Originally Posted by
foxtrot
I had a discussion here recently too, and the "good" and "bad" thing is subjective. I'll give you an example. Take three people.
1) Pacifist gentleman
2) Take-no-shit individual
3) Violent nutjob.
Pit them against a psychopath. The pacificst does nothing and becomes the sociopaths target, choice victim, but in the process, the sociopath harms nobody else. Put simply, the pacifist becomes the psychopaths bitch. Is the pacifist bad?
The Take-no-shit type fights the psychopath, and pursues the psychopath, and makes the psychopaths life very difficult. To survive, the psychopath seeks out and finds multiple victims to exploit. Is this individual doing "good" in this situation?
The violent nutjob kills the psychopath. In this instance, is the nutjob bad?
What is the contribution "on the whole" of each individual to the fulfillment of "good" and "bad" ideals, irrespective of religion? People self-identify themselves almost always as "good" people. But with the pervasiveness of Americanized, Hollywood ideals ("oh, the guy robbing you just had a bad life and just needs a friend") are we not, in fact, "bad" for society ourselves? People are naïve across the spectrum both ways. More harm than good comes from hugging everybody, as does killing everybody. The reality is good and bad are not stripes on a zebra. Good often comes from seemingly bad actions and vice versa.
Sitting back and doing nothing has the net effect of a bad outcome. Does that not, in fact, make a person "bad"?