What percentage of humanity are genuinely good?

[iwanttodie019]

...

 

[webb&flow]

How could 0% of humanity be genuinely good?

---

And also: What defines "genuinely good"?

 

[iwanttodie019]

How could 0% of humanity be genuinely good?
And also: What defines "genuinely good"?

no human is genuinely good

 

[webb&flow]

no human is genuinely good

What is "genuinely good"? If no human is genuinely good, then what would "a human that is genuinely good" look like, in theory?

 

[iwanttodie019]

How could 0% of humanity be genuinely good?

---

And also: What defines "genuinely good"?

1)Someone who has never done anything unethical
2)Someone whose heart bleeds for others
3)Someone who goes out of their to help others,be kind etc

 

[webb&flow]

1)Someone who has never done anything unethical

Can a person be genuinely good after making an ethical mistake? (I.e. someone sincerely apologizes immediately after realizing what they said or did might've hurt someone before them.)

2)Someone whose heart bleeds for others

What does this look like in practice & in example?

3)Someone who goes out of their to help others,be kind etc

Fair. But what if someone does these two things (going out of their way to help others and be kind) after having made a mistake in the past?

 

[darksouls]

are people who conduct or support animal testing good people because they supposedly save human lives?

 

[iwanttodie019]

Can a person be genuinely good after making an ethical mistake? (I.e. someone sincerely apologizes immediately after realizing what they said or did might've hurt someone before them.)

What does this look like in practice & in example?

Fair. But what if someone does these two things (going out of their way to help others and be kind) after having made a mistake in the past?

1)no,if he has done an ethical mistake ,then he does not qualify to be genuinely good

2)Someone whose empathy level is off the charts/who has a strong conscience.

3)If someone has made a mistake in the past,then he cannot be genuinely good.Period

I know a handful of people who are like the above(genuinely good)

 

[webb&flow]

1)no,if he has done an ethical mistake ,then he does not qualify to be genuinely good

What is an ethical mistake? According to what or whom?

2)Someone whose empathy level is off the charts/who has a strong conscience.

Is not too much empathy hindering to practical ethicality though?

3)If someone has made a mistake in the past,then he cannot be genuinely good.Period

Why does one mistake disqualify a person from goodness?

I know a handful of people who are like the above(genuinely good)

Would you agree that these people you know are genuinely good?

 

[iwanttodie019]

What is an ethical mistake? According to what or whom?

Is not too much empathy hindering to practical ethicality though?

Why does one mistake disqualify a person from goodness?

Would you agree that these people you know are genuinely good?

1)ethical mistake:--- hurting another sentient being intentionally
2)yes these people are genuinely good.

for eg:-my mother struggles with lying,her empathy level is off the charts
Here are some of her activities:-
1)She is diabetic yet she eats sweets when going to someone's house because she does not want to hurt their feelings
2)once she was given a chocolate and it had insect in it yet she ate it because she was feeling guilty that it might be disrespectful
(mind you,she could have thrown away the chocolate and lied that she had ate it)
etc..

I don't think she has ever done anything unethical

 

[gunmetalblue11]

This reminds me of "What is better, to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?"

Also mistakes are necessary. It's how we learn. Our first mistakes is when we take our first steps and fall, then when we pick a pen up the first time and spill the ink or butcher words, up until you first fall in love and experience your first heart break. And you tell yourself "never again" to then fall right back into it and maybe make a mistake again. It's human. You can't grow if you've never lived in the first place.

 

[webb&flow]

1)ethical mistake:--- hurting another sentient being intentionally
2)yes these people are genuinely good.

for eg:-my mother struggles with lying,her empathy level is off the charts
Here are some of her activities:-
1)She is diabetic yet she eats sweets when going to someone's house because she does not want to hurt their feelings
2)once she was given a chocolate and it had insect in it yet she ate it because she was feeling guilty that it might be disrespectful
(mind you,she could have thrown away the chocolate and lied that she had ate it)
etc..

I don't think she has ever done anything unethical

But if someone does an action which harms themselves, have they not vitiated your criteria of hurting a sentient being? So such a person would not only be obligated to do no harm at all to others, but also to do no harm at all to themself, either. Is this a fair standard to set for a person to be "genuinely good"?

If that is what is "genuinely good"—then what is merely "good", and less than that, "disingenuously good", as well?

 

[SoulCage]

It's really important what @webb&flow is doing here. The definition of "good" or "bad" is not universally the same for everyone.

1)ethical mistake:--- hurting another sentient being intentionally

Even this is debatable, because...
You may never hurt anyone intentionally, but the goods and services that you need to survive have been produced through labor that hurt some sentient being in the process. It is nearly impossible to live without other humans. Only if you live away from society, but even there you very likely have to harm animals.

What I am trying to say is.. I think that even non-intentional harm like staying ignorant to your surroundings, is still bad. I look at everything I am wearing, use in my apartment or the building itself and think "who made it and did they suffer to make my life better". everything came from somewhere, materials mined, woods chopped... And then there is the dilemma of trash. Where does it go? Will it go into the ocean, buried somewhere (and effects the animals who used to live there) or be burned and increase CO2 levels? Can I still say that I am good because I have no choice? Some people can live with that argument.. I can't. I believe that even unintentional harm is still harm.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I'm not sure anyone would qualify as ethically good, according to your standards.

It's lovely that you think so much of your mother but, with the chocolate example. Was the insect intentionally inside the chocolate? Is it morally ok to consume animal products? How and where was the chocolate made? In it's manufacture, were either people, animals or the environment exploited? How will the packaging be disposed of? Do any of us even know, or truly care?

Which is more harmful ultimately? To go along with something questionable- because it would appear rude not to do so or, to say- thank you but, I don't consume animal products? If any of us were presented with something as a gift say- that we knew was immorally created. Say, a crocodile skin bag with ivory details. What is the moral thing to do there? Accept the gift graciously- so as not to seem impolite and offend the person. Or, make the stand that we appreciate the thought but, can't support trades that harm endangered species?

I imagine it would in fact be extremely difficult to get through a single day being wholly ethical. For modern humans anyway. What happens to the rubbish we throw away today? How were all the things we use today created? At any point- are other people/ animals/ the environment being harmed?

Do we even know how the soap we just used was manufactured? Do we know if that company is ethical? Do we trust the governments we pay taxes to? Do they always make the ethical choice? Is it ethical to be a part of the system we contribute to? Is it ethical to refuse to be, but still demand welfare from it?

I have a more extreme anti-natalist view that to bring sentient life onto this planet is unethical to begin with. So for me- all parents have made a questionable choice. They know what dangers exist in this world. They know they won't be able to protect their child from all of them but, they put them at risk anyway. Mainly because it's something they wanted- I imagine.

That all said, I have known some incredibly kind people in my life. People who were always doing things to help others. It's not like they never did anything immoral though. I think it's pretty hard to live an entire lifetime without slipping up now and again.

I suppose also- do you want to count childhood? Is it ethical for a baby to scream its head off at 3am? Will it die without whatever its whining about? We don't tend to blame babies and animals so much because we don't think they're being intentionally malicious.

But then- that gets on to how you define good and bad/ evil. If a creature is only doing what they are naturally predisposed to do- we might not lay so much blame on them. Does that extend to adults though? If a person is naturally lacking in empathy or social skills say, they may inadvertently behave in a way that offends others. Who is the immoral one there? Them or, the person that takes offence? Do they deserve allowances because they weren't consciously or maliciously behaving that way? How do we know though?

Where do the lines lie though? Are some people not responsible for the criminal acts they commit? Is naivity an excuse? I think it all gets muddied when we start to consider all the nuances.

Although, I would be kind of amazed if anyone got through their whole life being 100% ethical. For one- they'd presumably need to be vegan from birth. Is a parent being ethical forcing a natural omnivore to go herbivore? Will their growth be stunted if they aren't provided with the sufficient nutrients?

And, when it really comes down to it- even supposedly vegan foods can harm animals. Crops for example that require insects to fertlize them are responsible for killing insects in their manufacture.

So- unless a person grows all their own food- so knows exactly where it came from. Or, they are extremely wealthy and can afford to buy from very organic sources- they are likely already feeding and providing for the child with immorally produced goods. Where did their money come from too? Was their job and company wholly ethical?

I think it's massively difficult to even know if we are making moral choices sometimes. Because we depend so much on others for one. Kind of disgusting but, can you be sure the poo you flush today won't end up untreated and in the sea or waterway? Many UK water companies are being held accountable for polluting natural water courses. They are ultimately to blame but, shouldn't we be holding them to account more? We pay for their services.

How can we even be sure that the choices we believe are more moral- say chosing to recycle- are actually honoured? A lot of recyclable products end up in landfill. I imagine it's actually extremely difficult to follow an ethical path in the modern world.

Really- just as a challenge say- every product you use today- look as to whether there are any scandals surrounding the product, it's components, its manufacture, its disposal, the company that sold it to you. I imagine most things include a shady backstory or, a shady future after we dispose of them.

 

[NutOrat]

I have a more extreme anti-natalist view that to bring sentient life onto this planet is unethical to begin with. So for me- all parents have made a questionable choice. They know what dangers exist in this world. They know they won't be able to protect their child from all of them but, they put them at risk anyway. Mainly because it's something they wanted- I imagine.

Thank you, I was just thinking of writing this while reading through the thread, but you already did, so I'll add my two cents instead. Indeed, no matter how you look at it, any person that procreates (even if accidentally, abortions exist), except for few specific cases (I'm sure you know what I'm referring to, I don't want to write it), by default increases the "total world pain score", as I like to call it. No matter how good you raise a kid, how good you support them financially and emotionally, there are so many factors outside of your control, and just the fact that pain is simply an inevitability, that you basically bring suffering into the world, no matter what. So does that make you automatically not a "genuinely good" person, according to OP?

I agree with the others too, in that "genuinely good" doesn't really mean anything concrete. The way you, @iwanttodie019 qualify it, it would be more fitting to call it "morally perfect" instead. And if you know anything about the structure of our world, it's that absolutely nothing in this universe is "perfect". It's like that math graph (I don't remember what it's called), the one with the curve that gets closer and closer to 0 on one of the axis, but NEVER equals to 0. That's all objects, no corner is "perfectly sharp", if you zoom close enough. And in living creatures especially, we are very far from perfect, that's one of the most defining qualities of the natural world. We all deviate from perfection in ways that make us unique, that dictate who we choose as friends, partners, enemies, etc. So if you ask - is anyone "morally perfect"? Absolutely not. It's impossible. The whole story of Jesus, as this only perfect person, who died for our sins, is just that - a story. No matter how selfless or generous the real life inspiration for Jesus was, he could never be "morally perfect". Doesn't mean he wasn't a good, kind person. Maybe he wasn't. Maybe he never existed. We'll never know.

So are parents "morally perfect"? No, never. Are they good people? Kind people? Caring? Now the answers to those questions will vary greatly depending on who you ask, because our perception of reality is, you guessed it, imperfect. Just like reality itself.

 

[Chiyumine]

It's all subjective in the end...good is up to personal interpretation above all else. If you ask me, all humans, myself included are "awful". There are some who may choose to not engage in violent behavior, but regardless, there will always be pyscopaths, cannibals, rapists and war criminals, regardless of the situtation and regardless of the reason. Though not all are willing to do such things, they have the ability to be capable of it, and in turn are all awful.

 

[noname223]

My answer is 1-10 percent. But it depends on the defintion. I could make a thread about this. Because we in the Western world massively profit of the exploitation of poor people in other parts of the world. Me included. And we barely think about that. Which impact we have on them becasuse we are part of the system. There are only very few people who reflect on that on a daily basis. And even the people who do are not per defintion. Good people. They still can be horrible people in person.

One person who isn't my former therapist who did the worst abuse to me in my adult life.

 

[iwanttodie019]

I'm not sure anyone would qualify as ethically good, according to your standards.

It's lovely that you think so much of your mother but, with the chocolate example. Was the insect intentionally inside the chocolate? Is it morally ok to consume animal products? How and where was the chocolate made? In it's manufacture, were either people, animals or the environment exploited? How will the packaging be disposed of? Do any of us even know, or truly care?

Which is more harmful ultimately? To go along with something questionable- because it would appear rude not to do so or, to say- thank you but, I don't consume animal products? If any of us were presented with something as a gift say- that we knew was immorally created. Say, a crocodile skin bag with ivory details. What is the moral thing to do there? Accept the gift graciously- so as not to seem impolite and offend the person. Or, make the stand that we appreciate the thought but, can't support trades that harm endangered species?

I imagine it would in fact be extremely difficult to get through a single day being wholly ethical. For modern humans anyway. What happens to the rubbish we throw away today? How were all the things we use today created? At any point- are other people/ animals/ the environment being harmed?

Do we even know how the soap we just used was manufactured? Do we know if that company is ethical? Do we trust the governments we pay taxes to? Do they always make the ethical choice? Is it ethical to be a part of the system we contribute to? Is it ethical to refuse to be, but still demand welfare from it?

I have a more extreme anti-natalist view that to bring sentient life onto this planet is unethical to begin with. So for me- all parents have made a questionable choice. They know what dangers exist in this world. They know they won't be able to protect their child from all of them but, they put them at risk anyway. Mainly because it's something they wanted- I imagine.

That all said, I have known some incredibly kind people in my life. People who were always doing things to help others. It's not like they never did anything immoral though. I think it's pretty hard to live an entire lifetime without slipping up now and again.

I suppose also- do you want to count childhood? Is it ethical for a baby to scream its head off at 3am? Will it die without whatever its whining about? We don't tend to blame babies and animals so much because we don't think they're being intentionally malicious.

But then- that gets on to how you define good and bad/ evil. If a creature is only doing what they are naturally predisposed to do- we might not lay so much blame on them. Does that extend to adults though? If a person is naturally lacking in empathy or social skills say, they may inadvertently behave in a way that offends others. Who is the immoral one there? Them or, the person that takes offence? Do they deserve allowances because they weren't consciously or maliciously behaving that way? How do we know though?

Where do the lines lie though? Are some people not responsible for the criminal acts they commit? Is naivity an excuse? I think it all gets muddied when we start to consider all the nuances.

Although, I would be kind of amazed if anyone got through their whole life being 100% ethical. For one- they'd presumably need to be vegan from birth. Is a parent being ethical forcing a natural omnivore to go herbivore? Will their growth be stunted if they aren't provided with the sufficient nutrients?

And, when it really comes down to it- even supposedly vegan foods can harm animals. Crops for example that require insects to fertlize them are responsible for killing insects in their manufacture.

So- unless a person grows all their own food- so knows exactly where it came from. Or, they are extremely wealthy and can afford to buy from very organic sources- they are likely already feeding and providing for the child with immorally produced goods. Where did their money come from too? Was their job and company wholly ethical?

I think it's massively difficult to even know if we are making moral choices sometimes. Because we depend so much on others for one. Kind of disgusting but, can you be sure the poo you flush today won't end up untreated and in the sea or waterway? Many UK water companies are being held accountable for polluting natural water courses. They are ultimately to blame but, shouldn't we be holding them to account more? We pay for their services.

How can we even be sure that the choices we believe are more moral- say chosing to recycle- are actually honoured? A lot of recyclable products end up in landfill. I imagine it's actually extremely difficult to follow an ethical path in the modern world.

Really- just as a challenge say- every product you use today- look as to whether there are any scandals surrounding the product, it's components, its manufacture, its disposal, the company that sold it to you. I imagine most things include a shady backstory or, a shady future after we dispose of them.

I

Thank you, I was just thinking of writing this while reading through the thread, but you already did, so I'll add my two cents instead. Indeed, no matter how you look at it, any person that procreates (even if accidentally, abortions exist), except for few specific cases (I'm sure you know what I'm referring to, I don't want to write it), by default increases the "total world pain score", as I like to call it. No matter how good you raise a kid, how good you support them financially and emotionally, there are so many factors outside of your control, and just the fact that pain is simply an inevitability, that you basically bring suffering into the world, no matter what. So does that make you automatically not a "genuinely good" person, according to OP?

I agree with the others too, in that "genuinely good" doesn't really mean anything concrete. The way you, @iwanttodie019 qualify it, it would be more fitting to call it "morally perfect" instead. And if you know anything about the structure of our world, it's that absolutely nothing in this universe is "perfect". It's like that math graph (I don't remember what it's called), the one with the curve that gets closer and closer to 0 on one of the axis, but NEVER equals to 0. That's all objects, no corner is "perfectly sharp", if you zoom close enough. And in living creatures especially, we are very far from perfect, that's one of the most defining qualities of the natural world. We all deviate from perfection in ways that make us unique, that dictate who we choose as friends, partners, enemies, etc. So if you ask - is anyone "morally perfect"? Absolutely not. It's impossible. The whole story of Jesus, as this only perfect person, who died for our sins, is just that - a story. No matter how selfless or generous the real life inspiration for Jesus was, he could never be "morally perfect". Doesn't mean he wasn't a good, kind person. Maybe he wasn't. Maybe he never existed. We'll never know.

So are parents "morally perfect"? No, never. Are they good people? Kind people? Caring? Now the answers to those questions will vary greatly depending on who you ask, because our perception of reality is, you guessed it, imperfect. Just like reality itself.

1)Well she(my mother) had me and my brother
2)She eats meat occasionally

That's why i said unethical==hurting sentient beings INTENTIONALLY(emphasis on intentionally)

1)Her emapthy level is off the charts.
2)She s seriously struggles with lying(cannot lie?)
3)Here is another of her activity that came to my mind
(Once she was molested in the public transit.I asked her to press chargesSHe vehemently refused.SHe started crying because she felt strong empathy for the perp's family.He(The perp)also has a family.How much it would affect his family"I do not want to hurt him or his family")

I'm not sure anyone would qualify as ethically good, according to your standards.

It's lovely that you think so much of your mother but, with the chocolate example. Was the insect intentionally inside the chocolate? Is it morally ok to consume animal products? How and where was the chocolate made? In it's manufacture, were either people, animals or the environment exploited? How will the packaging be disposed of? Do any of us even know, or truly care?

Which is more harmful ultimately? To go along with something questionable- because it would appear rude not to do so or, to say- thank you but, I don't consume animal products? If any of us were presented with something as a gift say- that we knew was immorally created. Say, a crocodile skin bag with ivory details. What is the moral thing to do there? Accept the gift graciously- so as not to seem impolite and offend the person. Or, make the stand that we appreciate the thought but, can't support trades that harm endangered species?

I imagine it would in fact be extremely difficult to get through a single day being wholly ethical. For modern humans anyway. What happens to the rubbish we throw away today? How were all the things we use today created? At any point- are other people/ animals/ the environment being harmed?

Do we even know how the soap we just used was manufactured? Do we know if that company is ethical? Do we trust the governments we pay taxes to? Do they always make the ethical choice? Is it ethical to be a part of the system we contribute to? Is it ethical to refuse to be, but still demand welfare from it?

I have a more extreme anti-natalist view that to bring sentient life onto this planet is unethical to begin with. So for me- all parents have made a questionable choice. They know what dangers exist in this world. They know they won't be able to protect their child from all of them but, they put them at risk anyway. Mainly because it's something they wanted- I imagine.

That all said, I have known some incredibly kind people in my life. People who were always doing things to help others. It's not like they never did anything immoral though. I think it's pretty hard to live an entire lifetime without slipping up now and again.

I suppose also- do you want to count childhood? Is it ethical for a baby to scream its head off at 3am? Will it die without whatever its whining about? We don't tend to blame babies and animals so much because we don't think they're being intentionally malicious.

But then- that gets on to how you define good and bad/ evil. If a creature is only doing what they are naturally predisposed to do- we might not lay so much blame on them. Does that extend to adults though? If a person is naturally lacking in empathy or social skills say, they may inadvertently behave in a way that offends others. Who is the immoral one there? Them or, the person that takes offence? Do they deserve allowances because they weren't consciously or maliciously behaving that way? How do we know though?

Where do the lines lie though? Are some people not responsible for the criminal acts they commit? Is naivity an excuse? I think it all gets muddied when we start to consider all the nuances.

Although, I would be kind of amazed if anyone got through their whole life being 100% ethical. For one- they'd presumably need to be vegan from birth. Is a parent being ethical forcing a natural omnivore to go herbivore? Will their growth be stunted if they aren't provided with the sufficient nutrients?

And, when it really comes down to it- even supposedly vegan foods can harm animals. Crops for example that require insects to fertlize them are responsible for killing insects in their manufacture.

So- unless a person grows all their own food- so knows exactly where it came from. Or, they are extremely wealthy and can afford to buy from very organic sources- they are likely already feeding and providing for the child with immorally produced goods. Where did their money come from too? Was their job and company wholly ethical?

I think it's massively difficult to even know if we are making moral choices sometimes. Because we depend so much on others for one. Kind of disgusting but, can you be sure the poo you flush today won't end up untreated and in the sea or waterway? Many UK water companies are being held accountable for polluting natural water courses. They are ultimately to blame but, shouldn't we be holding them to account more? We pay for their services.

How can we even be sure that the choices we believe are more moral- say chosing to recycle- are actually honoured? A lot of recyclable products end up in landfill. I imagine it's actually extremely difficult to follow an ethical path in the modern world.

Really- just as a challenge say- every product you use today- look as to whether there are any scandals surrounding the product, it's components, its manufacture, its disposal, the company that sold it to you. I imagine most things include a shady backstory or, a shady future after we dispose of them.

1)Well she(my mother) had me and my brother
2)She eats meat occasionally

That's why i said unethical==hurting sentient beings INTENTIONALLY(emphasis on intentionally)

1)Her emapthy level is off the charts.
2)She s seriously struggles with lying(cannot lie?)
3)Here is another of her activity that came to my mind
(Once she was molested in the public transit.I asked her to press chargesSHe vehemently refused.SHe started crying because she felt strong empathy for the perp's family.He(The perp)also has a family.How much it would affect his family"I do not want to hurt him or his family")

 

[NutOrat]

1)Well she(my mother) had me and my brother
2)She eats meat occasionally

That's why i said unethical==hurting sentient beings INTENTIONALLY(emphasis on intentionally)

1)Her emapthy level is off the charts.
2)She s seriously struggles with lying(cannot lie?)
3)Here is another of her activity that came to my mind
(Once she was molested in the public transit.I asked her to press chargesSHe vehemently refused.SHe started crying because she felt strong empathy for the perp's family.He(The perp)also has a family.How much it would affect his family"I do not want to hurt him or his family")

1)Well she(my mother) had me and my brother
2)She eats meat occasionally

That's why i said unethical==hurting sentient beings INTENTIONALLY(emphasis on intentionally)

1)Her emapthy level is off the charts.
2)She s seriously struggles with lying(cannot lie?)
3)Here is another of her activity that came to my mind
(Once she was molested in the public transit.I asked her to press chargesSHe vehemently refused.SHe started crying because she felt strong empathy for the perp's family.He(The perp)also has a family.How much it would affect his family"I do not want to hurt him or his family")

Then, by what I know from the limited information, as well as according to my moral code, she seems like a good, kind-hearted person. She's still not a "morally perfect" person, because of the reasons you mentioned. Am I making sense?

 

[Forever Sleep]

I

1)Well she(my mother) had me and my brother
2)She eats meat occasionally

That's why i said unethical==hurting sentient beings INTENTIONALLY(emphasis on intentionally)

1)Her emapthy level is off the charts.
2)She s seriously struggles with lying(cannot lie?)
3)Here is another of her activity that came to my mind
(Once she was molested in the public transit.I asked her to press chargesSHe vehemently refused.SHe started crying because she felt strong empathy for the perp's family.He(The perp)also has a family.How much it would affect his family"I do not want to hurt him or his family")

1)Well she(my mother) had me and my brother
2)She eats meat occasionally

That's why i said unethical==hurting sentient beings INTENTIONALLY(emphasis on intentionally)

1)Her emapthy level is off the charts.
2)She s seriously struggles with lying(cannot lie?)
3)Here is another of her activity that came to my mind
(Once she was molested in the public transit.I asked her to press chargesSHe vehemently refused.SHe started crying because she felt strong empathy for the perp's family.He(The perp)also has a family.How much it would affect his family"I do not want to hurt him or his family")

I do really admire the love and admiration you have for your mother. I'm sure she does deserve it too.

I suppose when it comes to morality though- there are always multiple people affected. So- yes- it was amazing of her to consider the family of the guy who sexually assaulted her. However- how did she know he wasn't assaulting them too? Is it morally wrong to report a sexual assault? I'd tend to counter argue- it's more morally right to report them.

I imagine a lot of sexual assaults do go unreported. Because women (and men) are afraid or embarrassed. Because they don't wany to have to re- live the experience having to tell police officers. They may even fear they won't be believed or, that it will be difficult to prove.

But- do men (or women) who commit sexual assaults leave it at one? I kind of doubt it. Most especially when they get away with it. I imagine, the more times they get away with it, the more emboldened they get.

So- she may have spared his family the grief of knowing but- he wasn't stopped at that point. They'll be no record of the incident whatsoever- presumably. Maybe the next woman he assaults will report him but- it may look like a first offence.

She could be one in a long line of assaults that went unreported. Which may embolden him to rape and kill next time. Hopefully not, but serious sexual criminals probably don't commit their most serious crime first. I imagine they build up to them.

That's not to say she was necessarily in the wrong but, there are often multiple sides to morality I think. It can become hard to even know what to choose sometimes.

But, I'm sure she is a lovely person- from what you've said. I'm not meaning to tear her down here. More saying that morality is kind of complicated. It's nice to have such a lovely person to admire though. Do you feel that she is well respected by others or, does she tend to get exploited for being so kind?

 

[WhatCouldHaveBeen32]

I don't think there can be genuinely good, only indoctrinated from a young age. Someone genuinely good would be a statistical anomaly and it would lead to a very early suicide. (in my opinion). anyways, I am not discrediting that hypothetical person but I'm just saying that it would be an outlier.

Now there are good people, who have overcome their evil nature or neutral nature. There are good people with good intentions that still do bad things. This is why death is preferrable to life, a human can never achieve perfect morality, it should however strive for it.

What percentage of humanity is good enough? should be your actual question, the answer? 1-10% probably.

There is no making things right, only better than they were.

 

[BoulderSoWhat]

The percentage is precisely 19.6832%

 

[Shiitake]

The percentage is precisely 19.6832%

this seems to have some sort of political intention
Good people get eaten up

 

[EternalShore]

It's all subjective in the end...good is up to personal interpretation above all else. If you ask me, all humans, myself included are "awful". There are some who may choose to not engage in violent behavior, but regardless, there will always be pyscopaths, cannibals, rapists and war criminals, regardless of the situtation and regardless of the reason. Though not all are willing to do such things, they have the ability to be capable of it, and in turn are all awful.

you have a very kyute pfp! :3

Anyways, I agree! ^_^ All people are evil by nature! :) Some merely do worse things than others, altho everyone alive rn has certainly done something bad~ additionally, more people would definitely do those things than have been able unfortunately too~ >_< if given the opportunity, humans can be soo evil! :((( as shown in Sudan's present war~ >_<

I put less than 1% tho because Jesus is human tho~ if it were just people alive on this Earth rn tho, it'd be 0%~ :)

 

[BoulderSoWhat]

this seems to have some sort of political intention
Good people get eaten up

Mildly curious if this number corresponded to something, it brought me to CERN lol

 

[Shiitake]

Mildly curious if this number corresponded to something, it brought me to CERN lol
View attachment 187666

View attachment 187665

I tought you read some statistic somewhere