Over the weekend I got into another philosophical debate with my friend William, and here is the organized result of what I learned:
Most people think of a bad person as someone who does bad things to people, and a good person is a person who does nice things to people. Well for this discussion, 'good person' is going to mean something a little different. See, to me, there are certain rights of individuals that people should never violate. These are the criteria I feel measure 'good' and 'bad'. The interpretation of these 'rights' can potentially vary from person to person based on their perspective of life. I feel like it should be constant across everyone, but realize any moral acting as a constant with everyone is wistful thinking. In any case, I feel these rights are limited to 'not stealing from someone', and 'not harming innocent people', whether it's physical harm or otherwise. If the intent is to harm an innocent person, you're violating that person's right. So during the course of my argument, when I say 'bad things', these things and only these things am I referring to.
Now, imagine if you will, a scale upon which your 'good' and 'bad' are measured, a scale which measures your moral integrity, aka scale#1. But like I said above, for this argument, 'good' doesn't mean doing good things to people, like a service project, but instead I'm going to use it in the context of 'someone who doesn't do bad things'. So on this scale that measures 'good' and 'bad', the bad people are people who violate the rights I listed above, a good person is simply someone who
does not violate those rights of others and means nothing beyond that.
Now, imagine an entirely separate scale, one that measures a different kind of good and bad, what I'm going to call selfish and selfless, aka scale#2. Beyond the violation of rights, there's another part of life that can be measured, and that's how we act towards other people which is, again, completely separate from what rights we do or don't violate. On one side of this scale, we have a 'selfish' person, who really only cares about himself, he's out to fulfill his wants and needs and no one else's. He's rude, he's mean, he's selfish and greedy, and in fact he's just a complete jerk overall. On the other side of the scale is the paragon of benevolence, a selfless person who strives to find those in need and render aid where ever he can. He's kind, thoughtful, giving and honest, the kind of guy you like to be around.
Now to present one part of my argument: the person who violates the rights of innocent people and the person who gives and serves continually are
not opposites of each other, they are being measured on separate scales, and for the sake of this argument, have nothing to do with each other.
Since we have two scales, we have 4 unique combinations now, and any number of 'blend' combinations, but lets just touch on the full-on combinations. Let's take the person who harms innocent people, let's say...a gangster (such as the one in the picture, Russell Crowe in the movie
3:10 to Yuma), who steals and kills and blackmails people, all kinds of violation of rights. Now on the other scale, he's on the 'good' side in that outside of his life of crime, he's very kind and gentle to people, he's giving and charismatic and thoughtful. You see this type of person all the time in movies, the likable charismatic villain, who, despite being a thief and murderer, seems like a good guy. Of course, you can have the 'mobster' who is on the 'jerk' side of the scale#2 making him a 'bad' person and also a 'selfish' person. Even worse.
The opposite of that person is, of course, the person who doesn't violate any rights and in addition to that is caring and kind and serving and so on. Great, good for him, you've got a stand up citizen there worthy of an award of some kind. However, you can also have the person who doesn't violate any rights but in all other ways is a complete ass. This person often gets a bad rap from society, wrongfully judged by many as 'worse' than the mobster who appears to be a saint on the surface.
The second part of my argument is this:
It's more important to be 'good' side of scale#1 than it is to be on the 'selfless' side of scale#2. It is my argument that scale#1 always trumps scale#2 in importance. The selfish jerk who isn't violating innocent people's rights is infinitely more desirable than the paragon of benevolence who steals and/or harms innocent people. You can't harm people or steal things, and then justify it by going out and doing a good deed, they're on separate scales, they simply don't cancel each other out. Now whether doing a good deed for someone cancels out a mean thing you did to someone, say....make fun of them(for a tame example), whether
those cancel each other out, that's not for me to say but at least they're on the same scale.
So then, in my view of things, I'll admit there's gray area on both scales. Very few people are going to tip in 100% on the side of 'selfless' on scale#2, most of us are are good to everyone but can sometimes let our emotions get the best of us and, whether intentionally or unintentionally, end up being that 'jerk' to at least a few people. Similarly, very few people are going to be a complete jerk to
everyone and will most likely be nice and considerate to at least a few people. On scale#1, there's gray area too. It's more noticeable where in the gray area you fall as there is less criteria to be measured on in scale#1. The person who walks out of a bookstore with a pencil accidentally, but who realizes later and doesn't feel remorse, I'm not prepared to call that person a 'bad' person, and so they fall into the gray area. I suspect most people also fall into the gray area on this scale as well. Admittedly it's easier to avoid harming people in person than to avoid harming them in property (stealing).
In any case, I've made my point. I feel there should be a distinction made between good/bad and selfish/selfless. Not violating those rights of innocent people is what's necessary in a successful society, any good or benevolent behavior on top of that is just icing on the cake. If we had a society where everyone was a complete jerk to everyone else, but no one was stealing from or harming innocent people, well....that would be a step in the right direction I feel.
So next time you hear someone referred to as a 'good person', like our good friend Russell Crowe here, consider both scales of measurement to determine for yourself whether they really are a good person or not.
There's a flaw in the system. An outdated burden on this country that weighs each and every one of us down. I'm talking, of course, about pennies. Why, oh why, are these copper-plated zinc coins that weigh 2.5 grams each still plaguing our progressive society? I'll tell you why, taxes. Taxes and their darn percentages of percentages, taking completely reasonable prices such as $1 and turning it into $1.08, thus creating a need for currency between 0 and 5 cents.
There are two things that Man fears, the wrath of his God, and the wrath of his fellow man. All actions dictated by fear will be influenced by these two factors.
A man who is a devout believer in God will most certainly fear the wrath of his God if he acts outside the boundaries he believes his God has set. By nature, a god-fearing man will be more afraid of his God than his fellow man, and if he believes he is acting in behalf of his God, the wrath of his fellow man will become much less, if any at all, of a deterrent.
This fear of God will be an influencing factor for the life of that man, as, by nature, God cannot be usurped.
A man who has no belief in God will not have the influencing factor of God's potential wrath, and all his actions will be dictated on only on the wrath of his fellow man, which, by nature, CAN be usurped. This fear will only deter as long as the man feels weaker than others, but once the man gains power and feels stronger than others, he loses this fear as well, meaning that he has neither governing fear to dictate his choices, leaving him (allegedly) without morals.
The argument that fear is a prevailing motivator is a solid one. Ideally, the driving motivating factor behind peoples' decisions would be something else, such as compassion or something, but we don't live in an ideal world.
So then the question to be asked is "which causes more fear, wrath of God or wrath of Man?". This, of course, is going to be different to different people.
Certainly a fear of both is going to cause people to act in the most socially acceptable way, and a fear of neither would be disastrous. I don't think anyone could argue this.
A fear of JUST man would be adequate, but only until man can be usurped.
However a fear of JUST God can be equally dangerous, even though God cannot be usurped. Once a man's belief in his God becomes so strong that he no longer fears his fellow man (religious fanatics), ANYTHING is fair game, it's only a matter of details after that. And what's worse is that the fanatic can then turn other God-fearing men into fanatics as well leading to genocide as easily as the man who fears only other men, but has risen to power. (hence the Crusades)
So then it really isn't a matter of belief in God, it's just a matter of belief. All God's aside, all men aside, it's all about what principles you believe in. People will fight to the death for the things they believe at the core of their being to be right and wrong, whether those beliefs were instilled by Man or God. The godless 'heathen' can be more morally established than the godless 'saint'. It's all a matter of perspective. I'm willing to suggest that all morals are subjective. There's a few core beliefs that I believe to apply across the board, and those are the ones that I will fight for to the death, but my list of core beliefs will probably differ from many others. Though I believe MINE to be true, and ONLY mine, that doesn't mean that (at least on a theoretical level) they are true.
So then you move to the assertion of a majority rule. A majority of people would agree that murder falls under that list of core beliefs,that stealing is on that list of core beliefs. But that doesn't mean it is. UNLESS you are willing to adopt the belief that right and wrong is established by the majority.
In the American society where we are ALL about preventing the majority from violating the rights of the minority, this can be a very difficult concept to swallow. But if you agree with all my logic thus far, the next question is "Where do you draw the line?". How BIG does the majority have to be for a belief to move from 'subjective belief' to 'core belief'?
Does 100% percent of the world (or for this example, the United States) believe murder is wrong? I would seriously doubt it. My guess would be a split of maybe 99.99% to .01%, or possibly a greater split than that. But so then you have to ask yourself, if 20% of the nation's population believed murder to be okay, would that take it off the list of 'core beliefs'? Would the Supreme Court make a ruling declaring it unconstitutional for States to make any law concerning the legality of murder? And would they say that murder lies in the word 'liberty' in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment?
Goodness, I realize this is a very extreme example, but my argument is this: morality, whether its the subjective beliefs or the core beliefs, are established by majority rule, they always have and they always will, it's human nature.
It's not a belief in God that creates good men, it's good men that create good men, and THAT, I believe, answers the blog question adequately.
Just my long-winded, extensive, and probably unnecessary explanation of my opinion.
Mr. Powell
Three thoughts in response to Mr. Powell.
"Morality, whether its the subjective beliefs or the core beliefs, are established by majority rule, they always have and they always will, it's human nature."
The insistence of the Founders that ideas of right and wrong come from God (and that our basic rights from God) is a denial that morality is whatever the majority says it is. Every single Founder, as well as people like Lincoln, insisted on this point.
You can disagree, but it would be good to give some reasons why you disagree.
"A fear of JUST man would be adequate, but only until man can be usurped."
Perhaps the reason why Marxism leads to totalitarian government is because if there is no God to fear, then government must be extremely powerful in order to keep people in check. The Founders would have seen it this way.
"What's worse is that the fanatic can then turn other God-fearing men into fanatics as well leading to genocide as easily as the man who fears only other men, but has risen to power. (hence the Crusades)."
Is it agreed that the Crusades were the work of God-fearing fanatics? What were the Crusades? What was the purpose of the Crusades? Is there only one way to understand them (a negative one) or is the matter more complex than that?
"The insistence of the Founders that ideas of right and wrong come from God (and that our basic rights from God) is a denial that morality is whatever the majority says it is. Every single Founder, as well as people like Lincoln, insisted on this point."
Who said anything about the founding fathers? I don't believe the debate was over what the founding father's believed or didn't believe about God, but what we thought. My previous comment reflects how I feel and, in my opinion, just because the founding fathers, or anyone else, believed in God-given rights doesn't make it true. All of my comments were coming from a very theoretical level, which they have to because if we only talk from perspective set in reality we wouldn't be able to think outside of our social context.
"Perhaps the reason why Marxism leads to totalitarian government is because if there is no God to fear, then government must be extremely powerful in order to keep people in check. The Founders would have seen it this way."
I believe you are agreeing with me here, but I'm not sure. I'm not trying to defend Marxism, and indeed I'll be the first to admit I don't know much about Karl Marx in the first place. But I believe I know what 'idealist' means and I believe Communism to be just that, idealistic. So idealistic that it's impossible to achieve, and efforts to achieve it will most likely result in morally void behavior.
"Is it agreed that the Crusades were the work of God-fearing fanatics? What were the Crusades? What was the purpose of the Crusades? Is there only one way to understand them (a negative one) or is the matter more complex than that?"
The Crusades, in my opinion, were the work of God-fearing fanatics. Not every soldier who fought in the Crusades was a fanatic, but I believe the people who started it, who were backing it, and who fueled it, were. Like I said: fanatics, who in my opinion are also morally instable, can take the belief of others who AREN'T fanatics, and twist it and manipulate it to get other believers to act in their cause. I believe the Crusades was a war fought in a morally instable time period by morally instable people. As to the negative or positive effects of the Crusades, well, I'm no historian so I won't pretend to know much about that.
It definitely is a good idea to think about whether or not there is a God and whether or not our rights actually come from God, independentally of what the Founders thought.
The reason I brought in the Founders is because they understood what the political consequences would be of believing that right and wrong is whatever the majority says. In their opinion, the political consequence would be that there would be no security for rights and so no liberty. They believed that there must be someone independent of mankind who defines right and wrong, or else injustices and even atrocities great and small would regularly take place.
As to the Crusades, I would just say that personally I am going to reserve judgment on the best way to understand them, until I have spent a good deal of time studying the matter. There is, for example, a well-respected three volume history of the Crusades by a historian named Steven Runciman, that would take many hours of work to read through. I think it is important not to be too emphatic about out opinions until we put in the time it takes to understand the matter we are studying--and even when we have put in the time it makes sense to be open to the possibility that we are not done thinking about the matter.
So I am just pleading for open minds and more thinking about this matter.
I agree with you that it's important for every person to come to a verdict of whether God exists or not, I have come to that verdict myself and found that I believe God does exist. I know it may seem like I am atheist in a lot of the things I've said, but I find religion to be a particularly insubstantial area of belief and consequently find myself playing Devil's Advocate any time I can.
Also, I don't doubt at all the the Founders' beliefs in an active God and God-given rights and the passing on of those values to American society has helped create the great American nation we know today, I don't doubt that at all. I strongly believe that the 'core beliefs' the Founders believed in (or as you call the Sacred Triangle of Rights) is an important part to any successful society. I agree with those beliefs, again I just find myself playing Devil's Advocate. I question the beliefs of the Founding Fathers for reasons you yourself argued: just because an authority figure is telling you something doesn't make it true. You've said this about yourself many times.
As for the Crusades, I'm just going to remove myself of them entirely. Like I said I'm no historian and I clearly don't know enough about the topic to use it in reference to any kind of argument I'm making.
I had hoped in no way that in my explanation of my opinions and thoughts that I was done thinking about the matter. I hope and strive to be an open-minded person, that's why I play Devil's Advocate so often, even though a lot of times I agree with the original sentiment.
I guess if I had to make one argument it would be this, and I'll try to put it in a logical structure.
PREMISE: There are hundreds of different religions and hundreds of more ways to look at each one. Each proclaims to be the one and only truth.
INFERENCE: No religion can prove their's is true and the others are false, at least not in a way in which all can accept it (scientifically being an example of a way to prove something). Belief in any particular one requires a 'leap of faith' to varying degrees.
CONCLUSION: Given the diversity of beliefs and opinions among religion and moral beliefs, and the lack of any real proof one over the others, it can be said that predominating beliefs found among a majority of religions can be considered 'God-given'. Or to put it another way, morals are establish via majority rule.
-Mr Powell
I do appreciate the questions that you are raising, Mr. Powell. As you say, raising such questions help people to think more.
The point you make in this comment reminds of something we haven't discussed yet about the idea of God-given rights.
In the Declaration, the Americans say that the fact that all human beings have certain basic rights is a "self-evident" truth--that is, it is a truth that can be agreed to by human reason alone, independently of the revelation of religion.
In Activity 68, Locke (as quoted by Story) says that the right to freedom of worship is something that we know exists not only from revealed religion, but natural religion as well. Natual religion, I assume, means idea about God that we can arrive at by means of reason alone.
So the Founders at least believed that we can arrive at the idea of God-given rights by reason alone. (I'd have to think more about how exactly that is done.)