being a decent person is ignorant

[Lasagna4Dead]

what constitutes being a decent person, i looked at the dictionary definition and 1 definition says

" conforming to standards of propriety, good taste, or morality"
as humans capable of independent thought wouldn't this be the antithesis of who we are, we are not a hive mind and again as humans we are unable to accept how things are as a normal circumstance. I just dont understand how people see things as "the norm" furthermore it reinforces my belief that are closest relative isnt monkeys its ants. Thanks for listening to my schizo post.

 

[Bloitzhole]

You are conflating independent thought and oppositional thought. Millions can independently come to the conclusion that not letting the door slam into someone's face and holding it for them instead is the right thing to do - no societal enforcement is needed.
Decency is easy to derive from independent observation if you're not a complete sociopath - the fact that this happens to conform to a common standard does not invalidate that this conclusion can be independently arrived at, it simply illustrates that functioning human minds tend to reach similar conclusions from similar observations.

 

[William Murderface]

I don't hurt people and I don't take their stuff. I don't lie, cheat, steal, or kill. I don't do things in private I would be ashamed to be found out by the public. I don't do things that make me disgusted at the man in the mirror. I'm not worried about what others think of me,

 

[Pelican Bones]

Imagine looking up the definition of a word and then getting mad when you find out what it is

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I'd argue being a decent person includes abiding by objective ethics and also being polite towards polite people

 

[Illuminati Order Official]

" conforming to standards of propriety, good taste, or morality"

So "don't be a fucking spaz and asshole, especially in public and in relations with other people".
Sounds reasonable.

 

[Racist Parrot]

Dont act like a nigger and you're already there bud.

 

[Oh Sugar]

Being indiscriminately nonconforming is just as retarded as being mindlessly conforming. If what you decide to do happens to conform to "standards of propriety, good taste, or morality", that doesn't make you a mindless drone unless the sole reasoning for your decision is to conform. In fact, if the only reason you go against the norm is to escape the hive mind, then you're just choosing the opposite of what's expected of you, and that does make you a mindless drone.

There's a reason rebellious teenagers are never taken seriously; rebellion for rebellion's sake is thoughtless. Be a little pragmatic. Maybe there are situations in which you should defy established standards. Maybe there are other situations in which you should behave in accordance with them. That's not the same as following or "conforming to" those standards, but it's functionally identical.



Also, dictionaries aren't always trustworthy. Don't treat them as authoritative.

 

[Metallic Blood]

Also, dictionaries aren't always trustworthy. Don't treat them as authoritative.

Its not that they aren't trustworthy as much that for some reason, people on the internet love to have a specific definition of a word, and find any other meaning of said word to be invalid.

OP probably thinks that being a decent person means to mindlessly following [CURRENT THING], meanwhile everyone here thinks its about saying good morning to someone with a smile, or asking if they need help on carrying something heavy.

 

[/dĭf′ər-əns/]

I can agree with the general premise of your post but it still falls flat due to its reasoning.
Using such a small definition to form an understanding for such a fluid word isn't a good choice at all. In this context a "decent" person should be someone who does "decent" actions; a decent action is typically considered to be comprised of, or be similar to these prerequisites.


(i) This action, in most cases, would be positive for the beneficiary.
(ii) This action should not come from selfish reasoning.
(iii) This action has to be aligned with what society appropriately deems as a morally neutral/correct deed.


As stated above, the action of wasting your own time to open a door to someone instead of slamming it on their face is widely considered a decent deed; so you would be a decent person for doing this. What is the major flaw here is that most people do these actions for a selfish reason, although its usually a subconscious maneuver.

(i) It is obvious that a person would be less inclined to help someone who they don't know, as they gain "nothing" from it. At the bare minimum, when you help someone that you do know, you get the benefit of them having an improved opinion of you.
(ii) If they don't gain an indirect benefit it is still common for people to do these morally just actions purely to feel a tiny bit of satisfaction or to feel better about themselves.
(iii) While being tied with false altruistic example stated earlier, it should still be a separate example that people may do these decent actions for notoriety.

I, for one, agree that doing "morally just" acts purely because they are considered good is useless. These acts, in my opinion, are only considered to be good from millennia of conditioning done by society. Would I still perform decent deeds? Of course, but I am not ignorant behind the reasoning. I do these deeds because they benefit me, although I am not prideful enough to do to only serve to increase my ego, as I find that useless.

This is just my take on it, there's obvious exceptions; altruistic people do in fact exist (one could argue that no-ones really altruistic but that's another issue). There's nothing wrong with being a decent person, or doing decent deeds, you should just be honest with the reasoning behind it. After all, It is useless to be a dickhead to others irl purely because you want to appear as a contrarian.

 

[DueTretective]

Being indiscriminately nonconforming is just as retarded as being mindlessly conforming. If what you decide to do happens to conform to "standards of propriety, good taste, or morality", that doesn't make you a mindless drone unless the sole reasoning for your decision is to conform. In fact, if the only reason you go against the norm is to escape the hive mind, then you're just choosing the opposite of what's expected of you, and that does make you a mindless drone.

I think it's boiled down to principles. What you decide to conform to or defy against is based on what your view/your politics is. People with holistic views/coherent politics can give you a reason WHY they don't conform to a specific standard/taste/morality. For example, fat activists claim they don't want to conform to the "thin Eurocentric beauty standard" of society and try to defy it. Or some christians would claim that they don't want to conform to the secularized public education system so they have their own Catholic/Protestant colleges and universities. It depends on what your personal morale is (which is completely separate from "societal morale" which are rules/thoughts/customs that are deemed acceptable by community consensus). You are correct tho that people who are reflexively contrarians are usually retarded.

You are conflating independent thought and oppositional thought. Millions can independently come to the conclusion that not letting the door slam into someone's face and holding it for them instead is the right thing to do - no societal enforcement is needed.
Decency is easy to derive from independent observation if you're not a complete sociopath - the fact that this happens to conform to a common standard does not invalidate that this conclusion can be independently arrived at, it simply illustrates that functioning human minds tend to reach similar conclusions from similar observations.

I think that most societal morality and etiquettes/decency are a merge of both independent observations AND societal enforcement. As societal morality is not fixed and prone to change over time, some acts can be considered 'moral' in one period of time but 'immoral' in a different period of time. Slavery was once considered legitimate and normal in America 2 centuries ago, but now people think of slavery as cruel, immoral and evil because of a combination of some people coming to the independent observation that slavery is unjust AND societal enforcement against slavery by protesters, reformers, activists and educators.

I, for one, agree that doing "morally just" acts purely because they are considered good is useless. These acts, in my opinion, are only considered to be good from millennia of conditioning done by society. Would I still perform decent deeds? Of course, but I am not ignorant behind the reasoning. I do these deeds because they benefit me, although I am not prideful enough to do to only serve to increase my ego, as I find that useless.

This is just my take on it, there's obvious exceptions; altruistic people do in fact exist (one could argue that no-ones really altruistic but that's another issue). There's nothing wrong with being a decent person, or doing decent deeds, you should just be honest with the reasoning behind it. After all, It is useless to be a dickhead to others irl purely because you want to appear as a contrarian.

I don't subscribe to the Randian idea that altruistic people are "actually" selfish because no good deed can be separated from their ulterior motives (most of her philosophy are unpragmatic, if not borderline satiric) but I do think she is somewhat correct to the point that most people would only be moral or do good deeds if they can benefit from it. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Matthew 7:12) or the concept of "karma" from Vedic religions teaches you to be more just and good not only because it improves society but also elevates your reputation and standing in the social hierarchy. The question is, if we were living in an anarchist post-hierarchical post-structural society, would people be compelled to do good deeds anymore?

 

[Male Idiot]

Good deeds are worth the social benefits, lets call it Izzat, they bring and only if they bring Izzat.

The system works when it rewards socially cohesive actions.
If not stealing brings Izzat it helps the community nd thus its members prosper.

If shit eating brings Izzat and rewards it you get Nipah outbreaks saaar.

 

[Dagoth AMOGUS]

Good deeds

Good deez nuts

 

[babebibobu]

izzat is a conspiracy to insult india people it's not true

 

[Xarpho's Return]

I want to be like those people on TV where they're polite and friendly even after being disrespected, and once that line is crossed, THAT'S when you stop asking nicely and start breaking fingers, but in a way that makes me heroic and cool, not like a repressed sociopath.

 

[Esope]

i'll contribute towards a high trust society whether you like it or not, nigga

 

[draggs]

as humans capable of independent thought wouldn't this be the antithesis of who we are, we are not a hive mind and again as humans we are unable to accept how things are as a normal circumstance. I just dont understand how people see things as "the norm" furthermore it reinforces my belief that are closest relative isnt monkeys its ants. Thanks for listening to my schizo post.

humans are highly social herd animals that also have a high degree of individualism. youre oversimplifying human social and individual behavior, they're the most complex in known existence

 

[Otterly]

Where does your morality come from? Is it things you were told and accepted without challenge or things you worked out for yourself?
A decent person is one with an internal moral compass - this doesn’t always align with what you’re told is good.

 

[Unfathomed]

what constitutes being a decent person, i looked at the dictionary definition and 1 definition says

" conforming to standards of propriety, good taste, or morality"
as humans capable of independent thought wouldn't this be the antithesis of who we are

Being a decent person is a burden to life. However, it's not true that independent thought is what proves the incorrectness of decency. The concept of independent thought is what brought us to decency in the first place.
Independent thought, or free will, is an old trick of theologians and moral legislators. The trick is as follows: "You are free to act," said the moralist; his words a trammel neatly disguised as a natural moral. That we were responsible for how we acted followed from a simple form of logic. A sheepish and blushing flock assembles; the moralist licks his chops. The interpretation of an authority determined wrong or evil actions, by the existence of your free will it determined decency also. We have given birth to responsibility and "the norm"—isn't that what you wished death upon?—
But you say being decent is ignorant? No, it is stupid, that you still fall for the ancient tricks of moralists.

 

[We Are The Witches]

A decent person is one with an internal moral compass - this doesn’t always align with what you’re told is good.

No it isn't.

Someone crooked to the bones could have an internal moral compass. In fact, I am sure many serial killers had complex moral systems and rules they abided by, even more dilligently than normal people.

Being "decent" to me is subjective, but under common sense standards (which is also subjective, but more intuitive) it would mean someone who adheres to basic stuff like: having empathy (and putting it to the practice), not being a criminal, being respectful, etc.

Metaphorically if it was a gradient, it would be a range of grey spectrum, you cannot tell which exact point is the most adequate one, but we can agree that something outside is wicked, and debatable when very close to the edge. Someone like Charles Manson (as an example, I don't really know him) would have another "range" that he could agree with.