Are people good or evil?

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon May 23, 2005 10:08 am

Do you believe that people are essentially good or essentially evil, and why?

I believe people are essentially good. That is why we have a conscience. If we were evil then our conscience wouldn't weigh on us so heavily when we do hurtful things or see others being hurt.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Mon May 23, 2005 10:35 am

After working with people for a half century, and teaching children for the last 11 years, I've found that most a little of both.

But every so often, one comes along that is just "good" all over. Not a mean bone in their body.

And just as often, one comes along that is what I call, "mean-spirited" although that could be interchanged with "evil".

I used to think that the evil ones had bad parents, but the funny thing was, there was no correlation there. I saw just as many evil kids with nice parents as I did evil kids with evil parents.

So now I have no doubt. Some people are just "born mean".

john8pies · Post by **john8pies** » Mon May 23, 2005 11:03 am

I suppose MOST people are essentially good; otherwise nobody would go to the shops or work or anything because they`d be killed or their house robbed each time. some people seem to be intrinsically BAD though (child murderers, etc) and some people, I suppose, are a bit of both, more one than another, or may change according to circumstances?

Post by **spot** » Mon May 23, 2005 11:14 am

Koan, can't you reverse that sentence and find an equivalent truth from the other side? It would be something like:

' I believe people are essentially bad. That is why we can't behave well permanently however hard we try. If we were good then each next act would also be good, and yet we find that the harder we try to stay that way, the greater the pressure that builds in us to relapse into evil behavior. ' I've tried to stay close in intensity to your original statement.

In other threads, I've seen people argue that there are buffers at the end of the scale of good and evil, and that some people have existed solely up against one or other - the people I'd refer to as demonized, who can't be discussed because nobody can say any good of their thoughts, intentions or acts. (People tend not to talk about absolutely good people, for some reason, but they do talk of absolutely evil people. Strange.)

It occurs to me, though it may not be altogether relevant, that I'd rather be the beggar starving outside the gate of the rich man, watching the banquet, than the rich man at the feast. The beggar has far more opportunity for doing good than the rich man with his diversions and terrors.

I can give you a paragraph (you can find the rest if you google on a bit of it) worded far more eloquently than I could manage myself, which introduces a few additional thoughts to the thread:

' Looked at from a relative standpoint, this world of appearance is a bleak place, and as such it often drives us to despair. The seers, with their larger knowledge, tell us otherwise. Once we become conscious, even dimly, of the Atman, the Reality within us, the world takes on a very different aspect. It is no longer a court of justice, but a kind of gymnasium. Good and evil, pain and pleasure, still exist, but they seem more like the ropes and vaulting-horses and parallel bars which can be used to make our bodies strong. Maya is no longer an endlessly revolving wheel of pain and pleasure, but a ladder which can be climbed to consciousness of the Reality. From this standpoint, fortune and misfortune are both "mercies"-that is to say, opportunities. Every experience offers us the chance of making a constructive reaction to it-a reaction which helps to break some chain of our bondage to Maya and bring us that much nearer to spiritual freedom. '

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon May 23, 2005 11:20 am

koan wrote: Do you believe that people are essentially good or essentially evil, and why?

I believe people are essentially good. That is why we have a conscience. If we were evil then our conscience wouldn't weigh on us so heavily when we do hurtful things or see others being hurt.
What makes you think that everyone has a conscience Koan?

twosteaks · Post by **twosteaks** » Mon May 23, 2005 11:24 am

I believe most people to be good but greedy in life,then depending on the level of greed determains a level of evil.

When you say evil it suggests unthinkable act of cruelty, why not say "good or bad"!

cheers

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Mon May 23, 2005 12:17 pm

koan wrote: Do you believe that people are essentially good or essentially evil, and why?

I believe people are essentially good. That is why we have a conscience. If we were evil then our conscience wouldn't weigh on us so heavily when we do hurtful things or see others being hurt.
Lord of the Flies. I think there is good and evil in each of us. We choose to be good or evil. If we aren't taught to be good there is a good chance we will do what is evil or do good for with evil intent. It is the side that we feed the most, that wins. If we feed only the evil side it will smother the concience. It is the choice between good and evil that we live for. If not for that choice, what would life be about?

Hawke · Post by **Hawke** » Mon May 23, 2005 12:54 pm

"If you only knew the POWER of the Dark Side!"

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

And yes, I believe there's a bit of good and evil inside all of us.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon May 23, 2005 7:03 pm

I agree that everyone has the equal capability to do good or evil but the innate quality of the soul is good. I've never met an evil baby. If the "dark side" is ego and we do "evil" things at moments of powerlessness or greed then our ultimate mission is to overcome these moments and atone for the mistakes we have made. Of course this requires belief that the ego is representative of what we consider to be the self and that there is something more to humans than ego and our bodies.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Tue May 24, 2005 4:51 am

There are some very evil people and some very good people in this world.

Post by **spot** » Tue May 24, 2005 6:20 am

capt_buzzard wrote: There are some very evil people and some very good people in this world. Would you like to look at http://www.robertniles.com/stats/stdev.shtml and say whether that's the sort of distribution you're referring to, Captain? If not, how would you see it instead?

hotsauce · Post by **hotsauce** » Tue May 24, 2005 7:00 am

As my grandpa says, I think that "each person can be a real SOB...if they haven't shown you this side yet...then they probably haven't gained enough power".

minks · Post by **minks** » Tue May 24, 2005 8:56 am

I's say generally good, but with evil intentions deep beneath. What makes us good is the ability to supress or control the evil and learn right from wrong and our environment dictates the outcome.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Tue May 24, 2005 8:58 am

minks wrote: I's say generally good, but with evil intentions deep beneath. What makes us good is the ability to supress or control the evil and learn right from wrong and our environment dictates the outcome.Good auld Minks

Post by **spot** » Tue May 24, 2005 6:27 pm

I'm having a lot of trouble with this thread. Can I try to step back for a paragraph?

Do we call a guy a homosexual (a) because he thinks homosexual thoughts, or (b) because he looks like other homosexuals, or (c) because he goes to bed with other guys?

When you've puzzled out your position on that one, you can progress to the obvious extensions - do we call someone good (a) because he thinks good thoughts, or (b) because he looks like other good people, or (c) because does good things; and do we call someone evil (a) because he thinks evil thoughts, or (b) because he looks like other evil people, or (c) because does evil things?

Now, I predominate toward (c). It makes for interesting comparisons whichever you choose, though.

Mostly (a), you have an intrinsic born-to-be-gay/good/evil person.

Mostly (b), I'm sorry but you're into a bit of pre-judging there.

Mostly (c), you judge the guy by what he does, not the way he's born or brought up.

If he does good and evil things, is he evil? The comparison with "if he goes to bed with anything on two legs, he's still a homosexual in my book" suggests that yes, we'd see someone who did any amount of evil as being evil by definition.

There's an imbalance in the way we look at evil compared to the way we look at good. I did try saying that earlier in the thread, but I'm not sure anyone noticed. Mix black with white, and what you have isn't white any longer.

This is a dreadfully Christian notion, I've spent years trying to escape from it.

turbonium · Post by **turbonium** » Tue May 24, 2005 7:36 pm

I believe that since all people are born in innocence, that 'evil' is a concept used to describe harmful actions taken by one person against others. That does not make that person innately 'evil', but it does describe a very negative and destructive 'aspect' of their character- but not a preordained 'trait' of evil. Was Hitler 'evil'? In general terms, people would say yes, of course. But more precisely, I believe he thought in his own twisted rationale that he was justified in his horrible actions, and he did not see himself as 'evil'. He had what might be termed 'a tortured soul', in that he had inner conflicts he could not properly resolve within himself.

IMO, the essence of the soul is love (or 'good') and it is because of conflicts within the individual that 'evil' actions are carried out. The ones who hate and kill others are the ones who hate themselves, and lash outward as a reaction to their own inner conflicts.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue May 24, 2005 8:47 pm

spot wrote:

It occurs to me, though it may not be altogether relevant, that I'd rather be the beggar starving outside the gate of the rich man, watching the banquet, than the rich man at the feast. The beggar has far more opportunity for doing good than the rich man with his diversions and terrors.
i would much, much rather be the rich man, able to do good by sharing his wealth with those who are in need.

when my wife and i occasionally banter about winning the lottery, when we start to talk in specifics, the first thing that comes up is how much we'd give to our favorite charities, how we'd structure the money so that it would maximize the ability for them to make use of it effectively (a lump sum of X million dollars to a small charity could render a lot of the money wasted, while annual gifts to the charity of XX thousands of dollars would boost their coffers and keep them boosted for a long time).

i suppose that if one assumes that the rich man is implicitly evil and interested only in himself, one would rather be the beggar.

to each his own.

Post by **spot** » Tue May 24, 2005 9:09 pm

anastrophe wrote: i would much, much rather be the rich man, able to do good by sharing his wealth with those who are in need.

when my wife and i occasionally banter about winning the lottery, when we start to talk in specifics, the first thing that comes up is how much we'd give to our favorite charities, how we'd structure the money so that it would maximize the ability for them to make use of it effectively (a lump sum of X million dollars to a small charity could render a lot of the money wasted, while annual gifts to the charity of XX thousands of dollars would boost their coffers and keep them boosted for a long time).

i suppose that if one assumes that the rich man is implicitly evil and interested only in himself, one would rather be the beggar.

to each his own.And beautiful to see it is, when the rich are a benefit in the way you describe. We have them in England too. I've been associated with a few of them.

The diversions and terrors I mentioned, which a rather higher proportion of the rich suffer, are tied in with the loathesome conspicuous consumption that you can watch every day of the week, around the business center of this city and (from my experience) every other. The diversion is in the whoring and cackling and boozing and I-can-blow-money-faster-than-you extravagance. The terror is the thought that it will come to an end at some point.

I worked through the Big Bang stock market deregulation in the City of London at the height of the Thatcherite me-too "no such thing as society, only individuals" consumer boom and I tell you, it made me sick to my stomach to work alongside these people and watch it. For each of your benevolent rich guys, I saw a dozen puke their fortunes into the streets. Their successors are still partying, still wasting, still being watched by the street-sellers who would just love to be able to eat out quietly with a friend once a month.

And no, I don't see them as evil. I mourn their loss as much as I mourn the waste.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue May 24, 2005 9:32 pm

spot wrote: And beautiful to see it is, when the rich are a benefit in the way you describe. We have them in England too. I've been associated with a few of them.

The diversions and terrors I mentioned, which a rather higher proportion of the rich suffer, are tied in with the loathesome conspicuous consumption that you can watch every day of the week, around the business center of this city and (from my experience) every other. The diversion is in the whoring and cackling and boozing and I-can-blow-money-faster-than-you extravagance. The terror is the thought that it will come to an end at some point.

when the whore and cackle and booze and i-can-blow-money-faster-than-you, while they are dissipating, others are being enriched by their carelessness. that's the nature of money. when it is 'spent', someone is typically on the receiving end. so the rich man may fritter away his fortune - so what? those he frittered the money away on gained by his spendthrift.

For each of your benevolent rich guys, I saw a dozen puke their fortunes into the streets.
one of the problems with your observation is that it suffers confirmation bias. the assbite who fritters away his fortune in extravagance is rather a lot more obvious, and apparent, than the person who has amassed a fortune through hard work and honesty, who isn't looking for self-aggrandizement when he gives a third of his fortune to charity - he is looking to do good works, nothing more. so you aren't going to learn about him, unless you're a private investigator (the favored method of such true charitable acts is giving through an attorney or association, so that one can remain anonymous).

how many are there of those fine people? bit of a conundrum, that.

Post by **spot** » Tue May 24, 2005 9:41 pm

anastrophe wrote: when the whore and cackle and booze and i-can-blow-money-faster-than-you, while they are dissipating, others are being enriched by their carelessness. that's the nature of money. when it is 'spent', someone is typically on the receiving end. so the rich man may fritter away his fortune - so what? those he frittered the money away on gained by his spendthrift.Then why on earth, dear boy, is "the first thing that comes up is how much we'd give to our favorite charities, how we'd structure the money so that it would maximize the ability for them to make use of it effectively"? Either frittering it is as "so what" effective at redistribution and doing good, or it isn't.

As it happens, I agree that that's the nature of money. I don't think it's very good at mending ills. It's amazingly destructive of people who, without such excess, would have led better, more productive, more useful lives. What's good at mending ills is people, on the ground, close up, working and talking in contact with the ones who need the assistance. Money's a blind, and charitable giving through good causes is a great deceiver. Money is what lets people keep their distance, mainly to their own detriment.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue May 24, 2005 10:05 pm

spot wrote: Then why on earth, dear boy, is "the first thing that comes up is how much we'd give to our favorite charities, how we'd structure the money so that it would maximize the ability for them to make use of it effectively"? Either frittering it is as "so what" effective at redistribution and doing good, or it isn't.
perhaps you might entertain that there's some room for a reality in between the extremes. i don't recall stating, specifically, that the dissipation was equivalent to charitable works. perhaps i'm mistaken.

As it happens, I agree that that's the nature of money. I don't think it's very good at mending ills. It's amazingly destructive of people who, without such excess, would have led better, more productive, more useful lives.
but penury, destitution, lends itself to a better more productive life? ah - the extremes, even i fall to them. money can corrupt. it doesn't always.

What's good at mending ills is people, on the ground, close up, working and talking in contact with the ones who need the assistance. Money's a blind, and charitable giving through good causes is a great deceiver. Money is what lets people keep their distance, mainly to their own detriment.
and of course, the person on the ground, close up, working and talking in contact with the ones who need assistance is....a beggar? those folks need nothing to live on, to travel, to render their aid?

but of course, that narrow description of charity is, well, narrow. i can't cure cancer here on my own, in my little office. i suppose, at 45, i could rededicate my life, and go back to school, and at about 60 maybe, become a cancer researcher. it's a noble thought, but not something i'm prepared to do with my life, at this juncture. apparently, if i'm unable to cure cancer directly, i'm trying to 'keep my distance', so i may just send money to salve my conscience.

simple answers to simplistic notions.

are people good or evil?

yes.

Post by **spot** » Tue May 24, 2005 10:25 pm

I think we've reached ground which, while not necessarily common, at least uses a similar vocabulary. I have no problem with anything there in your last mail, until the final four words.

anastrophe wrote: and of course, the person on the ground, close up, working and talking in contact with the ones who need assistance is....a beggar? those folks need nothing to live on, to travel, to render their aid?Not a beggar, but certainly a peer. Not a superior, but someone working on an equal basis with his neighbors. Not someone who comes in, waves a magic wand and leaves in triumph. He may well be better educated, but I'd hope he was listening well enough for the teaching and learning to be a two-way affair. The proportion of charitable donations which goes to supporting people like that is sadly, pitifully, trivially small. Would it were greater.

anastrophe wrote: but of course, that narrow description of charity is, well, narrow. i can't cure cancer here on my own, in my little office. i suppose, at 45, i could rededicate my life, and go back to school, and at about 60 maybe, become a cancer researcher. it's a noble thought, but not something i'm prepared to do with my life, at this juncture. apparently, if i'm unable to cure cancer directly, i'm trying to 'keep my distance', so i may just send money to salve my conscience.

simple answers to simplistic notions.That's an interesting notion. Do people in general still remember Albert Schweitzer? "By the age of 29 Schweitzer had already authored three books and made valuable contributions in the fields of music, religion, and philosophy. He was an acclaimed organist and world authority on Bach, a church pastor and principal of a theological seminary, and a university professor with a doctorate in philosophy." - at which point, in order to go off and build a leper colony, he went to medical school for seven years and qualified as a doctor. With the difference in average health and lifespans, you're as alike as peas in a pod.

anastrophe wrote: are people good or evil?

yes.No, never, no. Any person, every person, is demonstrably both good and evil. That is a most pernicious "or".

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Wed May 25, 2005 10:44 am

spot wrote: Would you like to look at http://www.robertniles.com/stats/stdev.shtml and say whether that's the sort of distribution you're referring to, Captain? If not, how would you see it instead?:-2 ???

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed May 25, 2005 10:48 am

spot wrote:

Not a beggar, but certainly a peer. Not a superior, but someone working on an equal basis with his neighbors. Not someone who comes in, waves a magic wand and leaves in triumph. He may well be better educated, but I'd hope he was listening well enough for the teaching and learning to be a two-way affair. The proportion of charitable donations which goes to supporting people like that is sadly, pitifully, trivially small. Would it were greater.
i'm afraid you have a very narrow and idyllic notion of what 'doing good works' is. so, a peer. starving children in the sudan, who would be their peer? the cancer researcher i mentioned, delving into the cellular biology in hopes of finding a cure to relieve the suffering of millions - his peer is....? 'teaching and learning' are associated with some good works, and with some forms of helping others and charity. if you restrict the argument only to those kinds of works, then you're right. to blind yourself to the need for money in order to render those good works, is certainly your privilege. good luck feeding starving children in the sudan from your home in britain. i doubt that if you throw a handful of grain in the direction of the sudan, that it will reach them.

That's an interesting notion. Do people in general still remember Albert Schweitzer? "By the age of 29 Schweitzer had already authored three books and made valuable contributions in the fields of music, religion, and philosophy. He was an acclaimed organist and world authority on Bach, a church pastor and principal of a theological seminary, and a university professor with a doctorate in philosophy." - at which point, in order to go off and build a leper colony, he went to medical school for seven years and qualified as a doctor. With the difference in average health and lifespans, you're as alike as peas in a pod.
and you've either utterly missed the point of what i wrote, or are intentionally being opaque. it matters not which condition obtains. i can do good works by helping to support those who are 'in the field', by contributing money. while i could sell my home and move to the sudan in order to wield a ladle for the starving children there, i am pleased that there are people who are already doing this as their life's work, and that without the money i or others provide for grain, for transportation, for medical supplies, for shelter, such good works would not be possible.

relieving my guilt by throwing money at the problem? who cares whether that's true or not? ultimately? if a man gives ten million to try to find a cure for AIDS - does it matter whether it's because he has AIDS, or he's doing it as a tax write-off, or to salve a guilty conscience? If we second guess the motives of others for their charity and giving, then we do harm to our own spirit.

as i said before, i'd rather be a rich man capable of doing a great deal of good by sharing my wealth, than a beggar whose first priorities are food, water, and shelter for himself, and is unlikely to be able to do much in the way of good works, purely on a practical basis.

perhaps you were using 'beggar' metaphorically and not literally. then one must ask, were you using 'rich man' metaphorically as well? i've never been rich. right now, on purely a numbers basis, i'm 'poor' (though not wanting for anything). even at the height of my earnings, again nowhere near what would be considered 'a rich man', i shared my wealth. it's....unsavory.... to go into any greater detail than that. suffice to say that i am not unique. those who have attended to their own needs, and reached a level of comfort and security, far more often than not will share their 'blessings' with others. there's no doubt that there are rich men who are profligate. for that matter, there are poor people who are profligate - sometimes that's why they stay poor. the rich man who dissipates his fortune on fast cars and fast women is easily discernable. the rich man who 'dissipates' his fortune on charitable causes may be far less discernable. as it stands, the profligate rich man may be dissipating his fortune on fast cars, fast women, and charitable works. unless one has a finger in his bank statements, one can only guess. presuming the worst about others is a disease of another sort, and another discussion.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Wed May 25, 2005 10:53 am

anastrophe wrote: i i doubt that if you throw a handful of grain in the direction of the sudan, that it will reach them.

Ouch! Now that's BITING sarcasm! You're in rare form today Anastrophe!

If we second guess the motives of others for their charity and giving, then we do harm to our own spirit.

Beautifully stated. A good work is a good work, no matter where it came from or why .

presuming the worst about others is a disease of another sort, and another discussion.

And presuming the worst seems to be becoming the nrm these days. A trend that saddens me to the heart.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 25, 2005 11:39 am

anastrophe wrote: i'm afraid you have a very narrow and idyllic notion of what 'doing good works' is. so, a peer. starving children in the sudan, who would be their peer? the cancer researcher i mentioned, delving into the cellular biology in hopes of finding a cure to relieve the suffering of millions - his peer is....?You've mentioned this hypothetical figure before. He's a researcher. He's not, in my opinion, a legitimate target for charitable funding. Who, since Jonas Salk, has refused to patent in the medical arena of curing disease? If he's at University, what university isn't going to patent and sell on, to improve their funding? If he's working for Wellcome or Glaxo Smith Kline, my point is even more obvious. Why would you give a cancer researcher charitable funds, for Christ's sake? You think you're going to cure people of death? I've watched friends die of cancer, it's a darned sight better way to go than smashing up on the Interstate and going out in a blink. I've seen that too, and it's on a different plane of tragedy entirely. Throwing charitable funds at cancer research may well cure cancers. So what? It's going to be funded one way or another. I'd rather apply charitable funds where nobody else will put up the money. All that the charitable funding of cancer research is doing is increasing the shareholder profit of a bunch of multinationals who would make up the difference if it weren't happening.

anastrophe wrote: 'teaching and learning' are associated with some good works, and with some forms of helping others and charity. if you restrict the argument only to those kinds of works, then you're right. to blind yourself to the need for money in order to render those good works, is certainly your privilege. You're deliberately ignoring the bits where I say that funding is needed and welcome in this area. I did say that it was a pitiably small fraction of what's given, if you remember. Where do you see me blinding myself to the need for funding, for it to happen? I think you think I have blind spots that you'd like to point out, where I don't. I have enough real ones that you'd be better off exposing.

anastrophe wrote: good luck feeding starving children in the sudan from your home in britain. i doubt that if you throw a handful of grain in the direction of the sudan, that it will reach them.More to the point, I doubt that if I throw a handful of notes in the direction of a Help The Sudanese Eat This Year charity, that many handfuls of rice will reach them. Shall I make it easier for you to attack me? OK, here you are. Outside of famines, which are rare and which I except because it's a different circumstance (though not necessarily a different analysis), every handful of rice that arrives in the Sudan as a freebie is a destructive act. It pulls the rug out from the local farmers, it devalues their crop, it makes it uneconomic for them to plant for the following year, it puts them into the same feeding queues for the same freebie handouts that their customers are now in. I want charities that will empower the local farmers, improve their capacity to live in their villages, improve the safety of their political environment. That's a lot of charitable giving and action, but it doesn't involve shipping in rice either by the handful or by the shipload.

anastrophe wrote: and you've either utterly missed the point of what i wrote, or are intentionally being opaque. it matters not which condition obtains. i can do good works by helping to support those who are 'in the field', by contributing money. while i could sell my home and move to the sudan in order to wield a ladle for the starving children there, i am pleased that there are people who are already doing this as their life's work, and that without the money i or others provide for grain, for transportation, for medical supplies, for shelter, such good works would not be possible.

relieving my guilt by throwing money at the problem? who cares whether that's true or not? ultimately?When have I ever accused you either of guilt or of throwing money at the problem?

anastrophe wrote: if a man gives ten million to try to find a cure for AIDS - does it matter whether it's because he has AIDS, or he's doing it as a tax write-off, or to salve a guilty conscience? If we second guess the motives of others for their charity and giving, then we do harm to our own spirit.

as i said before, i'd rather be a rich man capable of doing a great deal of good by sharing my wealth, than a beggar whose first priorities are food, water, and shelter for himself, and is unlikely to be able to do much in the way of good works, purely on a practical basis.I don't think you've spent much time talking with beggars, have you. I've often found them to be the salt of the earth. That's a biblical reference, and it's an exact metaphor for what I've found. I've spent a lot of time talking with them.

anastrophe wrote: perhaps you were using 'beggar' metaphorically and not literally. then one must ask, were you using 'rich man' metaphorically as well? i've never been rich. right now, on purely a numbers basis, i'm 'poor' (though not wanting for anything).It's not possible to use the words beggar or rich man without metaphysical overtones, so yes, I mean it metaphorically to that extent. I mean it literally too. If you're not wanting for anything, and you live in America, and you don't count yourself as rich, then pardon me if I sit back and listen to several billion poor souls laugh at you with tears on their faces.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed May 25, 2005 12:58 pm

spot wrote: You've mentioned this hypothetical figure before.uh, yeah. that's why is said "i mentioned". sheesh. to what purpose is this repetition?

He's a researcher. He's not, in my opinion, a legitimate target for charitable funding. Who, since Jonas Salk, has refused to patent in the medical arena of curing disease? If he's at University, what university isn't going to patent and sell on, to improve their funding? If he's working for Wellcome or Glaxo Smith Kline, my point is even more obvious. Why would you give a cancer researcher charitable funds, for Christ's sake? You think you're going to cure people of death? I've watched friends die of cancer, it's a darned sight better way to go than smashing up on the Interstate and going out in a blink. I've seen that too, and it's on a different plane of tragedy entirely. Throwing charitable funds at cancer research may well cure cancers. So what? It's going to be funded one way or another. I'd rather apply charitable funds where nobody else will put up the money. All that the charitable funding of cancer research is doing is increasing the shareholder profit of a bunch of multinationals who would make up the difference if it weren't happening.ah, the true colors begin to shine through! the evil multinations. corporations. evil evil evil. at least we can dispense with the wide-eyed nonsense you've claimed about having no assumptions, just a poor soul trying to understand the world.

god forbid the EXAMPLE i tossed out there be taken as that, rather than as a path to follow all the way up to the evil multinationals.

You're deliberately ignoring the bits where I say that funding is needed and welcome in this area. I did say that it was a pitiably small fraction of what's given, if you remember. yes, gracious, i do remember that. your estimation is meaningless. some charities are very poor at actually putting the money to work - some in fact are scams. many others are not. because some are not as effective as others, therefore none are worthy of your quid? because some are not as effective as others, therefore the money that is given provides no benefit, under any circumstances? of course not. you are using reductio ad absurdum to condemn the use of capital to help people. i would expect no less.

Where do you see me blinding myself to the need for funding, for it to happen? I think you think I have blind spots that you'd like to point out, where I don't. I have enough real ones that you'd be better off exposing.

that, of course, is palpable.

More to the point, I doubt that if I throw a handful of notes in the direction of a Help The Sudanese Eat This Year charity, that many handfuls of rice will reach them. Shall I make it easier for you to attack me? OK, here you are. Outside of famines, which are rare and which I except because it's a different circumstance (though not necessarily a different analysis), every handful of rice that arrives in the Sudan as a freebie is a destructive act. It pulls the rug out from the local farmers, it devalues their crop, it makes it uneconomic for them to plant for the following year, it puts them into the same feeding queues for the same freebie handouts that their customers are now in. I want charities that will empower the local farmers, improve their capacity to live in their villages, improve the safety of their political environment. That's a lot of charitable giving and action, but it doesn't involve shipping in rice either by the handful or by the shipload.speaking of shiploads! so, what the above boils down to is this: let them starve. it's better for them. another example of The Vision of the Annoited. you're happy to sacrifice lives in the name of your pathetic ideology.

When have I ever accused you either of guilt or of throwing money at the problem?an example, old boy, an example. an example of a real person explaining how it works for him. and that it conflicts with your biases.

I don't think you've spent much time talking with beggars, have you.

I've often found them to be the salt of the earth. That's a biblical reference, and it's an exact metaphor for what I've found. I've spent a lot of time talking with them.think whatever you like dear boy! you are, of course, the superior being, for having mingled with the rabble. i, on the other hand, am not going to use the destitute as a pawn for argument as you are.

oh, by the way. you specifically stated "I've spent a lot of time talking with them". shall we take that as an admission that that's all you've done with them? you've not invited them into your home to eat or for shelter from the rain? oh - wait. of course you wouldn't! you'd be 'enabling' their dependence upon your magnanimity! plus, they might steal the china.

It's not possible to use the words beggar or rich man without metaphysical overtones, so yes, I mean it metaphorically to that extent. I mean it literally too. If you're not wanting for anything, and you live in America, and you don't count yourself as rich, then pardon me if I sit back and listen to several billion poor souls laugh at you with tears on their faces.i would expect you to do no less than sit back (from the comfort of your own wealth).

I'd rather be the beggar starving outside the gate of the rich man, watching the banquet, than the rich man at the feast. The beggar has far more opportunity for doing good than the rich man with his diversions and terrors.and what, precisely, is stopping you? you've said it yourself, you'd rather be a beggar, starving. you believe you'd have 'far more opportunity for doing good'.

so what's stopping you?

Post by **spot** » Wed May 25, 2005 1:35 pm

anastrophe wrote: oh, by the way. you specifically stated "I've spent a lot of time talking with them". shall we take that as an admission that that's all you've done with them? you've not invited them into your home to eat or for shelter from the rain? oh - wait. of course you wouldn't! you'd be 'enabling' their dependence upon your magnanimity! plus, they might steal the china.You do all my work for me, you really do. I think the longest I had a homeless guy off the streets that I'd never met or heard of before, a month out of prison and no idea of how to get onto his feet, sharing a house with me was six months, and by crikey it was hard going. Why on earth are you so aggressive, anastrophe? Any reasonable person reading this hijacked thread would take you for a bully-boy out looking for a fight with me.

If you check back, I'd posted two screens-worth into this thread, all on topic, before you jumped in on the one and only single paragraph which I said at the time was a possibly irrelevant aside to the main thrust of the discussion. Maybe, next time, you might cut the raw material into a new thread entirely, so that we don't put the kybosh on the discussion in progress.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed May 25, 2005 2:15 pm

spot wrote: You do all my work for me, you really do. I think the longest I had a homeless guy off the streets that I'd never met or heard of before, a month out of prison and no idea of how to get onto his feet, sharing a house with me was six months, and by crikey it was hard going. Why on earth are you so aggressive, anastrophe? Any reasonable person reading this hijacked thread would take you for a bully-boy out looking for a fight with me.
they would be correct. i dislike your ideologies, i've stated that before. but if you characterize this discussion as nothing more than that, then - well, you do all my work for me, as well. you said you'd rather be a beggar starving, than a rich man. that the beggar has far more opportunities for doing good. i countered what i see as nothing more than ivory tower masturbation with some examples that suggest the narrowness of your focus.

i'm pleased to hear you had the testicular fortitude to take a homeless ex-con into your house. i doubt i'd have that courage, but it rather depends upon the circumstances, and the person. i will not, however, discuss the specifics of my 'good works', as doing so is unseemly, and effectively cancels their true charitable basis. they become transactions for the ego, rather than charity.

If you check back, I'd posted two screens-worth into this thread, all on topic, before you jumped in on the one and only single paragraph which I said at the time was a possibly irrelevant aside to the main thrust of the discussion. Maybe, next time, you might cut the raw material into a new thread entirely, so that we don't put the kybosh on the discussion in progress.
funny. i think the question of whether the rich man can do more good works than the beggar is quite relevant to the question of 'are people good or evil'.

you seem to believe that the rich man is more likely to be evil than the beggar. or am i misreading you? you said the beggar has more opportunity to do good works. if that's so, why don't you become a beggar? you could do more good works that way.

need i point out the similarity of this to your ridiculous diversion about albert schweitzer?

Post by **spot** » Wed May 25, 2005 2:37 pm

anastrophe wrote: i will not, however, discuss the specifics of my 'good works', as doing so is unseemly, and effectively cancels their true charitable basis. they become transactions for the ego, rather than charity.I wonder how influenced you are here by "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them, otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in Heaven." - I've found that the injunction tends to be somewhat superstitiously applied, as though it were a mantra, as though letting out the bright secrets would admit the corrupting moth into the heavenly record. "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father, which is in Heaven" tends to be forgotten. Never mind. If you really think that I said what I said as a transaction for the ego, then that's the way your mind works. It's a slimy jibe.

anastrophe wrote: funny. i think the question of whether the rich man can do more good works than the beggar is quite relevant to the question of 'are people good or evil'.

you seem to believe that the rich man is more likely to be evil than the beggar. or am i misreading you? you said the beggar has more opportunity to do good works. if that's so, why don't you become a beggar? you could do more good works that way.

need i point out the similarity of this to your ridiculous diversion about albert schweitzer?There's a poem by John Davidson, the gist of which has been in my mind for decades, but I haven't a copy to hand. As old age approaches, he says, the call of the road gets stronger. Leave everything behind, take a strong pair of boots, and head out with the intention of never coming back, he says. I can think of no better way to bring my life to a positive conclusion, and I have every intention to do just that. I might point out that it's not an unusual thing to do, that millions have done it before, and that there are parts of the world where it's recognized as an honorable step to take.

The bit about Schweitzer wasn't ridiculous and it wasn't out of context. You said, in effect, "do you really think I should be so mad as to do such and such", and I gave a relevant example of someone who had done exactly that.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed May 25, 2005 3:03 pm

spot wrote: I wonder how influenced you are here by "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them, otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in Heaven." - I've found that the injunction tends to be somewhat superstitiously applied, as though it were a mantra, as though letting out the bright secrets would admit the corrupting moth into the heavenly record. "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father, which is in Heaven" tends to be forgotten. Never mind. If you really think that I said what I said as a transaction for the ego, then that's the way your mind works. It's a slimy jibe.
remarkably enough, that was not what i was suggesting, or had in mind when i wrote it. for me to do so would feel unseemly. that is why *I* won't discuss specifics. it's my problem, not yours.

There's a poem by John Davidson, the gist of which has been in my mind for decades, but I haven't a copy to hand. As old age approaches, he says, the call of the road gets stronger. Leave everything behind, take a strong pair of boots, and head out with the intention of never coming back, he says. I can think of no better way to bring my life to a positive conclusion, and I have every intention to do just that. I might point out that it's not an unusual thing to do, that millions have done it before, and that there are parts of the world where it's recognized as an honorable step to take.
sounds dandy. and i have no argument against it. if one wishes to follow that path, then by all means do so. that another man does not follow that path, and chooses to do good works in other ways, does not make them any less good works. you seem to believe that if a man is rich, and gives his money to charitable causes, he is not doing good works. he's 'distancing'. i believe that there are many good works that can be done with the help of money. providing that money is not wrong. it is no less charitable towards those who suffer, or are in need, than the actions of the worker who is actually there, providing the help by means of the funds that made it possible for them to be there.

if you believe that money is base, evil, then your perspective makes sense. i see no rational basis for saying that a destitute man can render more good works than a rich man.

The bit about Schweitzer wasn't ridiculous and it wasn't out of context. You said, in effect, "do you really think I should be so mad as to do such and such", and I gave a relevant example of someone who had done exactly that.
it was ridiculous because it utterly misses the point. but if the point still eludes you, there's further no sense in my reiterating it.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 25, 2005 3:23 pm

anastrophe wrote: remarkably enough, that was not what i was suggesting, or had in mind when i wrote it. for me to do so would feel unseemly. that is why *I* won't discuss specifics. it's my problem, not yours.I know perfectly well why I discussed specifics. It was in response to your blackguardly personal smear for which you should feel utterly ashamed of yourself:

oh, by the way. you specifically stated "I've spent a lot of time talking with them". shall we take that as an admission that that's all you've done with them? you've not invited them into your home to eat or for shelter from the rain? oh - wait. of course you wouldn't! you'd be 'enabling' their dependence upon your magnanimity! plus, they might steal the china.

anastrophe wrote: sounds dandy. and i have no argument against it. if one wishes to follow that path, then by all means do so. that another man does not follow that path, and chooses to do good works in other ways, does not make them any less good works. you seem to believe that if a man is rich, and gives his money to charitable causes, he is not doing good works. he's 'distancing'. i believe that there are many good works that can be done with the help of money. providing that money is not wrong. it is no less charitable towards those who suffer, or are in need, than the actions of the worker who is actually there, providing the help by means of the funds that made it possible for them to be there.

if you believe that money is base, evil, then your perspective makes sense. i see no rational basis for saying that a destitute man can render more good works than a rich man.You do know, I suppose, that what you claim I say is getting further and further from what I did say? "I'd rather be the beggar starving outside the gate of the rich man, watching the banquet, than the rich man at the feast. The beggar has far more opportunity for doing good than the rich man with his diversions and terrors." - more opportunity, not "render more good works". Of course a rich guy can buy more action, get more done, have more impact on a large scale. The guy on the street has far more opportunity, he's there, he's faced with people in need like himself day after day. Of course he has more opportunity.

anastrophe wrote: it was ridiculous because it utterly misses the point. but if the point still eludes you, there's further no sense in my reiterating it.It wouldn't be re-iterating, it would be an initial iteration - you've not made the point, whatever point it is, regarding your (I still paraphrase for clarity) "do you really think I should be so mad as to do such and such", clear even once yet. In what way is Schweitzer, who did, not germane?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed May 25, 2005 6:18 pm

spot wrote: I know perfectly well why I discussed specifics. It was in response to your blackguardly personal smear for which you should feel utterly ashamed of yourself:

oh, by the way. you specifically stated "I've spent a lot of time talking with them". shall we take that as an admission that that's all you've done with them? you've not invited them into your home to eat or for shelter from the rain? oh - wait. of course you wouldn't! you'd be 'enabling' their dependence upon your magnanimity! plus, they might steal the china.i regret that i'm unable to feel utterly ashamed of myself. your umbrage is duly noted. i already acknowledged that you're a better man than i for taking a homeless ex-con into your home. now who's picking fights?

You do know, I suppose, that what you claim I say is getting further and further from what I did say? "I'd rather be the beggar starving outside the gate of the rich man, watching the banquet, than the rich man at the feast. The beggar has far more opportunity for doing good than the rich man with his diversions and terrors." - more opportunity, not "render more good works". Of course a rich guy can buy more action, get more done, have more impact on a large scale. The guy on the street has far more opportunity, he's there, he's faced with people in need like himself day after day. Of course he has more opportunity.
likewise, you're careering out of control away from what you wrote. 'the guy on the street' is certainly not 'a beggar', if you're claiming he's out there rendering assistance every day. unless we are to believe the beggar takes his beggings and spends them on food and shelter for others, before thinking of himself. while unfair, the general experience i've had is that beggars take their beggings and buy booze, cigarettes, and or drugs. the general experience. there have been several exceptions in my experience as well.

It wouldn't be re-iterating, it would be an initial iteration - you've not made the point, whatever point it is, regarding your (I still paraphrase for clarity) "do you really think I should be so mad as to do such and such", clear even once yet. In what way is Schweitzer, who did, not germane?dear, dear boy. you have but to go back, take off the blinkers, and *read* what i wrote, and thus it will be revealed that this is reiteration. here, i've brought forth the relevant sentence, that followed immediately the sentence about becoming a cancer researcher, which is what you jumped off into your fanciful stories about the lovely dr. schweitzer, and how i could do it too. read, love, read:

it's a noble thought, but not something i'm prepared to do with my life, at this juncture. apparently, if i'm unable to cure cancer directly, i'm trying to 'keep my distance', so i may just send money to salve my conscience.

apparently, you will admit no possibility that if i should send a check to an organization [searching for a cure for cancer, a cure for alzheimers, an organization that makes prosthetic devices for those crippled by disease, a charitable hospital that tends to the destitute, a famine relief organization making the difference between a three year old child dying of hunger or living another day, a rescue organization tending to animals that have been abused or abandoned, and possible ten thousand other worthy needs] that i am doing something that is actually good, a good work by making possible other good works, rather than merely 'buying salvation' (hey, i can paraphrase too, how neat is that!)

the point, mon frere, was not that it is ridiculous for me to become a cancer researcher, the point, mon frere, is that those who *are already* out there doing good works need money in order to continue doing them, and that many of those good works are ones that, as nice as the thought of rededicating my life to doing them myself, i *don't need to*, because there are people far more capable than myself, who are *already* doing it, and who need money to be able to do it.

you have made it clear that you believe that giving money to assist charitable, good works, is mere perfidy - salving one's conscience, distancing, etc - and not a good work in itself.

"The beggar has far more opportunity for doing good than the rich man". seems quite clear to me what you're saying. i reject that. you embrace it. this is not wholey surprising, considering.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 26, 2005 10:14 pm

anastrophe wrote: you have made it clear that you believe that giving money to assist charitable, good works, is mere perfidy - salving one's conscience, distancing, etc - and not a good work in itself.

"The beggar has far more opportunity for doing good than the rich man". seems quite clear to me what you're saying. i reject that. you embrace it. this is not wholey surprising, considering.I've taken a while to consider the basis on which I think as I do, and as I have described my position in this second section of the thread. Now, you may think that the following two quoted passages are irrelevant to my mindset, you may even think that they're too long to put up inside a forum like this, but since you've swung the debate in this direction and I (however mistakenly) believe that this is the core of a reasonable understanding of the merits of rich man, poor man, beggar man and thief, I am emboldened to put the material on record. Besides, it's almost poetry, even if it is rather anti-capitalist. And it may even have a place in a discussion about people being good or evil.

Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.

"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"

"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

"Which ones?" the man inquired.

Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself."

"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri May 27, 2005 1:39 am

point, set, and match!

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri May 27, 2005 1:57 am

since i find scripture-quoting to be intensely boring and impressively unappealing....

I had been proud of my awareness, aware of my pride, and proud of that awareness again. It went on like this: how clever I am that I know I am so stupid, how stupid I am to think that I am clever, and how clever I am that I am aware of my stupidity, etc.

-Janwillem Van de Wetering

The problem is that ego can convert anything to its own use, even spirituality. Ego is constantly attempting to acquire and apply the teachings of spirituality for its own benefit.

-ChÃƒÂ¶gyam Trungpa

Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.

-AndrÃƒÂ© Gide

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri May 27, 2005 6:16 am

Though anastrophe already said something about it...a while ago I was going to write that anyone caught quoting scripture outside of the Christianity forum would have the wrath of Shiva unleashed on their keyboard. I'm still considering writing it.

Post by **spot** » Fri May 27, 2005 10:58 am

I see the point of banning the use of any scriptures for evangelical purposes, and indeed evangelism in toto, anywhere on a bulletin board. It's just that when the topic has got round, through other means, to a discussion of rich men, beggars, the giving of money to assist charitable good works, salving one's conscience and distancing oneself from the great unwashed, it tends overwhelmingly toward the beatitudes and the needle's eye. I've resisted the temptation to quote Tull - "You have the whole damn thing all wrong, He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays" - but only just.

I do wish, though, that people would stop thinking Jesus was some sort of God whose attitude to life was mysteriously different from everyone else's. He's just this guy who got out on the streets and partied with the uninvited. Since, however, people feel that quoting him even in context is an unfair practice, I shall henceforth refrain.

Lizzie Love · Post by **Lizzie Love** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:37 pm

Every person is essentially good, EGO is evil, get out of his domain and within every person you meet you will see yourself, then ask the question.

namaste

Lizzie Love :-4

ggmuze · Post by **ggmuze** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 1:34 pm

spot wrote: It occurs to me, though it may not be altogether relevant, that I'd rather be the beggar starving outside the gate of the rich man, watching the banquet, than the rich man at the feast. The beggar has far more opportunity for doing good than the rich man with his diversions and terrors.

I am really very confused by this disjunct statement. I gather that your overall intent here is to say that the beggar is inherently good because he has the possibility of prospering and the rich man is inherently bad becuse he does not offer his money and, by default, his life as means to lift this poor man from his dreadful state? If this is your statment then I have some questions for you:

How did the rich man get to where he is in the first place? By someone else picking him up, as you suggest? Is that likely? Also, what are these "diversions and terrors" that you speak of, and how are they ones that the beggar does not also have? I'm sure that you would not claim that the poor man is an unequal human to the rich man, therefore why would not to equal humans have the same "diversions and terrors?"

Those that seek to "reach out" and "give to those who have none" exist only because there are people there to depend on them. What would the "giver" do if there was no one left to need anything?

The fact this situation is idealistic and probably not possible is irrelevant. The point is when a "giver" convinces a man that "need" is the more virtuous, then that mentality breeds itself endlessly. It only makes the "giver" stronger, and the man with less continue in a static state of living.... or not living as the case may be.

So Spot, what do you really mean?

gimli3 · Post by **gimli3** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:01 am

Your friends are Good.

Your enemies are Evil.

:-5

ggmuze · Post by **ggmuze** » Wed Aug 17, 2005 11:23 pm

gimli3 wrote: Your friends are Good.

Your enemies are Evil.

That is an EXTREMELY subjective basis. The Allies were Hitler's enemies... did that make them Evil?

gimli3 · Post by **gimli3** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:25 am

koan wrote: Do you believe that people are essentially good or essentially evil, and why?

I believe people are essentially good. That is why we have a conscience. If we were evil then our conscience wouldn't weigh on us so heavily when we do hurtful things or see others being hurt.

:-5

Evil! of course!

Read your Hobbes.

"People will always do bad by you unless they are forced to be virtuous": The Prince.

I'm just feeling that way out today.

:mad:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:02 am

koan wrote: Do you believe that people are essentially good or essentially evil, and why?
Yes.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:32 am

Accountable wrote: Yes.
Can't argue with that.

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:24 pm

gimli3 wrote: Your friends are Good.

Your enemies are Evil.

:-5

Oh yes...but what made the evil ones turn bad ?

Cause and effect.....a huge subject and firmly entrenched in Buddhist beliefs which I am studying.

To my mind, all babies are born totally innocent....even the naughty little buggers.....environment, upbringing, events and traumas in their lives all have consequences.....BUT i also think that some people CHOOSE the path they follow through greed, misguided beliefs and hatred.

Then we come on to the sick individuals who have mental problems...yeh...a truly huge subject.

gimli3 · Post by **gimli3** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:44 am

Bez wrote: Oh yes...but what made the evil ones turn bad ?

Cause and effect.....a huge subject and firmly entrenched in Buddhist beliefs which I am studying.

To my mind, all babies are born totally innocent....even the naughty little buggers.....environment, upbringing, events and traumas in their lives all have consequences.....BUT i also think that some people CHOOSE the path they follow through greed, misguided beliefs and hatred.

Then we come on to the sick individuals who have mental problems...yeh...a truly huge subject.

:-5

:-5

What makes the innocent turn evil?

Human institutions, maybe.

Churches, certainly!

Nasty! Nasty things!