Re: Can culture/ideology turn a good person bad or visa versa?

[Tank]

Then what about the influences of a good culture? Are they as strong or do 'bad' people behave badly irrespective of the society they grow up in?

Well I slightly object to the notion of 'good' and 'bad' people and 'good' or 'bad' cultures. Obviously there are personality traits which are inherently dangerous, the most extreme example being psychopathy, and we might reasonably call such people 'bad'. However these rare antisocial personalities aside, most people are pretty morally neutral. I prefer to talk of actions, rather than people or cultures, as being good or bad.

Sometimes asking an open naive question stimulates an interesting debate/discussion. I don't have a position to promote/defend I'm interested in what people think. I may form an opinion in due course. The use of 'good' and 'bad' was an artifice required to create a starting point 

I think what is meant by a 'good culture' would be a culture where the citizenry tend to behave well. One interesting example is re-offending rates. People placed in the brutalising prison system are more likely to re-offend than those who are punished within the community (at least this is so in the uk: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/04/jail-less-effective-community-service). So we might want to say that prison is a 'bad culture' because it engenders bad behaviour.

In that sense I think the question you've asked is backward. We should look at the behaviour of people within a culture to determine if a culture is 'good' or 'bad' (rather than talking of 'good' or 'bad' cultures as having an effect upon behaviour).

Now this last point is very interesting, I shall definitely cogitated about it.

edit
------------
That is not to say the effect of the group on the individual isn't great, merely that the culture itself is not determining as to the morality of the situation. Morality, at least to my mind, is a function of behaviour, not beliefs.

Then what informs behaviour other than morality? Or is morality an abstract idea used by people to justify an emotionally motivated action?

[penfold]

Then what informs behaviour other than morality? Or is morality an abstract idea used by people to justify an emotionally motivated action?

That's a deep question.

There are many factors that impinge upon behaviour including, as your OP suggests, culture and ideology. In general the effects of groups are important. There is a lovely experiment (I've forgotten the name so I'm afraid I can't reference, if anyone knows please post a link) which shows this point well: The subject (who is unaware they are taking part in an experiment), gets in a lift. In the lift are three other people (working for the experiment), they all ride the lift facing away from the door. Despite the inherent absurdity of riding the lift facing the wrong way, over 90% of subjects ended up turning away from the door, so as to match the behaviour of the group!

[In my own life - when at school I had compulsory daily chapel, I would not bow my head during prayer. Even though I knew that nobody cared I always found it psychologically uncomfortable to be sitting upright in a sea of bowed heads. These days, if I find myself in church, I bow along with the rest of them - it's just easier to conform to the group.]

As for morality and its impact upon behaviour that is much more complex. I think in general we are all pretty astute at judging good from bad behaviour when we encounter it (leaving aside the vexed question of whether we are correct or not). So morality influences our behaviour insofar as we can pre-judge our own putative actions. Having said that, my experience is that I tend to reach a decision about what I am going to do, then hunt around for a moral justification afterwards; but I don't know how far that is true of others.


edit
-------

found it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8zlk9TZ4bA

[Crow]

How do we define what is a good cultural influence and what is a bad cultural influence? What causes society to evolve in a positive manner from a negative?

I think by looking at some of the recent natural disasters it has highlighted what cultural influences are better when people are in times of need, for example Japan was criticized for its focus on the society over the individual but when the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear scare hit it showed how positive this cultural influence was with people having a very similar approach to the British "keep calm and carry on". On the opposite Hurricane Katrina showed how a focus on individualism lead to the violence and looting that exacerbated the situation.

[Tank]

How do we define what is a good cultural influence and what is a bad cultural influence? What causes society to evolve in a positive manner from a negative?

I think by looking at some of the recent natural disasters it has highlighted what cultural influences are better when people are in times of need, for example Japan was criticized for its focus on the society over the individual but when the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear scare hit it showed how positive this cultural influence was with people having a very similar approach to the British "keep calm and carry on". On the opposite Hurricane Katrina showed how a focus on individualism lead to the violence and looting that exacerbated the situation.

I agree the definitions are critical  to progress and outcome of the discussion. Should a behaviour be classified on its combined effects on the person carrying out the behaviour and and the subject of the behaviour?

[Black36]

Would'nt it be appropriate to at least define 'good'? Obviously, we are all influenced to certain behaviors by many, many factors, but what is meant by 'good', here, in this discussion?

[Evilbeagle]

I think I have to pick up what Penfold said and run with it. Good and Bad are just labels for a value system.
What is good for one person might be bad for another.

If my children are starving to death and I can't find any other way to earn money so I rob you and steal your money.
Its good for my family but bad for you.

Some might say it is bad for society but I don't believe society actually exists.

Without going deep into sociologal argument and Frederick Tonnies' ideas about Community & Business
(Gemeinschaft & Gesellschaft), I don't really believe it truely exists other than a fairy story. No, I'm not a Commie.

I just realize no one truly cares about what is going on in the world except as it affects them and their family.
Our elected governments are in it for themselves. They get power and wealth but they don't really care.

Equally I have to ask, how do we measure "bad". If I walk into a bank with a shotgun and steal a million dollars
is that any better or worse than a white collar criminal who might embezzle or defraud and steal 100 million dollars ?

[Black36]

I think I have to pick up what Penfold said and run with it. Good and Bad are just labels for a value system.
What is good for one person might be bad for another.

If my children are starving to death and I can't find any other way to earn money so I rob you and steal your money.
Its good for my family but bad for you.

Some might say it is bad for society but I don't believe society actually exists.

Without going deep into sociologal argument and Frederick Tonnies' ideas about Community & Business
(Gemeinschaft & Gesellschaft), I don't really believe it truely exists other than a fairy story. No, I'm not a Commie.

I just realize no one truly cares about what is going on in the world except as it affects them and their family.
Our elected governments are in it for themselves. They get power and wealth but they don't really care.

Equally I have to ask, how do we measure "bad". If I walk into a bank with a shotgun and steal a million dollars
is that any better or worse than a white collar criminal who might embezzle or defraud and steal 100 million dollars ?

So, 'good' in your view only exists in the subjective sense? If this is so, then your robbery scenario is true. But, why then do we waste our time living as though reality actuallity includes objective 'good'? Such a posture is an unwarranted, self imposed, guard rail, no?

Also, what do you mean by 'society'?

[Davin]

[...]why then do we waste our time living as though reality actuallity includes objective 'good'?

I don't live that way. Or is this question directed only at those that do live like that? If yes, then you should probably make sure the person you directed the question at also lives like that before including them into said group.

[Black36]

[...]why then do we waste our time living as though reality actuallity includes objective 'good'?

I don't live that way. Or is this question directed only at those that do live like that? If yes, then you should probably make sure the person you directed the question at also lives like that before including them into said group.

I was asking Evilbeagle. But, since you jumped in: you don't live as though objective good exists, is that right?

[Davin]

[...]why then do we waste our time living as though reality actuallity includes objective 'good'?

I don't live that way. Or is this question directed only at those that do live like that? If yes, then you should probably make sure the person you directed the question at also lives like that before including them into said group.

I was asking Evilbeagle. But, since you jumped in: you don't live as though objective good exists, is that right?

Aye, that is correct.

[Black36]

[...]why then do we waste our time living as though reality actuallity includes objective 'good'?

I don't live that way. Or is this question directed only at those that do live like that? If yes, then you should probably make sure the person you directed the question at also lives like that before including them into said group.

I was asking Evilbeagle. But, since you jumped in: you don't live as though objective good exists, is that right?

Aye, that is correct.

How would you describe 'good'?

[Crow]

So, 'good' in your view only exists in the subjective sense?

I personally would agree to this, good and bad are perceptions that vary from culture to culture, country to country and can be challenged and changed. Take for example this scenario 'A person breaks into a home unaware that the inhabitants are still at home, the burglar is startled and attacks them. In self defense the inhabitants fight back and kill the burglar unintentionally'. This scenario takes a typically bad act and gives it justification to a degree, it still doesn't become a good act but deemed as less bad as the choice (if they really even had any to begin with but that's another discussion) was taken away from those that committed manslaughter.

We generally deem a good action by its positive qualities and bad because its negative qualities, however (whilst not trying to get into a debate about religion) there are acts which are endorsed by religions as a good even though the outcome of that action is a negative, same also applies to tradition and other ideologies.

If you look at western societies own evolution on good and bad, you can see many examples that today would be seen as bad, evil and immoral but considered normal back in the day.

why then do we waste our time living as though reality actuallity includes objective 'good'? Such a posture is an unwarranted, self imposed, guard rail, no?

People do this because they perceive it as real therefore it is real to them, there views on what is good and bad will change throughout their life and people generally try to do positive actions over negative as we have empathy and can perceive the negative outcome in comparison to the positive. There is also the possibility that selfishness may be involved i.e. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.".

[Davin]

How would you describe 'good'?

What is "good" is dependent on the context of what the thing is, I do not currently want to go into every imaginable context. A very general and not rigorous definition is: something which a person likes/enjoys or that which benefits a person. Usages: "The cake tasted good." or "It was good that my brother helped me."

What is your definition of "objective" in the context of the term: "objective good"?

[Black36]

I see "good" as the purpose of God, and "evil" as the violation of the purpose of God. In order to determine what is good or evil in a given situation is to evaluate the situation for what it is and then respond in a way which is parallel to God's purpose (objective evaluation). Subjective evaluations are not as helpful, in my view, because one's response is based on one's desires, which may be ok when picking an ice cream flavor, but not when on jury duty. Does this make sense, or do you need more clarity from me?

Please note, I do not believe that absolute moral judgements are synonomous with objective moral judgements, nor do I believe that absolute moral judgements are scriptural.

[Whitney]

slavery discussion split to: http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8112.0