Humans are social creatures. Most of us don't do well without some sort of meaningful contact with others. Maybe our "desire" to be "good" comes from our innate need for other people. But that goes back to the consequences of being bad. If I was "bad" I wouldn't be socialized.

No not a carousel question.  Society does dictate what is good or bad.  Hence when some do 'good' and feel good about it, that is right.  Others, like NAMBLA, reject society's norms and their feel good is bad.

I guess I should have qualified this.  Good is going to be defined as for the good of society.  And those that agree with that, feel good.  Bad is what society describes as bad,  And the deviants will feel good about that.

The difference is in what promotes a society and what promotes a deviant.  For most, helping another is good.  For some, hedonistic (regardless of what you want to think) is all that counts.

Individual vs society.

Isn't this kind of like saying "cars only work because of the internal combustion engine"?

Okay, fine. Now we know the mechanism by which cars do that carlicious thing they do so well.

But we're not really any closer to learning what cars are used for, or why.

So what's the teacher's point, anyway? Sure, we prefer good over bad, because bad sucks and good... not so much. That's what the terms mean.

Might as well say, "we prefer things that don't suck over things that do, because things that suck... suck. And we don't prefer that."

So what? Has your daughter learned anything she didn't already know? Has she gained valuable new insight into morality and ethics, that will help her chart a better path through the difficult life choices of this world? What, exactly, did she get taught in school today, anyway?

In some cases, however the comparitive advantage is for you to do bad, since the downsides of it, irrespective of other people's behavior is less. However, since everyone is inherently self-interested, this means that everyone does bad, and everyone loses. The laws take the place of the decision in the prisoner's dilemma, so that maximum loss does not occur. It's a little tough to explain without diagrams, so here

This is a good explanation and the link helped to make it clearer too!

It's not that the consequences keep us from doing bad, it's that the rewards for doing good are greater.

Absolutely!

as Gideon says that a great many do not address this issue, but instead try to mandate specific behavior out of people.

And this so continues the cycle. That is why most criminals end up doing time again and again.

That is the truth! But then dont we feel bad when we err? Some try to cover it up. I think that is just immaturity. I announce it and basically say "I am passed it!". Then I dont worry about anyone throwing it in my face again, as I have already accepted my humanity, but acknowledged it and moved on.

Yes it is immaturity. It's definately "big" of someone to admit wrong doing and say "I'm sorry" if it's nothing criminal that was done. As the saying goes, you learn from your mistakes.

But me? Heh, I'd be a bad little bitch if there were no threat of punishment. Very, very bad.

Whip I can see it now...you would be soooo bad!

guess it depends on what one's definition of "good" is. A child molester might not know any different and consider molestation "good". S/he feels good. S/he has a good time. S/he doesn't suffer any negative consequences from the encounter. How could it be bad?

It would be bad because child molestation is a criminal act. The argument might come back that how do you know it's bad if the society doesn't deem it as such...well, look at it this way...child, undeveloped mind, body....adult....perverted mind...abuser....uses child against their will! A child does know when something is wrong so you don't even need laws to tell you this.

Most of us don't do well without some sort of meaningful contact with others. Maybe our "desire" to be "good" comes from our innate need for other people.

I don't see it this way....you don't need a contact with others to be good. Yes we are social animals because we love interacting with people, but there are others who don't and who would be quite happy left alone. Being bad is a learned behaviour, not an inherrent one.

That's the trouble with trying to speak logically when your mind is a jumble of paradoxes. You did well.

Yes you did!

No not a carousel question. Society does dictate what is good or bad. Hence when some do 'good' and feel good about it, that is right. Others, like NAMBLA, reject society's norms and their feel good is bad. I guess I should have qualified this. Good is going to be defined as for the good of society. And those that agree with that, feel good. Bad is what society describes as bad, And the deviants will feel good about that. The difference is in what promotes a society and what promotes a deviant. For most, helping another is good. For some, hedonistic (regardless of what you want to think) is all that counts. Individual vs society.

I love your explanation Doc and I agree with it too!

stute, I don't think the answer to the question is really what's important here. I think that everyone, but children in general should be given more opportunities to think freely and debate a topic. Too often we are given statements that this is the way things are, so accept it.

This method provides an exercise in open-mindedness, and helps to internalize the answer at which you arrive, since it isn't spoonfed, but is instead your own anser. It would probably do everyone a whole ton of good if every newscast ended not with a neat answer, but left you with a question to figure out on your own, drawing on your own experiences, and those of the people with whom you interact.

“Humans are good only because we are afraid of the consequences of being bad”.

Ooh, you want my opinon? Of course you do

This statement is true to some extent...it's more or less based on average people. Normal people that just try and get through life. Now, "bad" people aren't afraid of the consequences...or their desire to do "bad" things outweighs that fear. People who are genuinely good do not follow this rule...they do things that are nice because that's who they are. Obeying the law certainly supports this phrase...no contest there. A good person will obey the law, and also go the extra mile to just be a good person...helping others, donating money, etc.

The class was then given the following scenario, what if you went to a store or any place, which had a sign posted with the following statement: “Help yourself to anything you want. You don’t have to pay or worry about being arrested, just take it.” Would you take anything you wanted? And if you did, would you be worried about getting in trouble (even though the sign said you won’t) or would you do it and just don’t care?

I would load up so much stuff...if the sign says take it and has some sort of official signature or seal on it...because then it'd be legal and there's no way they could prosecute me.

~Zoo

I don't think the answer to the question is really what's important here. I think that everyone, but children in general should be given more opportunities to think freely and debate a topic. Too often we are given statements that this is the way things are, so accept it. This method provides an exercise in open-mindedness, and helps to internalize the answer at which you arrive, since it isn't spoonfed, but is instead your own anser. It would probably do everyone a whole ton of good if every newscast ended not with a neat answer, but left you with a question to figure out on your own, drawing on your own experiences, and those of the people with whom you interact.

Well said Demosthenes! Stute, notice the sentences in bold type. The fact that the teacher is having an open debate and allowing the students to THINK is great. Children learn well this way. Letting them use their own reasoning and sense of deduction and conclusion. Too many students don't know how to do this anymore. It is not a question that I find morally objective or in anyway improper at all. The point is I believe the teacher made each student participate in an active debate and gave their viewpoints. Got them thinking.

This statement is true to some extent...it's more or less based on average people. Normal people that just try and get through life. Now, "bad" people aren't afraid of the consequences...or their desire to do "bad" things outweighs that fear. People who are genuinely good do not follow this rule...they do things that are nice because that's who they are. Obeying the law certainly supports this phrase...no contest there. A good person will obey the law, and also go the extra mile to just be a good person...helping others, donating money, etc.

Zoo, I also agree with your opinion here!

would load up so much stuff...if the sign says take it and has some sort of official signature or seal on it...because then it'd be legal and there's no way they could prosecute me.

True. A lot of us would do that no doubt. I told my daughter this and then she asked me that question again and I said yes I would feel guilty! And she asked would I be looking over my shoulder and I said probably and of course this proved her point!!

would decapitate the neighbor who always steals my parking space if there were no laws, (moral or man-made) against it.I'd do it with a rusty knife, and I'd do it slow.That's how bad I'd be.

Ouch!