is a man who does bad deeds sometimes, but on the whole does good, still a good man?

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Flag *
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Password	(For file and post deletion.)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 8 MB. Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000. You may upload 5 per post.

File: 1453533784255.jpg (52.33 KB, 555x523, 555:523, 1452153258672-0.jpg)

Anonymous 01/23/16 (Sat) 07:23:04 78df48 No.3448

is a man who does bad deeds sometimes, but on the whole does good, still a good man?

A.W. 01/23/16 (Sat) 20:50:09 cde354 No.3452

If a bloke goes on /r/askphilosophy and copypastes a question there to /philosophy/, is he not a cunt?

That question is so vague, but here's a reformulation: If a man is a slave master who treats his slaves well most of the time, but beats them terribly sometimes, is he still a good man? Is the man who owns 10 wives, but treats them well, a good man despite the fact that his wives have no freedom beyond his will no matter how kind he is?

The question in general completely ignores structural elements within which "good" is situated. A bad structure is a bad structure, and no matter how kind someone is within that structure, can they truly be said to be good people while engaging in that structure? Is being good merely a thing of intent that has nothing to do with structural relations?

Anonymous 01/24/16 (Sun) 04:41:59 892ecc No.3455

>>3452

>If a bloke goes on /r/askphilosophy and copypastes a question there to /philosophy/, is he not a cunt?

i dont follow your logic.

Anonymous 01/24/16 (Sun) 15:04:14 0f6766 No.3458

define "good"

define "bad"

define "good deed"

define "bad deed"

define "good man"

define "bad man"

then we can talk

A.W. 01/25/16 (Mon) 01:43:26 cde354 No.3459

>>3458

Well at least we have one definition in the world thanks to this post.

Retard: >>3458

Anonymous 01/25/16 (Mon) 07:49:50 6b2b52 No.3461

>>3459

you linked to the same post twice. but thanks for taking the step from flagfagging to namefagging so that i cant take the hint and just straight up filter you.

A.W. 01/25/16 (Mon) 08:01:15 cde354 No.3462

>>3461

I linked it twice because you're a retard. Should I have linked it thrice for you?

Anonymous 01/25/16 (Mon) 08:48:11 6b2b52 No.3463

File: 1453711691413.gif (2.79 MB, 377x240, 377:240, how to deal with tripfags.gif)

>>3458

must i define them all myself? very well. keep in mind im writing this late at night so it is subject to change.

good: to help or harm those who deserve help or harm, including yourself

Bad: the inverse of good; to help those who deserve harm and to harm those who deserve help

i really dont see why i need to define these when i have defined good and bad, but whatever

good deed: but the definition would be "the act of doing good"

bad deed: the act of doing bad

good man: this is what i came here to find out, if i knew the definition i wouldnt be here you goober

Bad man: presumably the inverse of a good man.

>>3462

replace tripcode with name

Anonymous 01/25/16 (Mon) 20:27:46 2ee2d7 No.3464

No one is perfect

Anonymous 01/25/16 (Mon) 22:47:53 70e03e No.3465

>>3448

depending on how anal retentive you are you can go two ways about the question:

- start talking about ethical theories

- start talking about ethical language

choose.

Anonymous 01/25/16 (Mon) 23:32:09 5e131f No.3467

>>3464

did i say they were?

>>3465

im interested in either, take your pick and have at it.