, by this logic, does that make me, who chooses to be Evil of his own free will, more Evil than, say, a Balor or a Dalek or something?

I'd sort of say "yes," because I have a choice and I'm not lacking in the understanding of morals and what good behavior is (or the understanding of love/friendship blahblahblah) - I grock all that stuff, I'm just doing it anyway. (Also because I'm - being Evil - naturally arrogant enough to ant superlaties over other Evil things.)



But, then, is the inverse true by the same logic?

I've never actually thought about it that way around, honestly.



That said, there is a noted tendacy to entropy that seems to be in play vis a vis morality and decay; it seems to be much easier for Good Things to go Evil than Evil Thinks to Go Good.

(Usually, Naruto has to punch you in the face or Nanoha Divie Buster you in the everythig before that happens...)

I mean, you have fallen angels and such ALL THE TIME, but I can okay recall that one story about that Succubus Paladin on one of the forum ages ago out of pretty much all the fiends, for example.

So could you make the arguement that maybe, inherently good creatures are more gooder (yes, more gooder, Grimlock would approve) than less inherently good creature, because they are highly up the morality enthalpy scale?

Or is it just that humans are barely capable of conceiving of something that IS pure good (because it would make it it inherently Better Than Humans) and thus automatically look for ways that it can be judged to fail and thus be shown that everything is really just the same level as humans? (See Superman principle.)


Or am I just letting my natural tendancy to Evil Monologue run riot?

You decide.

...

No, really, I don't freaking know, that's way I'm asking the questions, I'm necromancer with engineering training, not a philosopher.

[hamishspence]

Speaking of which, there's a temptation that I can no longer resist that the thread title immediately brought to mind:

"Even a man who is pure in heart,
And says his prayers by night
May become a Wolf when the Wolfbane blooms
And the autumn Moon is bright"

-Curt Siodmak for The Wolf Man (1941)


I think the first time I saw that quote, it had been deliberately modified to "And the moon is full and bright" - possibly because werewolves change at every full moon, not just in autumn.

[Aedilred]

I think the first time I saw that quote, it had been deliberately modified to "And the moon is full and bright" - possibly because werewolves change at every full moon, not just in autumn.

But does wolfsbane bloom year-round?

[hamishspence]

Depends on the species. Aconitum itself usually blooms mid-summer to late summer - though some varieties do bloom in autumn. Other genera, like the related Eranthis ("winter aconite" or "winter wolfsbane") bloom in winter to. very early spring.

So, you can have "true" wolfsbane blooming in autumn, but you can also have it blooming in summer (late or early) and you can have "winter wolfsbane" blooming in winter and spring.

That covers all four seasons.

[2D8HP]

I think the first time I saw that quote, it had been deliberately modified to "And the moon is full and bright" - possibly because werewolves change at every full moon, not just in autumn.


The line was changed to that in the sequels (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curt_Siodmak#Life_and_career)

[hamishspence]

That would explain it. I think the book I saw it in was Terry Deary's True Monster Stories.

[Morph Bark]

A person who is raised to only know good can still be capable of evil.

[Frozen_Feet]

How did the Nietschze quote go again? "Of all evil I deem you capable: Therefore I want good from you. Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

Anyways, the idea as formulated by the opening post and thread title is the boring version. The idea of "pure good" put forward is naive and non-existent. Likewise, any tangent about free will is a red herring. Who says the "impure" person has any more control over their actions?

Approaching the question of choice from the direction of philosophical free will is more or less fruitless because of that. If we are to assume free will, we must assume it from all when physical barriers would not pre-empt an action. From this perspective, psychological "inability" is near-synonymous with "unwilling". And if you ask me, someone who is entirely unwilling to do evil is better than someone who isn't.

[Telonius]

So (because I am really, really bored, yet unable to muster the energy to do sensible or useful things), let's take this question and turn it around, because might show... something right?

So, by this logic, does that make me, who chooses to be Evil of his own free will, more Evil than, say, a Balor or a Dalek or something?

I'd sort of say "yes," because I have a choice and I'm not lacking in the understanding of morals and what good behavior is (or the understanding of love/friendship blahblahblah) - I grock all that stuff, I'm just doing it anyway. (Also because I'm - being Evil - naturally arrogant enough to ant superlaties over other Evil things.)



But, then, is the inverse true by the same logic?

I've never actually thought about it that way around, honestly.

...


No, really, I don't freaking know, that's way I'm asking the questions, I'm necromancer with engineering training, not a philosopher.


For what it's worth, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola explored some of the same themes in his Oration on the Dignity of Man (back in 1486), though from the Good perspective.

[Wardog]

My disagreement starts at the very beginning. I cannot imagine somebody with free will who cannot do evil.

Of course, this depends on what "free will" means, and whether we actually have it.


Personally, I would say we do have free will - but I would define "free will" to mean "human-like capacity to think, reason, and make decisions". (Whereas in my experience people who argue that free will doesn't exist tend to define it in a way that it couldn't exist).

However, "human-like capacity to think, reason, and make decisions" isn't consistent between individuals. Most obviously, the ability to reason can be impaired by drugs, or illness, or brain damage. Some people with damaged amigdalas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala)cannot feel fear (but contrary to Redcloak, that doesn't make them monsters), and according to the Wiki article, it can affect aggression as well. Ability to empaphis varies as well.

Actually being incapable of concieving of doing evil seem unlikely, it doesn't seem implausible to me that somone could have a brain that is much less aggressive than the norm, much more empathetic than the norm, and has other anomalies that makes them far less likely to do (or think of doing) things that would be considered "evil". And I don't think such a person could be said to have no free will and therefore not be a "someone".

[Misereor]

Imagine someone who is unable to do evil.

They have been shield away form all things evil, they are not allowed to drink, smoke, use drugs and all that jazz.

They have been raised to do nothing but good.

To me that person is not as good as someone who is impure but does good things.

If you can do nothing but good, that means that you no option but do good, but if you can do both good and evil and chooses to do good that good is more valid then someone who does good by default.

What you guys think?

One Christian I've met believed that was why Lucifer rebelled against God, and why God tolerates his existence.
Personally I think it sounds more like Monty Pythons Princess Mitzi of Happy Valley.

[gooddragon1]

This seems to be along the lines of 'a person who can feel fear but acts in spite of it, is more courageous than a person who can't feel fear but does the same action'.

The end result is the same - the action is performed, or the good is done. Does it really matter what the personal motivations are behind it, whether it's the 'right thing to do' or scoring some karmic brownie points for whatever faith system involved?

Doing good for ulterior motives falls outside the scope of this answer.

I agree with this. Any good is more good. No need to judge the reason why someone is that way. Just hope for no bad underlying reasons.

[Hail Sithis]

Why not do both good and evil (Balance is the word children)

[Hail Sithis]

Or do good but morally ambiguous good (shooting a drug dealer)

[Hail Sithis]

Does killing every living animal (humans included) count as good cuz that would protect the trees

[Hail Sithis]

How can there be sin if they are no sinners. (Thanos mindset: how can they be overpopulation if there is no population)

[Elanasaurus]

Whoa, that's a lot of devils on the screen.

:elan:

[AuthorGirl]

Why not do both good and evil (Balance is the word children)


Or do good but morally ambiguous good (shooting a drug dealer)


Does killing every living animal (humans included) count as good cuz that would protect the trees


How can there be sin if they are no sinners. (Thanos mindset: how can they be overpopulation if there is no population)

Quick tip: next time, try editing the last three things into your original post instead of making three new posts. It's more courteous to the other members and is recommended in the Forum Rules (here's a link to said rules if you're curious: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1).

[sneakykitten]

I believe no human is pure good or pure evil. And if there were a pure good human he or she would be more like an angel than a human. Everyday ppls struggle with temptations and while some are more extreme than others I'd love to believe most ppls choose the choices that both take care of themselves and the peoples around them (Good as I see it).