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

[Stevil]

 

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.

Before Tank is overcome with cogitation, I would like to add my 2c to the mix.

A culture can be perceived as an aggregated observation of the actions, behaviours and responses of the individuals participating within a group or society. A culture is not a tangible, but more simply conceptual. The reason why culture is so difficult to change is because you cannot address the culture, you must address each and every person participating within the culture. People are habitual and resistant to change. They also feed off each other, so once a majority consensus or understanding is reached, it becomes hard for a smaller group or individual to impact that enough to change the overall aggregate culture of the entire group or society. People also tend to be social creatures with a desire to "fit in" and hence they often adapt to an established culture rather than remaining non conforming and being outcasts.

With this in mind it is much more likely that an individual's behaviour and thoughts are a product of the culture rather than the culture being a product of the individual.

[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.

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?

Yes. As 'Evilbeagle' wrote "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." the outcome of this action is a negative on society as a whole. There are alternatives that ensure families do not go hungry so that theft was uncalled for, even if that person was trying to do right by their family they have not looked at the external consequences of the action, that theft may have been the last straw for the person who was on the verge of bankruptcy and has placed the victim into a similar position as the criminal. Therefore it is important that we look at the classification of behavior on the actor and the subject within society.

Is there such a thing as good person and bad person? or even good and bad ideology/culture? We as humans have created our own rules in society and therefore totally subjective to the individual or majority consensus of the societies population. If there is enough public pressure laws get changed and traditions get thrown out; Children's rights are a very good example of this.