Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fuzzlewump" data-source="post: 5014048" data-attributes="member: 63214">Normal behavior does not necessarily mean good behavior. Normal really has no bearing on good or evil.Yeah, pretty much. I can see how anyone would be uncomfortable admitting their own evils. I imagine myself as being neutral, really.  I'm in college right now because I want money and a job, for myself, which could certainly be an evil motivation (greed.) But I chose the field versus others because I believe it can help others. Just an example.Interesting. Intentions and motivations aren't the only thing at play here, though. From my point of view,  intentions, motivations and outcomes all matter in ethics. If you wanted to save the kid, but didn't make it in time, it's still a good act even though you didn't really do anything. If you didn't want to save the kid, or wanted to for self-absorbed reasons "this will really impress my date!" and then you save the kid, the act is still good.To answer more directly, whether or not something is an instinct doesn't have much of a bearing on whether it is a good or evil act. A good instinct is good and an evil instinct is evil.I guess it reminds me of a paper back in high school, where we had to take a side on whether participating in charity with self-absorbed intentions was a good thing or not. Obviously, not everyone agrees, but this is a case where the outcome outweighs the motivation. It puts people in a damned if you do damned if you don't situation, where it's wrong not be charitable and somehow also wrong to be charitable. So in this case, it's the outcomes that matter.</blockquote>

Verification