Big Question 1

[KLewchuk]

In applied ethics, there is perhaps one great question.

Why do good people, do bad things?

To be clear, the point of the question is not to define "good" or to go down a moral relativistic rabbit hole. Rather, every day there are people who do things that are bad but many of them, if you get to know them, aren't bad people.

Thoughts?

[Age]

In applied ethics, there is perhaps one great question.

Why do good people, do bad things?

To be clear, the point of the question is not to define "good" or to go down a moral relativistic rabbit hole. Rather, every day there are people who do things that are bad but many of them, if you get to know them, aren't bad people.

Thoughts?

EVERY adult person does good things, AND bad things.

ALL adult people who do things, which are bad, are not bad people.

[RCSaunders]

In applied ethics, there is perhaps one great question.

Why do good people, do bad things?

To be clear, the point of the question is not to define "good" or to go down a moral relativistic rabbit hole. Rather, every day there are people who do things that are bad but many of them, if you get to know them, aren't bad people.

Thoughts?

The first two questions of ethics are:

The First Question Of Ethics: Do individuals consciously choose their behavior?

The Second Question of Ethics: What is the objective of ethical principles?

Until you have answered those questions, morality and ethics don't mean anything. It's silly to ask why people do something (good or bad) if you don't even know what good and bad are.

[KLewchuk]

In applied ethics, there is perhaps one great question.

Why do good people, do bad things?

To be clear, the point of the question is not to define "good" or to go down a moral relativistic rabbit hole. Rather, every day there are people who do things that are bad but many of them, if you get to know them, aren't bad people.

Thoughts?

The first two questions of ethics are:

The First Question Of Ethics: Do individuals consciously choose their behavior?

The Second Question of Ethics: What is the objective of ethical principles?

Until you have answered those questions, morality and ethics don't mean anything. It's silly to ask why people do something (good or bad) if you don't even know what good and bad are.

No,
Well-being.

Done; now we can move on

[RCSaunders]

In applied ethics, there is perhaps one great question.

Why do good people, do bad things?

To be clear, the point of the question is not to define "good" or to go down a moral relativistic rabbit hole. Rather, every day there are people who do things that are bad but many of them, if you get to know them, aren't bad people.

Thoughts?

The first two questions of ethics are:

The First Question Of Ethics: Do individuals consciously choose their behavior?

The Second Question of Ethics: What is the objective of ethical principles?

Until you have answered those questions, morality and ethics don't mean anything. It's silly to ask why people do something (good or bad) if you don't even know what good and bad are.

No,
Well-being.

Done; now we can move on

Nobody is stopping you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In applied ethics, there is perhaps one great question.

Why do good people, do bad things?

To be clear, the point of the question is not to define "good" or to go down a moral relativistic rabbit hole. Rather, every day there are people who do things that are bad but many of them, if you get to know them, aren't bad people.

Thoughts?

DNA wise all humans are naturally "programmed" to do good things to facilitate their survival.
But the problem is these 'good' things are double-edged of various degrees.

What is considered 'good' is when the resultant of an act is a net-positive to the well being of the individual and what is bad is a net-negative.

Another point is why things are considered good or bad is because all humans are endowed with freewill and self-consciousness. There is no question of good or bad for living non-humans.

For example the hunger drive of a human being to eat is a good thing to facilitate survival but it turns bad when one exercise one's freewill to abuse hunger towards gluttony to obesity and death.
It is the same with the ability to kill for food, but it becomes bad when this killing turns uncontrollably to kill humans.
It is the same with emotions which are for the good of the person but when one failed to control one's emotions [e.g. anger, jealousy, sadness,], the resultant can be very bad or evil.

Even compassion and empathy which by default are good but when one practiced it blindly it can turn bad.

So why good people do bad things is their failure in the necessary impulse controls to ensure what is by default good is not taken to the extreme and turned bad/evil.

The next necessary question is how things supposedly be good can turn out of control and be bad/evil. What are the triggers?

[surreptitious57]

Why do good people do bad things ?

Labelling someone a good person just means that they do good things most of the time just not ALL of the time
So it does not mean they cannot or do not do bad things as well but just not as often as the good things they do
Equally too a bad person can do bad things most of the time but still do good things as well but just not as often

Everyone has done good things and bad things in their life regardless of whether they are a good person or a bad person
And so no one is absolutely good or absolutely bad for doing both good things and bad things is just what everyone does

[Age]

In applied ethics, there is perhaps one great question.

Why do good people, do bad things?

To be clear, the point of the question is not to define "good" or to go down a moral relativistic rabbit hole. Rather, every day there are people who do things that are bad but many of them, if you get to know them, aren't bad people.

Thoughts?

DNA wise all humans are naturally "programmed" to do good things to facilitate their survival.
But the problem is these 'good' things are double-edged of various degrees.

What is considered 'good' is when the resultant of an act is a net-positive to the well being of the individual and what is bad is a net-negative.

What is considered 'good' is OBVIOUSLY NOT necessarily when the resultant of an act is a net-positive to the well being of the individual. In fact the EXACT OPPOSITE could be said, and argued.

Another point is why things are considered good or bad is because all humans are endowed with freewill and self-consciousness. There is no question of good or bad for living non-humans.

For example the hunger drive of a human being to eat is a good thing to facilitate survival

But the feeling, or drive, of hunger is NOT a 'good' thing. That feeling, or drive, is just a VERY NATURAL part of being human.

but it turns bad when one exercise one's freewill to abuse hunger towards gluttony to obesity and death.

In regards to abuse and hunger I would be more concerned about the innocent "others" who are deprived of food, rather than towards the one who kills "them" 'self' to death from just overeating.

It is the same with the ability to kill for food, but it becomes bad when this killing turns uncontrollably to kill humans.

LOL How often is it the case when a human being turns to killing "other" human beings, 'uncontrollably', because of 'food'?

Actually has it EVER happened?

It is the same with emotions which are for the good of the person but when one failed to control one's emotions [e.g. anger, jealousy, sadness,], the resultant can be very bad or evil.

OBVIOUSLY.

Even compassion and empathy which by default are good but when one practiced it blindly it can turn bad.

HOW, exactly?

So why good people do bad things is their failure in the necessary impulse controls to ensure what is by default good is not taken to the extreme and turned bad/evil.

LOL

The next necessary question is how things supposedly be good can turn out of control and be bad/evil. What are the triggers?

If I was you, then I would find the RIGHT answers to the previous questions first, BEFORE moving onto this, supposed, "next necessary" question.

[Age]

Why do good people do bad things ?

Labelling someone a good person just means that they do good things most of the time just not ALL of the time
So it does not mean they cannot or do not do bad things as well but just not as often as the good things they do
Equally too a bad person can do bad things most of the time but still do good things as well but just not as often

Besides this well articulated and clearly stated FACT, what is considered 'bad', and/or 'good', by individuals is very relative, and therefore NOT necessarily true, right, nor correct at all anyway.

Everyone has done good things and bad things in their life regardless of whether they are a good person or a bad person
And so no one is absolutely good or absolutely bad for doing both good things and bad things is just what everyone does

Although both of these statements are NOT absolutely true, right, nor correct, they will suffice, for now, in the days of when this is being written.

[PeteJ]

In applied ethics, there is perhaps one great question.

Why do good people, do bad things?

To be clear, the point of the question is not to define "good" or to go down a moral relativistic rabbit hole. Rather, every day there are people who do things that are bad but many of them, if you get to know them, aren't bad people.

Thoughts?

For philosophy You need to work on the question.

Why do you think there are 'good' people, and what does 'good' mean.
What is a 'bad' thing to do?

I get that you're trying to avoid this rabbit-hole but you cannot avoid it. It;s only be examining these things that one can get out of the hole.

A Buddhist would say the answer to your question is ignorance. Such people do not know who they are or the nature of their world.

[roydop]

In applied ethics, there is perhaps one great question.

Why do good people, do bad things?

To be clear, the point of the question is not to define "good" or to go down a moral relativistic rabbit hole. Rather, every day there are people who do things that are bad but many of them, if you get to know them, aren't bad people.

Thoughts?

The state of human consciousness as a whole is that of delusion. Some are less deluded than others. The connection/remembrance of what we truly are - the unchanging, timeless Absolute - is the determining factor in how deep the delusion goes.

Those who are more connected to true Self (stillness) will require less relative experience to affirm their existence. When one is on a roller coaster one's existence is affirmed by the feelings generated by the intense ups and downs. One who is in complete abidance in/as the Absolute requires no relative input. They can sit in a chair for an eternity and be content and happy. One who has lost almost all connection with true Self will manufacture intense highs and lows in order to reaffirm their existence.

Doing "bad" things creates a rush and that rush affirms that person's existence.

[RCSaunders]

In applied ethics, there is perhaps one great question.

Why do good people, do bad things?

To be clear, the point of the question is not to define "good" or to go down a moral relativistic rabbit hole. Rather, every day there are people who do things that are bad but many of them, if you get to know them, aren't bad people.

Thoughts?

A person is what he does. If he does bad things (or never does anything good), he is a bad person, period. You might like him. He might be charismatic. He might make you laugh. If he does bad things, he's a bad person.

[Age]

In applied ethics, there is perhaps one great question.

Why do good people, do bad things?

To be clear, the point of the question is not to define "good" or to go down a moral relativistic rabbit hole. Rather, every day there are people who do things that are bad but many of them, if you get to know them, aren't bad people.

Thoughts?

A person is what he does. If he does bad things (or never does anything good), he is a bad person, period. You might like him. He might be charismatic. He might make you laugh. If he does bad things, he's a bad person.

But what is, supposedly, "good", or "bad", is relative, to each person.

[KLewchuk]

In applied ethics, there is perhaps one great question.

Why do good people, do bad things?

To be clear, the point of the question is not to define "good" or to go down a moral relativistic rabbit hole. Rather, every day there are people who do things that are bad but many of them, if you get to know them, aren't bad people.

Thoughts?

A person is what he does. If he does bad things (or never does anything good), he is a bad person, period. You might like him. He might be charismatic. He might make you laugh. If he does bad things, he's a bad person.

But what is, supposedly, "good", or "bad", is relative, to each person.

What is, supposedly, "good", or "bad", is relative, to each person. Really? Lung cancer is good for some people and bad for others?

[Immanuel Can]

No,
Well-being.

Done; now we can move on

What's "well-being"?

Hitler's version of well-being isn't yours, I trust. Nor is Stalin's, nor the Buddha's, nor Islam's. And for my part, I would never consider a man to be in a state of "wellbeing" who did not also have a right relationship with God -- that would be like claiming a man who had a good liver was "well," even when the rest of his body was riddled with cancer.

So what do you mean by "well-being"?