Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Good afternoon. The essence of the second approach is that if a person behaves in this way, then this is probably the only available behavior option for him at a given time in a given context. This allows you to stay calm and try to influence the situation instead of dividing people into friends and enemies.
it is “better” to think that there are no good or bad people— no actions: there are stupid people, and they do not always do stupid things more often than smart ones. something similar, by the way, has come down to us from one of the revered Greeks.
but the scientific method, if you intend to think objectively at all, does not use value characteristics, and mature ethics quite fully works within this framework.
OPTION-1 is a very rough, unscientific everyday description of a complex reality – absolutely bad or good people do not exist in principle – all people are of a “mixed” type.
OPTION-2 provides an optimal scientific description of a complex reality – by the number of bad and good actions, a reasonable conclusion is made about the quality of a person – to what extent he is bad/good.
It is not better, but more correct to evaluate the actions of people, and not the people themselves.
One's deeds remain in the material world, not one's words.
What's the use of judging words?
Today they are one, and tomorrow they are different.
But the things that have been done cannot be changed, and everyone sees those things, their results, and evaluates them.
Let's start with the fact that bad or good are not absolute concepts, but relative ones. What is good for one is bad for the other. These concepts depend both on the person who makes the assessment, on his personal views and point of view, and on the morality accepted in society, which, in turn, depends on the society itself, the level of its development. For example, in the days of the Inquisition, burning a witch or torturing a heretic was considered normal and even good, but now we look at it as savagery and evaluate it as a bad act. Therefore, “bad or good” is basically an ambiguous assessment, biased.
Now for the second point: good or bad people only happen in fairy tales. In real life, real people aren't bad or good – they're just different. Even such seemingly classic villains like Hitler did something good in their lives. For example, the same Hitler brought his country out of a deep economic crisis, restored its industry and science, built a powerful infrastructure that is still used today, supported motherhood and childhood, etc. It is not customary to talk about this, but the truth is that everyone does good and bad things in their life (and the very assessment of “good deed” or “bad deed”, as I said, is very ambiguous, subjective and relative). If it is already difficult to evaluate the actions themselves unambiguously, then evaluate the person (and we usually evaluate him by the totality of his actions) even more difficult. That is why it is better to evaluate specific actions than to put a label on the person as a whole.
There is both good and bad in every human being. These qualities are manifested in actions. Therefore, people should be more generous, kinder, and more gentle. This is also useful for your own psyche, for your own peace of mind.
Of course, as with any other rule, there is an exception. But here are just 100% bad people, I believe very, very few. And it is unlikely to meet them in your life
Because in every person there is both bad and good. You can't put a “good” or “bad” stamp on a person .
V. V. Mayakovsky once wrote a poem for children “What is good and what is bad?” And there he explains that if the child acts badly, then he is bad, and if it is good,then the child is good. (Quote: From Crow karapuz
ran away, yelling.
The boy is a coward.
This is very bad.
This one, even though he's a little taller,
arguing with a fearsome bird.
Brave boy, alright,
it will come in handy in life.)
In other words, what people do depends on whether they are good or bad people. A man is glorious in his deeds. So it's better to think as 2 rather than 1.
Bad and good – often serves as a social morality, the definition of something that fits into the framework of society and not, in other cases, the assessment/subjective perception of certain things “disapproving, approving” by you (non-writing / fitting things into your norms).
You think subjectively, so it is better to think as in the second case, since the perception of the act is only yours, you give an assessment only to the person's action, although even it is most likely biased because you most likely do not know the whole situation, conditions, picture and its subtleties.
But still, it is better because you do not divide a person into such categories, thereby not creating a stigma and stereotype, because a person can behave differently in different conditions, relationships to different people/things.
All this is evaluated by someone in their own reality and paradigm , so it cannot be objective.
My conclusion: 2 thinking is better, but I advise you to think approve/disapprove, agree/disagree, since the terms “good and bad” often serve as the morality of the whole society, rely on your opinion.
author, you should always ask a question:
FOR WHOM?))) The good ones, and who the bad ones are for.
And consider the situation
in terms of utility.
As a result the picture becomes clearer and the question of how best to think about people becomes clear
or actions – – – disappears.
Because this is the path from ignorance to knowledge. Next step 3) There are no good and bad actions, but there are causes and effects that can be analyzed.
Both are true. But the second option is more versatile. Man is inherently good, because he was created by God. Any evil that sticks to a person is alien, hostile, dangerous. If a person understands this, tries to purify himself, become more perfect, he can be called good. If he considers evil a necessary and integral part of himself, he can be called a bad person. But with actions it is easier: doing good is a good act, evil is a bad one.
The first is fatalism, which implies that everything is predetermined in advance, at the moment of birth. The second leaves a chance for” correction”, that is, hope, which, as you know, dies last. People don't live without hope. The need for meaning in life distinguishes them from animals, so they sometimes commit suicide.
At least from the point of view of the fact that you live in a society and cannot achieve success alone, without cooperation. If you break social ties or make an enemy of anyone who has done something that is not very pleasant for you , you will very quickly be left alone with yourself.
Well, of course, all people make mistakes and there are no 100% good and 100% bad ones. The division into black and white should cease to exist in the mind of a person after the end of elementary school. You should not evaluate a person based on one act, especially if you don't know them well and don't understand the situation. Unfortunately, quite often, this is what everyone does: quick judgments are our everything.
Value judgments are tricky things. What is bad for one is good for another, and the third is generally sidetracked by what is happening.