Deep Spirits

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly,
while bad people will find a way around the laws."
Plato
This is very interesting quote. There are some questions that this quote opens and I would like to know your answers on them:
What or who are good people by your definition?
Who or what are bad people by your definition?
According to this quote, we do not need laws, as good people do not need them and bad people will avoid them.
Do you agree with the above quote?
What are your thoughts?

Mirjana

I agree with Plato.
:)

Good people possibly need agreements, or guidelines for certain aspects of life, but not laws, as laws imply punishment when breaking them, and we already established they wouldn't break them.

Defining which people are good and which are bad is not so easy.
- Good people don't lie, cheat, harm, misuse nor trick others.
- Good people are considerate of others, in the same manner as they are considerate of themselves.

There is probably more to it than the above, but at the moment these seem like the most important aspects of goodness.

Sabina

Hi Sabina,

I also agree with Plato and I agree with your description of good people. Interestingly it turns that maybe more interesting than my initial question is the personal definition of good people. As you said,"there is probably more to it than the above", I shall add something to your description which I also consider as basics:
-Good people care for others when there is a need;
I am curious how this list will grow...
Mirjana

I absolutely agree with both of you. Let me add to your list of goodness.

Good people are those who care about others, whether those others are in need or not.
Good people care about all living things, not only humans.
Good people care about Mother Earth and Mother Nature.
Good people stand up for the rights of those who cannot defend themselves.

Good people don't feel a part of the whole, they feel the whole is part of themselves.

Heidi

P.S Because I'm new to the forum can anyone explain what exactly a kudo is, how you get one and how you use one?

Aristotle thought with a western mind, a mind of dualities.I feel uncomfortable with the good people and bad people idea. It has been my experience that most people can do things that would put them in both categories. Just a thought.

Heidi wrote:Good people don't feel a part of the whole, they feel the whole is part of themselves.

Heidi, I love your additions, but the last one (see above) gave me chills the moment I read it! So, it must be true. :)

Heidi wrote:P.S Because I'm new to the forum can anyone explain what exactly a kudo is, how you get one and how you use one?

You can give (or take) kudos to (from) any user by clicking the plus or minus icons:


Kudos is another way to show appreciation (or the opposite), either for a specific post, in which case you click on the +/- icons beneath the avatar image of that particular post, or for someone's contributions in general. In that case you can do that through their member profile.
You can view anyone's member profile by clicking on their username or avatar image.

Pat wrote:I feel uncomfortable with the good people and bad people idea. It has been my experience that most people can do things that would put them in both categories. Just a thought.

Dear Pat, that's a nice thought, and I am sure that most people can do both, but would you say that most people do? Just because someone is physically and/or mentally capable of doing something doesn't necessarily mean they will do it. As an example, someone who is consumed by greed and the idea of personal gain might be capable of doing good things, they might occasionally even do such things, but that's not what their life is about - by their own choice.
Do you think we choose to be a certain way or are we just born that way?
If it's a choice, then where does that choice come from?
And if we are born that way, then could it be that the choices we make are directly connected to the maturity of our soul or spirit?

Sabina

Pat wrote:Aristotle thought with a western mind, a mind of dualities.I feel uncomfortable with the good people and bad people idea. It has been my experience that most people can do things that would put them in both categories. Just a thought.

Hi Pat,

Yes you are right about dualities, as we live in the world of duality. How I understand good or bad is in the sense of what is the dominant life path in this world of duality.We all know this symbol . There is a little black dot in white, but the dominant is white. And there is a little white dot in black, but dominant is black. In order to be in the golden middle where everything is perfectly balanced, or to have a white circle, we have to pass a long path. That is what, in my opinion, final goal is.
As long as we recognize our black dots we are able to work on changing them. As long a white dot is recognized by others, there is a possibility for the person to change. This mutual exchange is therefore so essential, so that no one can be lost in the isolated world of good, or bad.
In this world of duality, good is never so good that there are no dots to be improved, or bad is never so bad that those white dots can not become bigger until changing the color.

Mirjana

It's a nice thought that there could be a world without "Laws" (in reference to the man made) but regardless there will always be consequence which is a simply a natural result of any action. In essence "consequence" could be viewed as nature's punishment, or reward, for your behavior. All in all, I believe it would be great to live in such a world but that would call for a healthy society and my beliefs are that the human race is far from healthy. So... we make do with what works for now and hopefully some day a more natural and healthier approach to all things will be reality.

I would like to "touch" the whole duality thing... I don't believe duality is a western thing, I believe it is a universal thing. All the way down to the molecular level there are both positive and negative. There is light & dark, cold & hot, etc it is there... but what makes something cold or hot has nothing to do with it's potential to be one or the other... but simply a matter of measurement. We measure temperature on a scale based upon our body temperature. Even though we all have basically the same body temperature, somethings are cold to some people and not to others. However, there will come a temperature where everyone of us will agree "that's cold". I believe the same for good & bad... although there are these levels of "grey" or "gray" there is a point where we will all agree that what someone did was bad or good.

So, the topic as to whether a person's repetitive "bad" actions actually makes them a "bad person" isn't really the topic at all, because I believe that all of us know that we all have the potential to be "bad". But more in the direction that "bad people" is a label given to those who are continuously trying to take the easy route, mislead or cheat others, or whatever most of us would agree are "bad" actions. The labels "bad people" or "good people" were made in order to reduce the amount of explanation needed within a conversation to move it along rather than getting stuck on the clarification. However, through time the explanation behind those labels were lost/forgotten and no longer taught. Instead we have these clarifying discussions over and over rather than proceeding the topic onto matters of greater importance. This is a problem with our society as a whole... we teach/train a working class because that is what makes our societies function. Philosophies and such have no place in these surroundings because it causes the "workers" to question the reasons as to why... and that is not productive... but that is a whole other topic.

Ryan wrote:However, through time the explanation behind those labels were lost/forgotten and no longer taught. Instead we have these clarifying discussions over and over rather than proceeding the topic onto matters of greater importance. This is a problem with our society as a whole... we teach/train a working class because that is what makes our societies function. Philosophies and such have no place in these surroundings because it causes the "workers" to question the reasons as to why... and that is not productive... but that is a whole other topic.

Did I understand you correctly that we should discuss those labels? If yes, do you mean labels of good and labels of bad?
What will be exactly that what describes "proceeding the topic onto matters of grater importance"?

Mirjana

No, I am saying the "good people" and "bad people" are labels as a result of having already been discussed. No one believes there are people that are plain and simple "bad" or just "good" but that we use "bad people" or "good people" to avoid discussing the same things over and over. "bad people" are those people who repeatedly do things that we all agree are "bad" and "good people" are those who repeatedly do things that we all agree are good.

Let's take Hitler for example, he committed huge violations upon humanity and everyone will agree that those things were "bad" but he did a lot of good too. Does it make him a "bad person"? In essence when having certain discussions he would be considered a "bad person". In other conversations he will be considered a "good person"... and still in other conversations he will simply be considered troubled...he had some issues.

What I am getting at is, if every time you are discussing a topic and you use the labels "good people" or "bad people" and each time you have to go through the philosophical debate about people are both good and bad, all actions have a positive and negative affect, is it actually bad and who knows why it is good in order to come full circle and come back to the topic at hand then you, in essence, go nowhere and get stuck on the same merry-go-round and accomplish nothing...

So, what I am saying is that there can not be different definitions it has already been discussed and the labels were created to serve a specific purpose. By re-defining them you only create confusion and when the new definitions are used it does nothing but bring the discussion to a halt.