4 ms·

> But at the end of your life, total it all up. You should have produced more than you consumed. That’s what it means to be a good person. Summing up one's lif

by squigz 1y ago

> But at the end of your life, total it all up. You should have produced more than you consumed. That’s what it means to be a good person. Summing up one's life in terms of "production" and "consumption" is such a broken way of looking at things. I will be kind to people. I will be patient with them. I will try to help them. I'll try to make the world a better place in all the little ways I can. How much or how little I "produce" has no bearing on whether my life will be weighed as good or bad. And since we're quoting incredible TV shows... "The success or failure of your deeds does not add up to the sum of your life. Your spirit cannot be weighed. Judge yourself by the intentions of your actions, and by the strength with which you faced the challenges that have stood in your way. The Universe is vast and we are so small. There is really only one thing we can ever truly control... whether we are good or evil." - Oma Desala, Stargate SG-1

conception 1y ago
I’ve never seen anything more eloquent on good or evil than Dungeons and Dragons. Putting others before yourself is good. Putting yourself before others is evil. And everyone lives somewhere on that sliding scale.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
galfarragem 1y ago
> I will be kind to people. If you look at it as "producing goodwill" (an intangible asset) it still fits his axiom.
- squigz 1y ago
  I considered that, but I think it's a stretch to think that's what they meant - they were clearly referring to actual tangible assets and labor. To be sure there is some merit in what he's saying, but I take great issue with the framing; it seems to me to almost be contradictory to outline the issues with society brought on by, what he calls, the "unproductive elites", while simultaneously framing the success of one's life in a consumerist way.
- florbnit 1y ago
  Yes, and we should factor in a $ amount per child you’ve had, also subtract a $ amount per time you yell at said child. Also how much should a compliment given to a stranger be worth? Should the value be different if it’s in sincere? The important point is that it’s the net sum at the end that qualifies if you are a good person! If you help out 1000 people and have 12 kids, but also you contribute to a racially motivated genocide, you’re still a good person as long as the net $ sum at the end is positive. /s Absolutely everything about the idea seems wrong. Both the idea that it’s all about accounting and the idea that you can ascribe a definite value to actions that should sum to some moral statement.
  - galfarragem 1y ago
    So what "axiom" do you propose instead?
arandr0x 1y ago
There is a reason religions tend to agree on 1) the worth of your life is not your own to judge and 2) what makes humans moral is they have free will - good or evil is found in the places you can control, even and maybe especially when it's hard. Because otherwise you make morality a game and people are distracted from the deeds by the point system (The Good Place is another good TV show that has a funny satire of this).

by squigz 1y ago

conception 1y ago

I’ve never seen anything more eloquent on good or evil than Dungeons and Dragons. Putting others before yourself is good. Putting yourself before others is evil. And everyone lives somewhere on that sliding scale.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

galfarragem 1y ago

> I will be kind to people. If you look at it as "producing goodwill" (an intangible asset) it still fits his axiom.

squigz 1y ago
I considered that, but I think it's a stretch to think that's what they meant - they were clearly referring to actual tangible assets and labor. To be sure there is some merit in what he's saying, but I take great issue with the framing; it seems to me to almost be contradictory to outline the issues with society brought on by, what he calls, the "unproductive elites", while simultaneously framing the success of one's life in a consumerist way.
florbnit 1y ago
Yes, and we should factor in a $ amount per child you’ve had, also subtract a $ amount per time you yell at said child. Also how much should a compliment given to a stranger be worth? Should the value be different if it’s in sincere? The important point is that it’s the net sum at the end that qualifies if you are a good person! If you help out 1000 people and have 12 kids, but also you contribute to a racially motivated genocide, you’re still a good person as long as the net $ sum at the end is positive. /s Absolutely everything about the idea seems wrong. Both the idea that it’s all about accounting and the idea that you can ascribe a definite value to actions that should sum to some moral statement.
- galfarragem 1y ago
  So what "axiom" do you propose instead?

arandr0x 1y ago

There is a reason religions tend to agree on 1) the worth of your life is not your own to judge and 2) what makes humans moral is they have free will - good or evil is found in the places you can control, even and maybe especially when it's hard. Because otherwise you make morality a game and people are distracted from the deeds by the point system (The Good Place is another good TV show that has a funny satire of this).