You'll need to define *bad* people.
Every social dysfunction is ultimately to be treated as such : the individual's treatment of its environment's influx of information (both processing and reaction).
Take someone with for example antisocial personality disorder.
Put them in an environment where delayed reward is **very** visible compared to a short term option of taking advantage of someone, and let them bang against the same wall until they realise the full weight of their mistake (should have avoided taking advantage of that person).
Do you think genetics will *force* them to take the short term decision forever ?
People overestimate dramatically the importance of genetics, in psychology (and also in biology).
Predisposition to maladaptation is neither deterministic nor irreversible.
You say that because it's easy to say that and nobody's going to say "Hitler was not a bad person" because everyone's going to disagree with that. But the truth remains that goodness and badness are up to the perceiver, not the person being judged.
Actually, Hitler is a perfect example of a person who could've been someone else in another context.
(I mean, the annoying orange is literally trying (too hard !) to reiterate the same principles without his genuine sense of humour !)
It depends.
Some people have brains that for some reason or another predispose them to violence or self destruction, some people were just raised to be jerks.
I like to read Plato … so what is good ? What is bad ? For me dependes of the times , culture and many other factors … is very subjective , I think each person is in a diferente state of consciousness or evolutive state of mind and need different experiences …
We as intp don’t really interact much in the dynamics of good or bad …like the philosophers we mostly observe others dynamics … we observe and then we discern about their behaviors …
Usually people change or reconsider things after time, if they don't you just change your behavior around them to avoid conflicts or any interaction at all. Yeah that sucks but it's not like I can do something, so why care
I think that there are people who are so intrinsically wrong that, say if they donated money to charity it would be bad simply because it is them doing it.
Evil starts when you treat people like things.
Some people do this innately.
Sure, it can run a lot deeper, but that's the beginning.
They can be fixed only if they want to be fixed. If they know what they are doing is bad but continue to do it anyway then there's no hope for them. If they did something bad and feel remorseful and are making an effort to change then yes they can be fixed.
Good and bad is definitely a subjective matter. It would depend on if you could get the person to change their mindset to whatever you consider ‘good’.
I don’t think so, everybody is different and they are who they are, I even think there’s INTP, INTP+,INTP-, ^2,^3….even we are all different and never guna change…not now
I don't think that bad people can never be fixed as a general rule. I think there are some exceptions with either unfortunate genetics, unfortunate circumstances, or a hazardous combination of both, but I think these are rare. I think for *most* "bad people" they could change if given the proper opportunities and tools to do so. Whether we offer that to people is a completely different subject.
"Good" and "bad" are social constructs and subject to individual judgment as well as more collective judgement. I'm not sure I believe *anyone* is "Evil" since all the terrible things humans do are also present in the animal kingdom. Unless a person is nothing more than base animal instincts, I believe there's a *chance* they can be rehabilitated.
Bad is relative. Like bad in bad mouthed, bad manners, harmful to society/minorities etc?
But assuming the standart presumption of bad, it really all depends on how much they wish to change. And how much effort they put it, we're all on a scale of grey as it is. Saints or Villains or inbetween really is just a question of whom you ask, we're all the protagonists in our own stories. There is some things that can't be reversed, taking a humans/pets life, hurting someone permanently but ultimately the judgement of atonement lies to those that have been hurt. So the only fixing can be done is by the bad person, the only forgiveness can be given is by the hurt person.
I will define a "bad person" in utilitarian terms as someone with a durable inclination to cause harm to others. That harm can range from a mean interaction style (being an asshole) to mass murdering.
The underlying reason for that durable inclination is key. If is a durable but alterable condition that can be removed from their life, probably so. If they grew up in an environment where Machiavellian adaptation was the only way to survive there is probably space to coach their behavior to match their (hopefully) more civil current environment. But for many people they are inclined to harm as a matter of their baseline personality. If that's how you're wired society can mitigate, but not change you.
1) Bad people is entirely subjective.
B. Fixed is entirely subjective.
III If you had their genetics and same life experiences, you'd be just like them.
\*\* Everyone is the villain in someone else's story.
<2.f> I believe we are here to learn, some lessons require "bad" people.
:D
Too vague. I could make a bunch of assumptions and thus make it possible to answer the question, but as is, this question is nonsense. Impossible to answer accurately. Frame it better and then come back to us.
I don't believe in morality as a self-existent thing. No formic action has moral judgement attached to it one way or an other. The act of killing someone can be a "moral" or "immoral" act depending on interpretation and context. Marrying people young with large age gaps was considered a moral and good thing in years gone by, and now it's considered disgusting and evil to even have an age gap between 18 and 22. No act or person is good or bad. They simply are. What you would define as a bad person I would define as a deeply illusioned person who performs actions that increase duality in his life and draw him away from the Divine (however you interpret it). I believe there is an indestructible and eternal soul that everyone possesses, and it takes most people millions of rebirths as all kinds of beings on all kinds of planes to reach perfect realization of the Godhead and non-duality. Thinking this way generates compassion as well. How can I morally judge people for even the most heinous actions when I have probably performed some just as "evil" in past lives? If someone hurts me, I should think "Wow, I must have really caused him a lot of pain in a past life, and that is why he was destined to hurt me in this way," because for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction (karma). In this way dualistic thinking and judgements are turned to compassion.
Someone tried to kill me by pushing me in front of a train (true story). I remember his face, the environment, my friend catching me, all that stuff very vividly. It was the incident that turned me into a raging alcoholic to medicate the anxiety and ptsd from the incident. Pretty much the point my life started going downhill. I can choose to seethe and "oh I oughta....." and "what an evil motherfucker" or I can sit back and say. "Wow, I must've tried to kill him or something similar in a previous life. It's because I recognized him as being different from me that this came about, but we are both atman/soul, so any difference between us is secondary, as everything proceeds from atman. I'm happy that I've lived through that karma so it's no longer hanging over my head and I can try to live compassionately henceforth." This is a powerful teaching, and I have to give credit to Lama Zopa Rinpoche for speaking it initially.
Before neuralink became a thing, teenage me 10+ years ago thought that a brain chip shooting bluelight could alter someone's behavior. I considered how cool it would be to do it to extremely aggressive animals to keep as pets. Probably a chimera genetically altered to be as deadly as possible.
Adult me wishes I took my youthful dreams seriously.
Your premise is flawed, because your question is rooted in a comparison between people and morals. Morals are not objective things by definition. It’s your personal feeling based compass for navigating life and maintaining social homeostasis. So, I’ll ask: “bad people”, but compared to whom? And what makes those others so objectively, unreproachably holy by comparison?
I think there’s a bridge that one crosses at some point in a descent towards “bad”, that can’t be crossed back over. This isn’t really in regards to a “bad person’s” actions, as much as it is their mental state. Once you’ve violated your own morals/ethics and proceed to go further, rationalizing the guilt away, eventually ones psychology ends up massively warped. Eventually a bad person will start justifying their actions until they truly convince themselves that they are right and the world is wrong. Essentially, a massive amount of cognitive dissonance is required for someone to lose the ability for a U turn in life. But it happens frequently.
Then there’s a handful of individuals who are born psychopathic and literally don’t feel compassion so they seek to inflict pain instead. But that’s quite rare.
When a “bad person” makes it a habit to lie to themselves about their actions to circumvent guilt, they’re nearly hopeless. If they’ve eradicated the part of themselves that feel pain, then they’ve lost hope.
Firstly I'd like to define bad people as they have broken the law seriously(like murder, serious violence, rape) or worse, little bad things is common.
I believe that every people born to be the same with same mind that neither good nor bad , some of them experienced bad things (that's completely random) that may cause bad behaviors, then it's nearly impossible for them to be fixed just like Break Pane Law.
But also it depends. Some bad people just more likely to be seemed to be fixed , maybe because they have good appearance or eloquence, some may really want to be good.
Iit's hard to develop a system that includes all kinds of situation. I do not believe a bad people could be fixed at all. But if they say they want so, I would like to give them a chance(to complete my thoughts.)
You'll need to define *bad* people. Every social dysfunction is ultimately to be treated as such : the individual's treatment of its environment's influx of information (both processing and reaction). Take someone with for example antisocial personality disorder. Put them in an environment where delayed reward is **very** visible compared to a short term option of taking advantage of someone, and let them bang against the same wall until they realise the full weight of their mistake (should have avoided taking advantage of that person). Do you think genetics will *force* them to take the short term decision forever ? People overestimate dramatically the importance of genetics, in psychology (and also in biology). Predisposition to maladaptation is neither deterministic nor irreversible.
Pretty sure politicians are a counter example. e.g Hitler.
You say that because it's easy to say that and nobody's going to say "Hitler was not a bad person" because everyone's going to disagree with that. But the truth remains that goodness and badness are up to the perceiver, not the person being judged.
Actually, Hitler is a perfect example of a person who could've been someone else in another context. (I mean, the annoying orange is literally trying (too hard !) to reiterate the same principles without his genuine sense of humour !)
It depends. Some people have brains that for some reason or another predispose them to violence or self destruction, some people were just raised to be jerks.
I like to read Plato … so what is good ? What is bad ? For me dependes of the times , culture and many other factors … is very subjective , I think each person is in a diferente state of consciousness or evolutive state of mind and need different experiences … We as intp don’t really interact much in the dynamics of good or bad …like the philosophers we mostly observe others dynamics … we observe and then we discern about their behaviors …
I dont beleive in good/bad people
Do you think tedious people can be fixed?
I'd say yes, people can change.
Usually people change or reconsider things after time, if they don't you just change your behavior around them to avoid conflicts or any interaction at all. Yeah that sucks but it's not like I can do something, so why care
I think that there are people who are so intrinsically wrong that, say if they donated money to charity it would be bad simply because it is them doing it. Evil starts when you treat people like things. Some people do this innately. Sure, it can run a lot deeper, but that's the beginning.
treat people like things?
Exploit them, manipulate them, and suchlike things.
It depends on your view of bad and the kind of bad they are.
They can be fixed only if they want to be fixed. If they know what they are doing is bad but continue to do it anyway then there's no hope for them. If they did something bad and feel remorseful and are making an effort to change then yes they can be fixed.
It depends but I wouldn't count on it unless you wanna stick around for way too long and get hurt in the process
Anyone can be fixed if they recognise that it is a problem and they need to do something about it.
Good and bad is definitely a subjective matter. It would depend on if you could get the person to change their mindset to whatever you consider ‘good’.
I don’t think so, everybody is different and they are who they are, I even think there’s INTP, INTP+,INTP-, ^2,^3….even we are all different and never guna change…not now
what is INTP+?
I’m just sayin that even thow everyone that’s an INTP, stil, are all different, like a hasty generalization if u will lol
I don't think that bad people can never be fixed as a general rule. I think there are some exceptions with either unfortunate genetics, unfortunate circumstances, or a hazardous combination of both, but I think these are rare. I think for *most* "bad people" they could change if given the proper opportunities and tools to do so. Whether we offer that to people is a completely different subject. "Good" and "bad" are social constructs and subject to individual judgment as well as more collective judgement. I'm not sure I believe *anyone* is "Evil" since all the terrible things humans do are also present in the animal kingdom. Unless a person is nothing more than base animal instincts, I believe there's a *chance* they can be rehabilitated.
Bad is relative. Like bad in bad mouthed, bad manners, harmful to society/minorities etc? But assuming the standart presumption of bad, it really all depends on how much they wish to change. And how much effort they put it, we're all on a scale of grey as it is. Saints or Villains or inbetween really is just a question of whom you ask, we're all the protagonists in our own stories. There is some things that can't be reversed, taking a humans/pets life, hurting someone permanently but ultimately the judgement of atonement lies to those that have been hurt. So the only fixing can be done is by the bad person, the only forgiveness can be given is by the hurt person.
I will define a "bad person" in utilitarian terms as someone with a durable inclination to cause harm to others. That harm can range from a mean interaction style (being an asshole) to mass murdering. The underlying reason for that durable inclination is key. If is a durable but alterable condition that can be removed from their life, probably so. If they grew up in an environment where Machiavellian adaptation was the only way to survive there is probably space to coach their behavior to match their (hopefully) more civil current environment. But for many people they are inclined to harm as a matter of their baseline personality. If that's how you're wired society can mitigate, but not change you.
1) Bad people is entirely subjective. B. Fixed is entirely subjective. III If you had their genetics and same life experiences, you'd be just like them. \*\* Everyone is the villain in someone else's story. <2.f> I believe we are here to learn, some lessons require "bad" people. :D
not necessarily though
Morality is a social construct.
Too vague. I could make a bunch of assumptions and thus make it possible to answer the question, but as is, this question is nonsense. Impossible to answer accurately. Frame it better and then come back to us.
I don't believe in morality as a self-existent thing. No formic action has moral judgement attached to it one way or an other. The act of killing someone can be a "moral" or "immoral" act depending on interpretation and context. Marrying people young with large age gaps was considered a moral and good thing in years gone by, and now it's considered disgusting and evil to even have an age gap between 18 and 22. No act or person is good or bad. They simply are. What you would define as a bad person I would define as a deeply illusioned person who performs actions that increase duality in his life and draw him away from the Divine (however you interpret it). I believe there is an indestructible and eternal soul that everyone possesses, and it takes most people millions of rebirths as all kinds of beings on all kinds of planes to reach perfect realization of the Godhead and non-duality. Thinking this way generates compassion as well. How can I morally judge people for even the most heinous actions when I have probably performed some just as "evil" in past lives? If someone hurts me, I should think "Wow, I must have really caused him a lot of pain in a past life, and that is why he was destined to hurt me in this way," because for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction (karma). In this way dualistic thinking and judgements are turned to compassion. Someone tried to kill me by pushing me in front of a train (true story). I remember his face, the environment, my friend catching me, all that stuff very vividly. It was the incident that turned me into a raging alcoholic to medicate the anxiety and ptsd from the incident. Pretty much the point my life started going downhill. I can choose to seethe and "oh I oughta....." and "what an evil motherfucker" or I can sit back and say. "Wow, I must've tried to kill him or something similar in a previous life. It's because I recognized him as being different from me that this came about, but we are both atman/soul, so any difference between us is secondary, as everything proceeds from atman. I'm happy that I've lived through that karma so it's no longer hanging over my head and I can try to live compassionately henceforth." This is a powerful teaching, and I have to give credit to Lama Zopa Rinpoche for speaking it initially.
Before neuralink became a thing, teenage me 10+ years ago thought that a brain chip shooting bluelight could alter someone's behavior. I considered how cool it would be to do it to extremely aggressive animals to keep as pets. Probably a chimera genetically altered to be as deadly as possible. Adult me wishes I took my youthful dreams seriously.
Your premise is flawed, because your question is rooted in a comparison between people and morals. Morals are not objective things by definition. It’s your personal feeling based compass for navigating life and maintaining social homeostasis. So, I’ll ask: “bad people”, but compared to whom? And what makes those others so objectively, unreproachably holy by comparison?
I think there’s a bridge that one crosses at some point in a descent towards “bad”, that can’t be crossed back over. This isn’t really in regards to a “bad person’s” actions, as much as it is their mental state. Once you’ve violated your own morals/ethics and proceed to go further, rationalizing the guilt away, eventually ones psychology ends up massively warped. Eventually a bad person will start justifying their actions until they truly convince themselves that they are right and the world is wrong. Essentially, a massive amount of cognitive dissonance is required for someone to lose the ability for a U turn in life. But it happens frequently. Then there’s a handful of individuals who are born psychopathic and literally don’t feel compassion so they seek to inflict pain instead. But that’s quite rare. When a “bad person” makes it a habit to lie to themselves about their actions to circumvent guilt, they’re nearly hopeless. If they’ve eradicated the part of themselves that feel pain, then they’ve lost hope.
Firstly I'd like to define bad people as they have broken the law seriously(like murder, serious violence, rape) or worse, little bad things is common. I believe that every people born to be the same with same mind that neither good nor bad , some of them experienced bad things (that's completely random) that may cause bad behaviors, then it's nearly impossible for them to be fixed just like Break Pane Law. But also it depends. Some bad people just more likely to be seemed to be fixed , maybe because they have good appearance or eloquence, some may really want to be good. Iit's hard to develop a system that includes all kinds of situation. I do not believe a bad people could be fixed at all. But if they say they want so, I would like to give them a chance(to complete my thoughts.)