Your definition of a "good guy"?

[ExSPlug]

When you comment someone/being commented as a good guy, IMO you're meaning that guy is a good for nothing, but you're just trying to not hurt him more...

[Acriku]

From my perspective a good guy is a good people-person, and easy to talk to and the conversation flows easily.

[Dante]

From my perspective its completely different. ;)

[Nyarlathotep]

If I would refer to someone as a good person, I mean good as most people know it. Nice, respectful, etc, etc.

[lowzeewee]

You are trying to win his friendship. ;)

[Caid Ivik]

Person, who helps you without waiting for a reward, just because of "love for thy neighbour".

[Inoculator9]

I think a "good guy" is someone who is interesting and good to talk to. I don't base judgements on little nicities myself.

[Terror]

hmm, hard to define good guy. You can be a good guy in different matters. If someone is giving another a hard time, like... YOU MAKE YOUR HOMEWORK NOW!! does not mean that the person who's yelling this is doing a bad thing.

It also depends on the situation. In a war, do not expect people to be as nice to you as they are now, but everything is just a little tence

[Apollyon]

To me it's a person who I like and is friendly but I don't know quite well enough to be close friends with.

[nampigai]

Person, who helps you without waiting for a reward, just because of "love for thy neighbour".

my idea of a good guy as well

[Hawat]

me, im the born good guy. I help old people crossing the streets, throw away their garbage...

Seriously, someone who accomplish good "deeds" (whatever they may be)without any kind of hidden agenda.

[Acriku]

I'd say your hidden agenda is the pleasure you get from helping out people ;)

[Hawat]

Now is the question if that's only egoism or the delight of seeing a smile on the other's face.

Fortunately im not a good person by definition... ;D So i can allow myself a little bit of hidden agenda

[nemafakei]

To be 'good' is to alwats aim to be constructive, or to take the least destructive path, as far as you can see.

What is good and what is bad? Well, we can start with the idea that helping people is good, and hurting people is bad. That is a rather simplistic view, but is the fundamental definition. After all, any intention to hurt people for no greater cause is evil; this is obvious, and it is noble and good to intend to help people for no other reason than to help.

We have throughout our life presented with a variety of options; of those, we may find and so consider only some. Every choice we make will have good effects, yet every choice we make will also have bad ones. This is undeniable. We attempt to predict what these will be. We then try ro prioritise, and decide if the beneficial outweighs the ill. But what happens next, once the decisions are made, is that the actions are irreversible. That is not to say that they cannot be corrected, just that what has occured cannot be altered. What happens next is that the repercussions of actions seep through our own worlds, enriching or polluting them. This may or may not correlate with our predicitons.

There are therefore three stages in our interactions with our environment:

- The search for options available yo us, and the formation of predictions pertaining to that which is caused by these options.

- The decision, based on how these predictions relate to our desires, values, and morals.

- The conseuences of the decision.

That is to say, prediction, prioritisation, effects.

Let us assume that a person affects their world such that his research and decision are faultless, but, by bad luck, the results of the choice are dire. Is this person, therefore, to blamed? I would hope not; he made the most logical and beneficial choice open, as far as he could tell, and this is to be encouraged; penalising someone for events out of their control is not just.

Let us now assume the reverse; poor prediction, and a bad decision even based on that evidence might cause a miraculous result. Is this person to be praised, therefore? I should hope not; in the light of such an inconsiderate decision, it is merely fortunate that the result was good. It is hardly suitable to encourage bad moral choices, even though they may have turned out well.

Now, let us try something more complicated.

A person affects their environment such that they make unforseen and unexpected errors in their predictions, to the extent that their suggestion is worthless, and, based on them, this person (who does not know that the predictions are false) makes a decision thouroughly logical (o would be if the data were sensible) - and, by chance, the action is good. Do we condemn or laud? I, certainly would be positive.

Drat; I wrote this a while ago, and have not finished typing it up.

[Caid Ivik]

I'd say your hidden agenda is the pleasure you get from helping out people ;)

We call that agenda a "love". I would say, it isa very positive thing...

[gryphon]

There are no good or bad people. Just situation in which people and making disissions, action that will be qualified by there surroundings as good or bad.

It's not about being good al the time, just when it matters

About being good while helping eatchother, don't we all do that in a way out of selfishness. As we want to help them. We feel good ourself when we see the smile on their face after we have helped them. So it's not about helping them, it's about feeling good ourselfs.

The persone being morally good would be the guy's helping others who [ and he knows this before he helps them ] will after he has helpend them will flame him, curse him as he had never had before.

Not expecting anything back in that form [ unless he likes being called names ] and still helping because he can and likes to help without reward.

[ altiile exadurated nut you get my point I recon ]

So in short. I don't know any good or bad persones. Just people. And if one is good or bad .. I really have no clue.

And Nema, stop scaring me with Kant's ethicall perspectieve :- ;)

[Caid Ivik]

You cannot say that some people intends good actions more often...

[gryphon]

So if I do a good action today, I will be a good guy for the rest of my life. And not just have preformed a good action today, mayby another one tomorrow and non the day after ? According to you a good action on one day would result in just a generally good persone ?

Why arn't you able to say that some people intends good actions more often then others ?

[Caid Ivik]

I've said it, exactly. These people we call "good", altough that doesn't mean they cannot make some sins as well. It blurs their souls, but you know, no label is ethernal.

[Chani]

it depends on the tone of voice its said in but if i said someone was a good guy, i'd mean that are genuinely are a good guy. nice, respectful, kind.. good in the usual sense of the word.

[Caid Ivik]

To be sure, we are writing, so considering voice tones is irrelevant.

[gryphon]

i'd mean that are genuinely are a good guy. nice, respectful, kind.. good in the usual sense of the word.

Just keep in mind that the perseption of what is kind and good is not only cultural dependant, but also subjective. When you should refer to the usual sense ot the word. . ..well there might not be a direct referance to that word.

[nemafakei]

"so considering voice tones is irrelevant"

But spoken in a sarcastic context, the phrase can have malignant connotations.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, with my replies I stayed in correct, emotionally uninfluented tone, as always when talking about such things.