Loosing Faith in Goodness

[moi621 (imported)]

A Moi crisis.

Why be a "good" person?

The assholes always seem to win.

If not the rich pig, the aggregate of some who are empowered to decide, who are them and feel the truth is not the truth but, what a majority gossip declare it to be.

It is like the times become amoral step by step and I just want to fortress myself in my home.

It is as if most do not acknowledge what is wrong or evil.

Everything is just Okay, to them, along with some other associations. Church, Sports Clubs, Indian Guides.

Why Bother <sigh> trying to be a good person.

Fortress Moi under consideration.

[MacTheWolf (imported)]

There's nothing wrong with a fortress mentality, I have one. If it were within my means, I'd choose to live behind high walls and or in a dungeon. Though, in my case, it might be that I'm getting a wee grey in the temples

[Batman (imported)]

Doing good or doing bad is a personal choice. I don't gain pleasure from causing others to suffer. If on the other hand, I can make someone happy, then I feel good too.

I prefer to focus on what is within my means to control as opposed to focusing on the corruption of Government/Business/Celebrity

Batman

[bobweekend (imported)]

watching a boi writhe in pain can be very exciting, but only if that is what the boi needs. I am a sadistic top, but I only do what is needed. so am I being good or bad?

[bobover3 (imported)]

Moi, first you need some idea of what goodness is. It's not obvious. Philosophers have wrestled with that question since the dawn of civilization.

There's a growing body of evidence that there's a universal ethics which is actually genetically encoded - a "bioethics." For a good example, read last Sunday's NY Times magazine, where there's an article about the innate ethics of babies! These simple rules, which seem to be built into our species, are probably the basis of goodness.

All the rest are the rules created by particular cultures. These rules may not be intended to benefit individuals, but to benefit the culture as whole. It's like macroeconomics - viable economic systems have differential rewards, intended to encourage certain sorts of behavior that advance the general good, and this may entail harming individuals. Ethics works the same. Read Socrates and Plato - their philosophy was not at all benevolent to individuals. Rather, it sought to advance the general good, and was ready to sacrifice individuals to that end. When you look at your life and the lives of others, don't assume that the world should make you happy and give you everything you want. That's not ethics, it's just selfishness and vanity.

I believe the key to personal content is to stop asking what others are doing for you or to you, and start asking what you can do to make things better. This will usually involve doing good for others, if only to motivate them to do good for you. An alternative is to see yourself as buffeted by events outside your control, in which case worrying is futile. Your choices are to take control of your life, or to relinquish all control. The middle path is agony.

Rather than thinking about why the world isn't a better place, i.e., why others don't live to make you happy, think about what you can do to make yourself happy.

[A-1 (imported)]

...

These rules may not be intended to benefit individuals, but to benefit the culture as whole. It's like macroeconomics - viable economic systems have differential rewards, intended to encourage certain sorts of behavior that advance the general good, and this may entail harming individuals. Ethics works the same. Read Socrates and Plato - their philosophy was not at all benevolent to individuals. Rather, it sought to advance the general good, and was ready to sacrifice individuals to that end. When you look at your life and the lives of others, don't assume that the world should make you happy and give you everything you want. That's not ethics, it's just selfishness and vanity.

I believe the key to personal content is to stop asking what others are doing for you or to you, and start asking what you can do to make things better. This will usually involve doing good for others, if only to motivate them to do good for you. An alternative is to see yourself as buffeted by events outside your control, in which case worrying is futile. Your choices are to take control of your life, or to relinquish all control. The middle path is agony.

Rather than thinking about why the world isn't a better place, i.e., why others don't live to make you happy, think about what you can do to make yourself happy.

Congratulations, Bob, written as if by a TRUE Communist...

...how DID you DO that?

[bobover3 (imported)]

Damn! I held myself back from saying this was Republicanism, because I didn't want to politicize the DDC. I guess Republicans are the true Communists.

[Riverwind (imported)]

Moi, its all about Carma.

River

[transward (imported)]

A Moi crisis.

Why be a "good" person?

The assholes always seem to win.

If not the rich pig, the aggregate of some who are empowered to decide, who are them and feel the truth is not the truth but, what a majority gossip declare it to be.

It is like the times become amoral step by step and I just want to fortress myself in my home.

It is as if most do not acknowledge what is wrong or evil.

Everything is just Okay, to them, along with some other associations. Church, Sports Clubs, Indian Guides.

Why Bother <sigh> trying to be a good person.

Fortress Moi under consideration.

If you are kind, or loving or good in the expectation of gain, you are not kind, or loving or good, you are simply a businessperson. I have been around people with loving, good souls, and around those with constricted, bitter, angry, souls. Whatever the future holds, in the present, believe me it is better to have a loving kind soul.

Transward

[gareth19 (imported)]

Damn! I held myself back from saying this was Republicanism, because I didn't want to politicize the DDC. I guess Republicans are the true Communists.

Yes, they are indeed; there is little difference between Mao and Reagan, between Stalin and Dubya; though they approach it from different ends the result is the same whether business is become the government or the government is to become the economy, you get the same result: shoddy mechandise and incompetent management privileged by their position in party politics with no real abilities or vision. The politburo or Goldman-Sachs, it is the same level of self-serving assholes.