On Morality
 

Why do good people do bad things?

This is not a pithy question. I'm looking for some thoughtful answers here. Why do we have moral lapses, where people who generally try to do good things occasionally do things that are bad?

And before we get too relativistic, I'm staying within that person's moral framework - they do things that they themselves acknowledge as bad.

-sm

There is evil in the world and no one remains untouched.

I disagree very strongly with the premise of 'evil'. It is absolute and uncompromising, and assumes a fantastical interpretation of the world that aligns with the most destructive myth of all: religion.

I do not believe a person can be inherently 'good' or 'bad'. We do not live in a movie reality of heroes and villains, clear-cut morality and happy endings. The pursuit of ultimates is perhaps the most significant human flaw - a life based on achievement (top marks), possession, and the constant (unreachable) goal of 'ultimate happiness'. Ultimates make it easier to make sense of the world - it is philosophical semantics - symbols/ideologies we adopt to break complex problems down into patterns/behaviour we understand.

On this basis, 'moral lapses' occur when there has been a difficulty forming an ultimate. Ideological confusion occurs whereby there is no or little cohesion between a situation and a pre-existing schema or belief system. A malfunction, if you like. It is necessary then to either alter an existing moral set or embark on a role within the situation that does not align. This is when 'good' people do 'bad' things - when there is a 'glitch' in their matrix.

Spirit was willing, flesh was weak.
Ends justifies the means.

People are complex and full of contradictory impulses and it's hard for some of them to keep it all straight.

There are also people who intentionally/unconsciously break their rules so that they can keep a steady supply of guilt on hand.

Some people just simply can't handle being good all of the time.

Let's leave aside for the moment the question of how we determine what is evil or bad... handed down from God, constructed by society, imposed by the patriarchal hegemony, etc. etc., take your pick.

Do you agree (or do you not) that some actions are evil or bad (we're throwing around terms that haven't been rigidly defined), even if you and I may disagree about which actions those are?

That is a very indefinite question. I understand completely what you're getting at - clearly there are atrocities committed in this world that could arguably be defined as 'bad' or 'wrong'. I don't think we need to list these actions. But to assume that 'evil' is inherent, or absolute, is implausible. We personify evil and give it a life of its own - this is my objection. A person or people can act in accordance with the principles of evil (amorally, malevolently) but to assert that they are evil, or that evil has 'taken hold of them' is pure fantasy. 'Badness' by definition is an action that contradicts agreed social values - there was once a time when slavery was not considered 'bad' - now we are happy to accept it as 'wrong' (if not evil). The fact that we may disagree on which actions are 'bad' is irrelevant - it is the point that a person can be inherently 'good' or 'bad' I object to, whether this is instinctual or nurtured.

That's precisely why I asked about bad "actions" rather than bad people.

No, you don't understand. Whether it is action or person is inconsequential. It is the personification of 'evil' as a tangible entity I disagree with. There is no such thing as an evil action. The action itself is not evil, it is just an action. The motivation (and the person) behind the action is what we consider 'good' or 'bad' (see above).

He's not asking the big picture, "Why do people do Evil?"

He's not looking to define evil.

He's asking why do people transgress against what they perceive to be a good moral code.

No, he asked:

'Why do good people do bad things?'

I felt it necessary to establish a definition of 'good' and 'bad' before I proceeded with an answer. Personally, I think the boundaries are ambiguous, and good and bad cannot be polarised in this way. If there is no such thing as a 'good' person and no such thing as a 'bad' action, then the question is redundant.

If you're going to quote, quote properly.

"I'm staying within that person's moral framework - they do things that they themselves acknowledge as bad."

If you're going to quote, quote properly:

"Why do good people do bad things?

This is not a pithy question. I'm looking for some thoughtful answers here. Why do we have moral lapses, where people who generally try to do good things occasionally do things that are bad?

And before we get too relativistic, I'm staying within that person's moral framework - they do things that they themselves acknowledge as bad."

I got the impression that sm wasn't looking for a 2-bit amateur psychology answer that summarised basic human rule-breaking patterns (attention, guilt, trauma... oh come on).

The notion that a 'generally good' person might not exist surely sheds some light on the answer?

Then let us suspend our discussion until he can clarify.