Good and Bad people?

[Tank]

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

I'm not sure I agree with this. Is it religion that makes good people do bad things or is it simply peer pressure?

[Ali]

I think good people can do bad things for all sorts of reasons.  Simply because, while people may be mostly good, they won't be perfect.  They'll still make stupid/bad decisions, or be in bad situations where there aren't any real "good" moves, or whatever.

[Asmodean]

One thing I do know: It does NOT take religion for bad people to do good things.

[Guardian85]

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

I'm not sure I agree with this. Is it religion that makes good people do bad things or is it simply peer pressure?

While there certainly are exeptions to this rule, there are myriad examples of generally good people doing f¤¤ked ups things in the name of faith. Jews and newborn boys comes to mind... 

[Twentythree]

I'm not sure that I fully agree with that sentiment. Religion is not the only setting where evil acts can be fostered. Good people will do what may be considered socially "bad" or "evil" but they will be under the false impression that the actions they are undertaking are noble and honorable. None of the 9/11 terrorist thought to themselves..."today I am going to do something evil" They woke up and thought "today I am doing something heroic". In certain groups of people this level of martyrdom was hailed as the most heroic act an individual could accomplish. So religion did not give means to justify evil acts; it created the framework in which evil acts are regarded as heroic. The same thing occurred during the 3rd Reich, thousands of German people and soldiers were acting in ways that to the rest of the world in hindsight seem to be the epitome of evil. But Hitler had created a framework where in which the advancement of the German peoples and the pursuit of genetic purity were regarded as the highest values. This meant that acts of atrocity were viewed as acts of heroism as long as they advanced the overarching goals of the group. I think that political affiliation, social in group out group association and family pressures can all create an environment in which basically good people act in a way that could be viewed as evil by those outside of those groups in which he/she affiliates. This line of though naturally veers toward what is good and evil and the subjective interpretation of moral values. But I think that digression is best left out of this post. In short  religion is not the only culprit of creating an environment where evils acts can be interpreted as valor, thus making good men "appear" evil.

[Melmoth]

To say that "good people" can even do "bad things" automatically makes a distinction between intention and consequence. So it weighs morality in three stages:

intention ---> action ---> consequence.

Someone is upset and I want to console them (good intention) ---> I say something which, I think, is consoling (action) ---> It makes them more upset (bad consequence). I am a "good person" who has done a "bad thing." And I did it without the prodding of religion.

I think good people do bad things because they misjudge the situation. General ignorance can make good people do bad things. Religion can achieve this too, assuming that it misjudges the nature of the universe, but it certainly isn't needed.

[En_Route]

I'm not sure that I fully agree with that sentiment. Religion is not the only setting where evil acts can be fostered. Good people will do what may be considered socially "bad" or "evil" but they will be under the false impression that the actions they are undertaking are noble and honorable. None of the 9/11 terrorist thought to themselves..."today I am going to do something evil" They woke up and thought "today I am doing something heroic". In certain groups of people this level of martyrdom was hailed as the most heroic act an individual could accomplish. So religion did not give means to justify evil acts; it created the framework in which evil acts are regarded as heroic. The same thing occurred during the 3rd Reich, thousands of German people and soldiers were acting in ways that to the rest of the world in hindsight seem to be the epitome of evil. But Hitler had created a framework where in which the advancement of the German peoples and the pursuit of genetic purity were regarded as the highest values. This meant that acts of atrocity were viewed as acts of heroism as long as they advanced the overarching goals of the group. I think that political affiliation, social in group out group association and family pressures can all create an environment in which basically good people act in a way that could be viewed as evil by those outside of those groups in which he/she affiliates. This line of though naturally veers toward what is good and evil and the subjective interpretation of moral values. But I think that digression is best left out of this post. In short  religion is not the only culprit of creating an environment where evils acts can be interpreted as valor, thus making good men "appear" evil.

I concur 100%. The science of evil by Simon Baron-Cohen casts a lot of light on this topic.

[Stevil]

What is a good person?
What is a bad person?

Strange concept that, seems more like a justification for war.

[Sweetdeath]

Good and bad are very broad  terms. :< I suppose it's hard to argue them.

[Stevil]

You can judge actions right?
In terms of good and bad, in-so-far-as however you define good and bad.
At what stage to you decide to judge the person?
Is it when their bad actions are more frequent than their good actions?
Is it when their bad actions are really, really bad (e.g rapist, pedophile, murderous dictator, murderous activist/terrorist)
Is it if they are generally perceived to be selfish?
Is it if they are generally perceived to not adhere to the golden rule?

[Ali]

You can judge actions right?
In terms of good and bad, in-so-far-as however you define good and bad.
At what stage to you decide to judge the person?
Is it when their bad actions are more frequent than their good actions?
Is it when their bad actions are really, really bad (e.g rapist, pedophile, murderous dictator, murderous activist/terrorist)
Is it if they are generally perceived to be selfish?
Is it if they are generally perceived to not adhere to the golden rule?

I'd say yes to all of those. 

[Stevil]

You can judge actions right?
In terms of good and bad, in-so-far-as however you define good and bad.
At what stage to you decide to judge the person?
Is it when their bad actions are more frequent than their good actions?
Is it when their bad actions are really, really bad (e.g rapist, pedophile, murderous dictator, murderous activist/terrorist)
Is it if they are generally perceived to be selfish?
Is it if they are generally perceived to not adhere to the golden rule?

I'd say yes to all of those. 

We all act primarily for selfish reasons.
We represent ourselves in the whatever way we perceive as best for ourselves.
Some people don't:
commit crimes because selfishly they don't want to go to prison
lie because selfishly they want others to trust them
act mean because selfishly they want others to like them

Some people do:
Treat others with love and respect because selfishly they want others to love and respect them.
Help out others because selfishly they want others to help them in times of need.

Are we to judge people based on their intent? Are we to become a god and self righteously judge people as to whether they are good or bad people?
Once we have made this judgement, what are we to do next? Burn the bad people to death?

[Ali]

Whoah, I don't know how we got from "Yes I believe that rapists are bad people" to "Shall we burn them at the stake?"

I disagree that we primarily do things for selfish reasons.  That's such a negative and cynical view of goodness.  I believe it is possible to do things because we know it is the right thing to do, and not for some manipulative desire for a return.

Let me give you an example from my personal life.  I have a coworker that is in a support position who has made it very difficult and unpleasant to work with over the past 6+ months.  At Christmastime, we traditionally get the support staff presents to thank them for their help.  No one wanted to get this coworker a present because she is such a PITA, but I knew that would be wrong, so I got her one anyway.  I did this knowing that it wouldn't ingratiate me to her (it didn't) and that I wouldn't get a thank you (I didn't), but because whatever our personality conflicts, she still supports our accounts and still deserves a thank you for that.

It's possible to do the right thing without being overly concerned with receiving an award for it.

[Mocha Chief]

I'm really not sure if I agree with this or not. I've read certain parts of the Bible and seen where "God" has told his followers to do some fucked up things, and where he has said certain things are alright. But regardless, I'm just not positive on it

[Stevil]

Whoah, I don't know how we got from "Yes I believe that rapists are bad people" to "Shall we burn them at the stake?"

Not personally attacking you or anyone, just wondering what we are to do with our judgements.
The god of the bible supposedly burns the bad people to death according to AD, others may feel the bad people get tortured for all eternity.
Atheist whom judge, I'm not sure what they expect, beyond criminal judgement and legal justice.

I disagree that we primarily do things for selfish reasons.

I disagree with this. I feel the vast majority of what we do is for selfish reasons, we can't make decisions for other people, we can only make decisions for ourselves.

That's such a negative and cynical view of goodness.  I believe it is possible to do things because we know it is the right thing to do, and not for some manipulative desire for a return.

I have no view of goodness. It seems too magical to me. I don't believe in goodness or badness. I have no view of the right thing to do, well, not an objective right, not a right that I can apply onto others. I try to make informed decisions, I try to represent myself as best as I can, I try to contribute towards my society in a way that hopefully promotes (influences) the behaviors that I want society to reflect back onto me.
I do not have negative feelings towards the concept of selfishness. Selfishness is the only way I can behave but with much forethought my actions may not appear to be selfish when observed by a third party.

Let me give you an example from my personal life.  I have a coworker that is in a support position who has made it very difficult and unpleasant to work with over the past 6+ months.  At Christmastime, we traditionally get the support staff presents to thank them for their help.  No one wanted to get this coworker a present because she is such a PITA, but I knew that would be wrong, so I got her one anyway.  I did this knowing that it wouldn't ingratiate me to her (it didn't) and that I wouldn't get a thank you (I didn't), but because whatever our personality conflicts, she still supports our accounts and still deserves a thank you for that.

That sounds like very good reasoning. I wouldn't classify it as the right thing to do (nor the wrong thing to do), but you are best to decide with regards to your own actions and what is right for you.