An Introduction to Ethics

9/12/2008.

There's a difference between a good person doing good things for the good reason and good people doing good things for bad reasons. Good people doing good things for bad reasons actually aren't good - they are bad.

The reason good people do good things is because they actually are good. It is not because they expect to be or want to be rewarded for doing good, or being good only if you are good to them 1st. Bad people will do good things only if they will benefit from doing good or if they have a reason to. Not only will bad people do good things in return for reward, but they will do bad things if they will benefit from doing it.

This is what it means to sympathize with those less fortunate than you. Bad people argue they need a good reason to be good, such as like if you were good to them 1st, and that's the wrong way to be good.

People whom don't do evil, but approve of those that do it, are themselves evil. People whom have evil ideas or intentions but don't practice them are also evil. People whom allow evil are evil. Something that is a guide to moral agents that cannot distinguish good from evil is itself evil. The world is dangerous not because of those that do bad or evil, but those that do nothing about others doing it.

Not only are people judged on what they do do, but they are also evaluated on what they don't do. A human being isn't just good/bad by the good/bad things they do do, but also by the good/bad things they don't do. There's a whole line of difference between things done and things should have done.

If I found out about an incident where someone had been put in a position where if I had that same circumstances I felt was unfair, then I would do something about it/be against it. Even though the incident does not apply to me, I would still defend the victims affected by it since I am against it in principle.

This is why we have a moral obligation to live for others, not in accordance to Objectivism as founded by Ayn Rand. In order to not be evil, we have a moral obligation to live for others.

Logics of the Golden Rule.

Equal reputation: If a person you don't like does something you don't like, then a person you do like that does the same thing the person you didn't like does, you should be against it in the same way. If *anyone* does something you don't like or are against, that doesn't justify that someone you do like doing the same thing should be okay in your own moral code.

Opinions.

All opinions are the same regardless of who holds them. If someone you don't like has an opinion that you don't like, then if someone you do like has the same opinion as that of someone you don't like, you should treat the opinion the same regardless of who holds it.

Insults.

When getting insulted by someone, a counter-insult should not be worse than the original insult. And of course, a counter-insult is completely unnecessary if it is irrelevant.

1 must have a specific reason, in reference to a specific incident and time, in order to not like someone. 1 cannot simply not like someone "just because" or due to "general annoyance." If 1 cannot remember why they do not like someone, then they simply don't have a good reason to not like someone.

You should defend something if you find a flaw in the criticism argument, not simply "just because."

Situations as found in nature.

Instinctively, people like all things and people that are useful to them. The ability to be useful, is crucial to them. This is why it's easier to want to make friends with someone with authority or is rich, than with a homeless person. This is why popular people tend to associate and make friends with those that are popular than those that do not have much friends. For as long as there are people that are bummed out about others having more or better genetic attributes, we could never have a perfectly fair world.

Unfortunately, no matter how much people have, it burns up some people that others have more. Therefore, they must have as much as everyone else, or there will be trouble.

While people are created equal - they are not created identical. Some have better musical ability. Some have better looks. As a result, even in a perfectly fair world, some will do better than others. (There's also a lot of luck.)

To even out the results and keep the people who can't live with others having more then them happy would require constantly slamming down those who, by luck or skill, excel.

Those that don't do as well will not allow those that do better to have more. Nobody would be happy if we constantly tried to equalize everyone's results, for example, by giving music lessons only to those who "really need them" because they are the worst at music.

Why or when is something good?

Just as water is good for a plant when it furthers the life of that plant (and too much water can be bad because it does not), so things are good for people when it furthers their life as human beings. Rational people consider good that which actually benefits them in their attempt to live as a human being.

Note that "goodness" is not an inherent quality in the thing. Water is not "good" for a plant because under some circumstances, water can kill a plant. Nor is good or bad arbitrary, whatever you think it is. All the knowledge considering it good in the world won't make sand as good for a thirsty plant as water.

The "goodness" is the relationship between the thing judged and the thing it is good for. Water is good for a thirsty plant because water can actually further the life of that thirsy plant. Water is actually bad for a drowning plant because it cannot further its life and can harm it.

For living things, life is the standard. Without life, there would be no "good" or "bad" because outcomes wouldn't matter.

Added 7/30/2009.

If by evil, you mean the ability to do bad things, then humans are certainly born with the ability to do bad things. Of course, they are also born with the ability to do good things. In this sense, malaria and earthquakes are evil, even though they cannot make any choices.

But normally, by 'good' and 'evil' we mean the choices people make. You don't put a hammer in jail for killing someone, you put the person who wielded it. A person cannot, by nature, make choices some particular way. Otherwise, they would not be choices.

So in the moral sense of evil, something cannot be evil by nature. To do evil, 1 must *choose* to cause harm. And people don't choose their nature.

8/12/2010.

The argument against treating someone with disrespect if they don't respect you.