Is not doing a bad thing = doing a good thing

[AYM]

• Not doing a bad thing is doing a good thing. Not doing a good thing is a bad thing.
• Inaction is an action.

There isn't much else to say about this topic. Good and evil do not have clear borders, and everyone loves to draw their borders differently.

 

[NotaNuffian]

• Not doing a bad thing is doing a good thing. Not doing a good thing is a bad thing.
• Inaction is an action.

There isn't much else to say about this topic. Good and evil do not have clear borders, and everyone loves to draw their borders differently.

And that is why discussion occurs.

Everybody is looking at the world with their view.

I can put a border and have people yelling that it is wrong because either: not enough, too much or just plain wrong.

Though I do come to understand that people, especially me, is biased as all hell towards themselves.

 

[Tyranomaster]

Sloth (inaction) is bad.

 

[AYM]

And that is why discussion occurs.

Everybody is looking at the world with their view.

I can put a border and have people yelling that it is wrong because either: not enough, too much or just plain wrong.

Though I do come to understand that people, especially me, is biased as all hell towards themselves.

It's a fun topic for casual conversation, but not one someone could ever reach an end.

The indifferent "It depends" is a common conclusion because of the different views.

 

[PancakesWitch]

This is where the phylosphy of characters like spiderman or superman comes, they have power and this gives them a responsability. with this power they can help lives, save people, so they will do it, ALWAYS, no matter what, even if they have to sacrifice their own personal life, even if they have to leave behind friends or family, if they don't, they will feel guilty, undeserving of their strength. The same could be applied with real life, there are people that could have done something, that had the power to help someone in front of them, or to even save someone. Some people would risk their lives to save another, because they would feel guitly if they didnt take action, knowing that they could have saved someone, helped someone, but that they didnt, it makes them feel miserable. If you ever plan to write an actual righteous character, never forget this.

 

[NotaNuffian]

It's a fun topic for casual conversation, but not one someone could ever reach an end.

The indifferent "It depends" is a common conclusion because of the different views.

Yup.

The middle ground is Mid.

This is where the phylosphy of characters like spiderman or superman comes, they have power and this gives them a responsability. with this power they can help lives, save people, so they will do it, ALWAYS, no matter what, even if they have to sacrifice their own personal life, even if they have to leave behind friends or family, if they don't, they will feel guilty, undeserving of their strength. The same could be applied with real life, there are people that could have done something, that had the power to help someone in front of them, or to even save someone. Some people would risk their lives to save another, because they would feel guitly if they didnt take action, knowing that they could have saved someone, helped someone, but that they didnt, it makes them feel miserable. If you ever plan to write an actual righteous character, never forget this.

I always pity Peter because he is the designated punching bag.

In Civil War he got his aunt killed for coming out and examples of him taking a break always ends shittily.

Literally has to self immolate to light up the world. I like him, I don't inspire to be him.

 

[Voidiris]

This is where the phylosphy of characters like spiderman or superman comes, they have power and this gives them a responsability. with this power they can help lives, save people, so they will do it, ALWAYS, no matter what, even if they have to sacrifice their own personal life, even if they have to leave behind friends or family, if they don't, they will feel guilty, undeserving of their strength. The same could be applied with real life, there are people that could have done something, that had the power to help someone in front of them, or to even save someone. Some people would risk their lives to save another, because they would feel guitly if they didnt take action, knowing that they could have saved someone, helped someone, but that they didnt, it makes them feel miserable. If you ever plan to write an actual righteous character, never forget this.

The thing is most people could save lives via charity, to be truly good you would have to reduce everything you have to the things you need to survive, give everything else to charity and use your time to save and help as many people as possible.

 

[SailusGebel]

Yes.

 

[HungrySheep]

Can inaction even be considered "doing"?

 

[NotaNuffian]

Can inaction even be considered "doing"?

It counts as an action by some apparently, though I have my doubts.

Yes.

To me, not doing a Bad thing does not equal to doing a Good thing, but not doing a Good thing equals a Bad thing.

Your "yes" to not doing a Bad thing equals to doing a Good thing is funny though, is it in the context of when someone asking you to kill an innocent and you don't do it?

Ps. My web viewing through mobile is fucked, whose signature is doing it?

 

[SailusGebel]

To me, not doing a Bad thing does not equal to doing a Good thing, but not doing a Good thing equals a Bad thing.

Your "yes" to not doing a Bad thing equals to doing a Good thing is funny though, is it in the context of when someone asking you to kill an innocent and you don't do it?

Yep. That context. If you are forced or coerced to do a bad thing, and you do not do it, this is a good thing. Speaking of this context, is pacifism a good thing, or a mid thing?

 

[NotaNuffian]

Yep. That context. If you are forced or coerced to do a bad thing, and you do not do it, this is a good thing. Speaking of this context, is pacifism a good thing, or a mid thing?

It is good until certain extent.

As to what extent, I can't gauge for you, but for me, it is when my territory and stuff is getting encroached.

The game theory 4 (overly simple) steps in winning is something I wished I had learnt earlier.

1. Be cooperative
2. Be unsusceptible
3. Be forgiving
4. Be honest

Also to add, be friendly. Nobody likes Squidward, unfortunately.

 

[laccoff_mawning]

After some thought, my answer is actually "yes".

My reasoning is that i do not believe that good and bad are forms of currency; that doing one nets you "positive karma points" and doing the other nets you "negative karma points". If such were true, then actions could be mid.

Rather, much like true and false are binary in nature, I would argue the same for good and bad. If something is good, it works. If something is bad, it's broken. If it is not broken, that implies it works.

Hence, a "non-broken" thing is a working thing, and so a not-bad thing is a good thing.

I will also state, to prevent confusion, that I would also consider inactivity to be sometimes a bad thing. Thus inactivity is sometimes "doing a bad thing", as opposed to "not doing a bad thing". Here, I would argue that this arises because "good" and "bad" are not principally actions; rather they are the motives and mindsets behind the actions. Thus, if one chooses inactivity, when it is their responsibility to act, then they have chosen to "do a bad thing" by doing something else in that time, rather than "not do a bad thing".

 

[LittleRedTopHat]

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?

Bad is defined more society and morals. In certain parts of the world the cow is sacred yet in other parts their livestock to be eaten.

The powerful create what is defined as bad whereas the people follow that.