What is good? Why be good?

[Xinef]

Fair enough Xinef... maybe we can both agree that satan worshippers are bad 

No, only the act of worshiping satan is bad, people themselves are not.

Are there reasons when doing something hateful or bad, might be for the common good?

If it's meant to be for the common good, it could mean that the act is good itself, depending on what we understand by 'common good'. For example an act that seems bad at first glance, eg. destroying someones car, might be seemed as good if that car was empty (eg. someone parked it and forgot to set the brakes) and it was speeding at some people threatening to kill them. On the other hand destroying the same car if there was a person inside, to save more people by sacrificing the person inside... now, that's a hard question, if that can be called good.
My personal opinion is that if the person destroying the car was indeed aiming to save more people then it was good, but if he did this because eg. he wanted a reward from people he saved, or he knew the person inside the car and he wanted him dead, then the act would be bad. Yes, that might sound as if 'aim justifies the means' but I just think most people saying that phrase in fact have other aims than the ones they claim.

Can it be said that a soldier is sane when he hatefully throws a grenade into the evil enemy tank?

Doing something bad or hateful does not make you insane. It is our will to choose if we do good or bad, and being sane is not about doing only good. It's about choosing, understanding what you do and feeling it.

Could it be that sometimes the less kind act is also the better, and therefore more 'good' act in the long run?

I guess kindness is not always the best way of judging what is best. Eg. investing money is less kind than giving it to the poor, but if you invest so that later you can spend more on good deeds, than it could be better.

Ohhh... we need a philosophy professor fast!!

And we need a philosophical proof that he knows better

[Chemist]

There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

The concept of "good" is simply something we humans have come up with, and "good" is somewhat relative.

If you're looking for an objective reason for doing good, then actually there isn't any (no more than there is an objective purpose to life). However when people all help each other then they fare much better then they would on their own, which is why our brains have become genetically programmed (via natural selection) to act in an altruistic manner. The human brain doesn't make decisions based not on reason, but rather on emotions (even though we'd like to believe differently). This is why what feels "right" to us is what we proclaim as objectively right. Helping others feels right because of the deeply ingrained programming, and not helping wakes our conscience (also part of said programming) and makes us feel bad.

A society in which everyone were very altruistic would be great, but anyone who came along and helped only themselves instead of the society would be better of (more successful) and spread the genes responsible for such behavior - lessening and slowly negating the advantages of altruism in the process. Hence a countermeasure has evolved: a sense of justice. When a person isn't acting altruistically enough others feel obliged to punish them, which discourages such behaviour and makes altruism and the advantages it brings still very much viable. What this means is that there is a second reason for doing good: it's what the society expects of you. If you go above the norm you'll be praised, if you go against the norm you'll be punished. (Interesting fact: the sense of justice is also present in monkeys, meaning it may have evolved long before we became human.)

A reason we do good: because the brain makes us feel good when we do.
A reason to do good: because it's the right thing to do and it makes you feel good.

In the end all human behaviour can be said to be ultimately selfish, since even an act of altruism follows a motive - your own motive. Not that this is bad in any way; it's the way it's always been and what is bad is a matter of perspective anyway.

[Artois]

There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

The concept of "good" is simply something we humans have come up with, and "good" is somewhat relative.

If you're looking for an objective reason for doing good, then actually there isn't any (no more than there is an objective purpose to life). However when people all help each other then they fare much better then they would on their own, which is why our brains have become genetically programmed (via natural selection) to act in an altruistic manner. The human brain doesn't make decisions based not on reason, but rather on emotions (even though we'd like to believe differently). This is why what feels "right" to us is what we proclaim as objectively right. Helping others feels right because of the deeply ingrained programming, and not helping wakes our conscience (also part of said programming) and makes us feel bad.

A society in which everyone were very altruistic would be great, but anyone who came along and helped only themselves instead of the society would be better of (more successful) and spread the genes responsible for such behavior - lessening and slowly negating the advantages of altruism in the process. Hence a countermeasure has evolved: a sense of justice. When a person isn't acting altruistically enough others feel obliged to punish them, which discourages such behaviour and makes altruism and the advantages it brings still very much viable. What this means is that there is a second reason for doing good: it's what the society expects of you. If you go above the norm you'll be praised, if you go against the norm you'll be punished. (Interesting fact: the sense of justice is also present in monkeys, meaning it may have evolved long before we became human.)

A reason we do good: because the brain makes us feel good when we do.
A reason to do good: because it's the right thing to do and it makes you feel good.

In the end all human behaviour can be said to be ultimately selfish, since even an act of altruism follows a motive - your own motive. Not that this is bad in any way; it's the way it's always been and what is bad is a matter of perspective anyway.

Is this the selfish gene/meme?

[tyranim]

ive asked myself this question many times. and i still havent come up with an answer, so i just dont care anymore. i do what i believe to be the best choice.

[Chemist]

Is this the selfish gene/meme?

I hadn't heard of that book, but judging from the Wikipedia article this is pretty much it.

[Kamietsu]

Generally speaking, good and bad are based on the social norms. Whatever the majority of the public sees as good, is, and whatever the majority of the public sees as bad, is.

On a personal level though, that changes. Good and bad don't really exist. There is no black and white but a massive field of grays. Killing that serial killing could be seen as good, or it could be seen as bad. Robin Hood stole. Stealing is generally accepted as bad. But he gave what he stole to those who truly needed it. That's generally accepted as good, not that he stole but that he gave it to those who needed it.

What is good and what is bad is based entirely on your own morals. But those morals can be changed, can shift, be persuaded, by your surroundings. What the media tells you, what you see being done when you walk outside or watch a major, or even minor, disaster happen before your eyes. To most people, 9/11 is seen as bad, while to some other people, 9/11 is seen as good.

Religion, unsurprisingly, has a lot to do with this. Many religions have their own lists and laws and rules about what is good and what is bad. Thus, a lot of those rules, laws, lists get generally accepted into areas, depending on where and what the majority is and the rulers of the area.

[Belthus]

Humans are social, living in groups. Groups need rules to function. If rules break down and aren't replaced, the group will fall apart, to the detriment of its members.

I think there are two main ethical questions:

• What rules should a society have?
• Should an individual obey society's rules?

The first question is a matter of policy. The second question is more relevant to most people because few are in a position to have more than a marginal effect in writing the rules. I think Thoreau's answer is best: every machine has its friction, but only when the friction has its machine should people seek to do away with it.

Gandhi's principle of satyagraha is also important. The satyagraha practitioner willingly accepts suffering in order to demonstrate the wrongness of the rule being protested and to convert the supporters of the rule. It won't always work (e.g., the Nazis), but it should be tried first.