Edit: I don’t mean someone that will sacrifice their life for yours, more someone who would go out of their way to rush you to the hospital or something
I think it’s dangerous to consider anyone to be a fundamentally good person or a fundamentally bad person. It’s impossible to know what someone is internally and I am not a believer in determinism. Every person is complex and capable of good and evil acts depending on their circumstances.
Especially when you live in a cutthroat competitive culture in which what little to win is jealously guarded by narcissistic psychopaths, many people understand at least on some level that public behavior is a performance intended to reap rewards rather than an honest presentation of oneself. Good and evil is inapplicable here. Our system is amoral, and we human animals are just going to do what we consider to be a good idea at a time and only a few of us really consider the ethics of what we’re going to do before we do it, and the few of us capable of that only do it some of the time.
Someone can do the right thing for the right reasons, the right thing for the wrong reasons, the wrong thing for the right reasons, or the wrong things for the wrong reasons. I can never know their internal part, just base my expectations on how their behavior effects me and others. I wouldn’t trust anyone until I consider them to be trustworthy, though I can’t expect to always be right about that either.
Your comment seems to be conflicting
In what way?
You recognize that our world breeds narcissistic psychopaths so you likely understand it would be in your best interest to avoid them but you also don’t think you should make judgements on people’s character
Being a narcissistic psychopath is a circumstance, not an expression of internal evil. Narcissistic psychopaths are also capable of doing the right things for the right reasons as well as for the wrong reasons. The reason I advocate against guessing people’s internal morality is mainly practical for my own relationships, but also is to encourage people to fix systemic problems instead of pretending some malicious force of evil is omnipresently working against the interests of mankind as many religious people believe. In a better system, narcissistic psychopaths could get what they want without harming others for their ends.
You’re right in that the majority of people have terrible judgement, not everyone has training to recognize personality traits and often make horrible assumptions. But at the core of it, if you strive for a society with as little conflict as possible, you require the general to care about the general.
A narcissistic psychopath is inherently, by definition, incapable of doing that naturally. They can mask and imititate but left to their own devices they will always be a detriment to society as a whole. Narcissism, lack of empathy and remorse, manipulation are all grouped as Anti-Social Personality Disorders for a reason.
They aren’t anti-social in the sense that they don’t like to party, they are anti-social in the sense that their goals do not align with a properly functioning society.
Fortunately in your example, the general can still serve the general as anti-social personality disorders will always be in the minority especially if that society functions properly for the general welfare of its people. As for doing it naturally, we naturally live in hunter-gatherer bands. Society is fully socially constructed and requires all of us to resist many aspects of our natures for it to function in a way that benefits us.
What I am arguing for is that these individuals are honestly acknowledged for their tendencies and deficits so that they can get the help they need while serving in a capacity which limits their ability to harm others due to their negligence and benefits others by utilizing their strengths. A psychopath can understand that it is in their self-interest to live in a stable friendly society. Honestly I don’t personally know to integrate a full-blown narcissist, but I expect it’s possible. I don’t think it’s possible or advisable to make any effort to remove all psychopaths and narcissists from society since eugenic thinking is responsible for many of the worst atrocities in human history.
Do you see any current day examples of how a minority of people acting with machevellianism can rise to positions of power because they are willing to trample everyone in their path with complete disregard for human life?
I’m not advocating eugenics unless you think prison counts
Good? Many The other is completely different thing independent of being ‘a good person’
That is very hard to asses. I prefer to look it like this, what chances is that you will find a partner (like for marry to) out of 100 or so. I do believe, if given equal chance of interaction, you could find a marrying-material partner every 7 or 8 people. Now, in a world of plenty of choices, biases etc, we shuffle through hundreds of people before settling with one… and, even then, still unhappy with the choice for the people we haven gone through yet in our search. Now, that is for me… Chances is you would choose a different person out of these very same 7 to 8 people. Both chosen persons have the same chance of being equally good persons, as the non chosen ones.
I would say the vast majority of people are good, however people are flawed so a lot of people are bad at being good.
This is pretty close to my answer. I feel bad for the people who don’t think their friends would drive them to the hospital if they were dying.
That type of betrayal is actually so common that there is a term for it, look up “cancer ghosting”. A lot of people wouldn’t believe in it until it happens to them.
There is a big difference between a good person that will not intentionally do you harm and is happy to help vs one that would enter risk to save you in life or death.
I know lots of people I am confident would do me no harm and treat me well. I know a few that do not care / can’t be trusted.
As for my life that is fairly limited to select family and a few friends.
just a few and that’s ok. people will make good and bad things and there are a few with whom you’ll really get along with. keep them close.
Zero, but I’ve heard rumors they exist.
0%
I don’t think it’s wise to ever trust another person 100%. You should be aware that anyone could turn on you in the correct situation with the correct pressures.
You’re right, but sometimes you need someone to hold the other end of the rope when you lower yourself over a cliff.
Unfortunately if I’m going over a cliff it’s a solo adventure and I don’t plan on coming back up.
Damn fren.
It’s just logical.
the sort of logic that’s fundamentally irrational.
How? Anyone you know could betray you at any moment for various reasons. Simply because it’s unlikely doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
and your heart could fail at any moment randomly. doesnt make it rational to design your whole life around it. Yes people can betray your trust, but again and again and again it’s been shown that people dont betray eachother far far more often than they do. Also, if you’re big on Logic™️, lying only works if the vast majority of communication is truthful.
I mean you are making sense. I still don’t see the issue with keeping a little bit in reserve for those potentialities.
sure, im not saying blindly trust people in all situations. but distrust should be exceptional, not normal.
Having actually been rushed to hospital when I was a kid by my friends after a big accident on my bike I would say the number is higher than you might think. They even walked by bike back home, which considering it was miles from home was pretty mad for teenagers.
I would say at least 20 people I know who are close to me either have done something I would consider above and beyond for me already or I know for sure would do so. Thats not counting any relatives.
There are a lot of people who would rush me to the hospital but also voted to take away my rights and worse. I don’t know if I believe in good people these days.
“Good” or “trust my life with”? The two can be mutually exclusive. If I was in the wrong, would a good person defend me?
I’ve met a few people with genuinely good morals in my life. They do exist and are almost incorruptible. Most people are flexible in that we can make justifications for almost anything.
Having lived here for over half a century now, and having met a ton of people and having get to know a solid portion of them better, I could safely say:
My wife and myself. The rest I would not bet a TicTac on. Homo homini lupus est. People are nice to you, even seem like “good people”, but, as another comment or already said, people are contextual.
Be a tiny bit different from the mass and you’d notice why. People are nice to you as long as you provide some kind of benefit to them. Now or in the future. Even worse if you have money and they know it.
Yet, Despite me being misanthropic as hell, I still do care about my fellow species-members (everything living actually) and do voluntary work for disabled people and stuff like that. And yes, I know that most of them would probably sell me to one of Dante’s circles of hell to get rid of their disability. But there are always some pearls somewhere in the ocean. It’s worth finding them. Tiresome and frustrating, but worth it.
This is a realistic mindset
People being nice to you only if you provide a benefit to them is certainly not something I’ve experienced in general. Sounds like this person knows lots of assholes.
It does not always have to be obvious to you as to what their benefit in you actually is. Doesn’t mean they won’t see one in you. Sometimes it’s very abstract not clearly superficial. You will notice if you somehow loose that benefit. And yes, met many assholes. Almost exclusively. Hence the point. But I’m very picky with people.
I’ve also almost met exclusively assholes, it happens
I’d trade it for a more oblivious anytime 😁
Those are 2 different questions with 2 different answers.
First one, maybe 25%.
Second one, maybe 2%.
I love my mom.
Are you implying she’s the only one you trust or did you just feel like announcing that
Maybe 15 to 25% tops.
