Is not doing a bad thing = doing a good thing

[NotaNuffian]

For those who read the title, know that my answer is NO.

Inaction is not an action. Not doing a bad thing does not equate to doing a good thing.

There is a third party in the system between Good and Bad; Mid.

Inaction is Mid.

You not murdering a rando on the street? You are not Good, you are Mid.

You not smoking to ruin your own life? You are Mid.

It is only when you do something good, then you are Good.

You help bodyblocking a bullet? You Good, at least to the person you helped bodyblock.

You helped an elderly crossing the street, even if it is just out of convenience? You Good.

Doing something is where one gets to be labelled Good or Bad.

But want happens when you inactive during a Bad thing? "That depends" is a phrase I hate.

If a Bad thing happens and you have the ability to Good with little effort but you choose to Mid, that is selfish yet predictable. Is it Bad? Does that make the human nature to be self-centered Bad? (YES)

Then doing Good takes extra effort than doing Bad.

What about Mid then? Is Mid = Bad?

 

[Lorelliad]

Mid is mid. It is neither good nor bad. Mid is simply mid, and mid people like me know it is fine.

 

[NotaNuffian]

Mid is mid. It is neither good nor bad. Mid is simply mid, and mid people like me know it is fine.

The initial narrative I wanted to go with is Not doing Bad =/= Doing Good.

Halfway through I just start asking if Mid = Bad when more context is stuffed in like turkey, such as when you supposed to Good but you Mid.

Extra funny is when you suppose to Bad but you Mid does not mean you Good, just means you Mid.

Be Good is assholey.

 

[Sleds]

Mid is not bad, depending of the bad situation and the person body and mental, not doing any action are the best for them.


Here an exemple, if I see a child or a woman being beaten in front of me, I will move to stop it, even if there a chance for me to get hurt.

Now, if at my place it was someone with a shit tier body or low mental strength, they wouldn't move due to the fear of being hurt themself and if we include some countries, the probability to die by playing "hero" by a gun shoot in this situation are huge. So, doing nothing here are not bad, cause they preserve their life by doing it.

 

[Lorelliad]

The initial narrative I wanted to go with is Not doing Bad =/= Doing Good.

Halfway through I just start asking if Mid = Bad when more context is stuffed in like turkey.

I mean, I'd be eager to help someone if it comes to it, but like you said, doing something is when you can be judged to be Good or Bad.

But me? I'd prefer to do nothing if the situation doesn't explicitly require my aid. Which is why I am mid.

 

[RepresentingEnvy]

Is there any person all good or all bad? No. Everyone operates somewhere in the middle. But some people gooder or badder than others.

 

[BernKatstel]

I’m good

 

[Cipiteca396]

Then doing Good takes extra effort than doing Bad.

Disagree. It's the same. If you take the same situation and reverse it, then it is equal.

A person killed someone. You could have stopped it. Police ask you to tell them who did it. You refuse.
Dead was evil. You good?
Dead was good. You evil?
Mid either way?

One is no different from the other.

 

[georgelee5786]

Mid is simply being there.

 

[Voidiris]

Good is all about satisfying the selfishness of others, so in this way it would be evil.
If we consider the controversial morality paper, mid is still evil (and the entire population is mid).
The only situations were mid can be described as good is when the person is so weak that they couldn't help at all.

 

[NotaNuffian]

Mid is not bad, depending of the bad situation and the person body and mental, not doing any action are the best for them.


Here an exemple, if I see a child or a woman being beaten in front of me, I will move to stop it, even if there a chance for me to get hurt.

Now, if at my place it was someone with a shit tier body or low mental strength, they wouldn't move due to the fear of being hurt themself and if we include some countries, the probability to die by playing "hero" by a gun shoot in this situation are huge. So, doing nothing here are not bad, cause they preserve their life by doing it.

That is true.

I mean, I'd be eager to help someone if it comes to it, but like you said, doing something is when you can be judged to be Good or Bad.

But me? I'd prefer to do nothing if the situation doesn't explicitly require my aid. Which is why I am mid.

You lazy.

I like.

Is there any person all good or all bad? No. Everyone operates somewhere in the middle. But some people gooder or badder than others.

Spectrum is always a thing.

Only siths dabble in the absolute.

I am feeling sithy.

I’m good

Good

Disagree. It's the same. If you take the same situation and reverse it, then it is equal.

A person killed someone. You could have stopped it. Police ask you to tell them who did it. You refuse.
Dead was evil. You good?
Dead was good. You evil?
Mid either way?

One is no different from the other.

So it comes down to effort. Though I would argue that being Good is more painful. You have to do Good all the way and if it ends in a Bad Ending, it is still Bad.

Mid is simply being there.

Thanks for being here.

Good is all about satisfying the selfishness of others, so in this way it would be evil.
If we consider the controversial morality paper, mid is still evil (and the entire population is mid).
The only situations were mid can be described as good is when the person is so weak that they couldn't help at all.

So Subjective view?

That is true, but there is Objective Good such as no murder.

 

[Hans.Trondheim]

I don't think being Mid is inherently bad, though there are times it can lead you to bad situations...likewise it can also lead to good situations.

Key is not to look at the world in two colors/sides.

 

[TotallyHuman]

Too much of a good thing is a bad thing. Flatten those lines

I’m good

yes you are, yes you are! Whose a good miko? @BernKatstel is!

 

[LuoirM]

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”

 

[Hans.Trondheim]

On a related note, what's your take on this?

"Bad events happen not because of bad men, but by the ideas of good men with good intentions."

 

[LuoirM]

On a related note, what's your take on this?

"Bad events happen not because of bad men, but by the ideas of good men with good intentions."

I believe it is the same concept of "The path to hell was paved with good intentions." and I agree.

 

[Cipiteca396]

Right, so the consensus is "Good is bad, mid is bad, evil is bad."

 

[NotaNuffian]

On a related note, what's your take on this?

"Bad events happen not because of bad men, but by the ideas of good men with good intentions."

True to a certain extent.

Like, did the good men forgetting to take into account of the evil within his fellow men and fudge the situation?

Right, so the consensus is "Good is bad, mid is bad, evil is bad."

When everything is bad, nothing is.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

"Bad events happen not because of bad men, but by the ideas of good men with good intentions."

I don't think that this makes sense.


edit: On the question of being mid: I think that doing nothing is a choice.

 

[Hans.Trondheim]

I don't think that this makes sense.

Well, I'd like to point to the 'activists' of today. While they are 'fighting for a good cause', they tend to go overboard which leads to even more alienation of the people they are supposed to convince.

Hence, the situation of our societies today.