Da li postoje zli ljudi?


Da li postoje zli ljudi? Siguran sam da većina smatra da postoje. Nekada može da zaplaši lakoća kojom se drugi čovek, sused, bivši partner, kolega, etiketira kao „zla osoba”.

 
Odnos dobra i zla, koje je mnogima očigledno, gubi privid jednostavnosti kada krenemo da o tome razmišljamo i istražujemo.

Prva stvar koja iznenađuje je da ljudi koji čine zle stvari ne smatraju da je to što čine zaista nešto zlo. U njihovim glavama oni nikako nisu zli, već smatraju da su dobri. Oni druge ocenjuju kao zle, što i jeste glavni razlog da prema njima postupaju agresivno. Iako drugi i oni treći koji čine publiku ocenjuju da prvi čine zlo, oni sami veruju da čine dobro. Njihova subjektivni psihološki stav je da su oni zapravo borci protiv zla, da oni „proganjaju progonioca”. Veruju da su „anđeli zaštitnici”, a nikako „đavoli” kako ih drugi doživljavaju. U tome je objašnjenje izreke da je put u pakao popločan dobrim namerama.

Kada jedno ljudsko biće počinje da veruje da je drugo ljudsko bića zlo? Izgleda da je za takvu ocenu potrebno da drugoga sagledava kroz „trougao mržnje”. To znači da postoje tri uslova koja moraju da se steknu kako bi neko zaključio da je drugi zao. Prvi je da drugi čini nešto čime ugrožava ono što je prvoj osobi veoma važno. Drugi je da to čini svesno i namerno, a ne slučajno, nehotice, zbog bolesti ili izmenjene svesti. I treći uslov, koji je najvažniji, a koji „zatvara” trougao sastavljen od ova tri uslova jeste da drugi to čini bez ikakvog povoda ili opravdanja. Kako onaj koji ocenjuje ne vidi logiku za takvo ponašanje, on nalazi „objašnjenje” da to čini zato što je iracionalan, zao. Upravo je ovaj iracionalni momenat, odnosno nerazumevanje subjektivnih razloga zbog kojih neko čini nešto destruktivno, glavni razlog da se taj označi kao zao.

Tako nastaje logička petlja zla: ljudi čine zle stvari drugim ljudima zato što misle da su ti drugi ljudi toliko zli da su to zaslužili. Zli postupci neke osobe izrastaju iz njenog subjektivnog uverenja da je ona dobra, a da je neko drugi zao.

Sva ona neprijateljska, destruktivna, brutalna i nemilosrdna ponašanja kojima se izražava odnos prema zlim drugima, bitno bi se smanjila kada ljudi ne bi bili u mogućnosti da „zatvore” trougao zla. Kada bismo mogli da bolje razumemo razloge, argumente i logiku drugih koji čine stvari koje nam se ne sviđaju, kada bismo povećali empatiju, njihovo ponašanje bi nam bilo manje iracionalno, a oni manje zli. Time što razumemo nečiju logiku, nikako ne znači da je odobravamo ili prihvatamo. Ovakvo razumevanje nečijih razloga omogućava dijalog, pregovore, uticaj na osobu da promeni svoje rezonovanje i ponašanje. To je mnogo bolje od crno-belog dečjeg razmišljanja i etiketiranja.

Izvor: B92

Neutral Good

Posted by Mike LaBossiere on   September 15, 2014 Leave a comment (4)Go to comments
My previous essays on alignments have focused on the evil ones (lawful evil, neutral evil and chaotic evil). Patrick Lin requested this essay. He professes to be a devotee of Neutral Evil to such a degree that he regards being lumped in with Ayn Rand as an insult. Presumably because he thinks she was too soft on the good.

In the Pathfinder version of the game, neutral good is characterized as follows:

A neutral good character is good, but not shackled by order. He sees good where he can, but knows evil can exist even in the most ordered place.

A neutral good character does anything he can, and works with anyone he can, for the greater good. Such a character is devoted to being good, and works in any way he can to achieve it. He may forgive an evil person if he thinks that person has reformed, and he believes that in everyone there is a little bit of good.

In a fantasy campaign realm, the player characters typical encounter neutral good types as allies who render aid and assistance. Even evil player characters are quite willing to accept the assistance of the neutral good, knowing that the neutral good types are more likely to try to persuade them to the side of good than smite them with righteous fury. Neutral good creatures are not very common in most fantasy worlds—good types tend to polarize towards law and chaos.

Not surprisingly, neutral good types are also not very common in the real world. A neutral good person has no special commitment to order or lack of order—what matters is the extent to which a specific order or lack of order contributes to the greater good. For those devoted to the preservation of order, or its destruction, this can be rather frustrating.

While the neutral evil person embraces the moral theory of ethical egoism (that each person should act solely in her self-interest), the neutral good person embraces altruism—the moral view that each person should act in the interest of others. In more informal terms, the neutral good person is not selfish. It is not uncommon for the neutral good position to be portrayed as stupidly altruistic. This stupid altruism is usually cast in terms of the altruist sacrificing everything for the sake of others or being willing to help anyone, regardless of who the person is or what she might be doing. While a neutral good person is willing to sacrifice for others and willing to help people, being neutral good does not require a person to be unwise or stupid. So, a person can be neutral good and still take into account her own needs. After all, the neutral good person considers the interests of everyone and she is part of that everyone. A person can also be selective in her assistance and still be neutral good. For example, helping an evil person do evil things would not be a good thing and hence a neutral good person would not be obligated to help—and would probably oppose the evil person.

Since a neutral good person works for the greater good, the moral theory of utilitarianism tends to fit this alignment. For the utilitarian, actions are good to the degree that they promote utility (what is of value) and bad to the degree that they do the opposite. Classic utilitarianism (that put forth by J.S. Mill) takes happiness to be good and actions are assessed in terms of the extent to which they create happiness for humans and, as far as the nature of things permit, sentient beings. Put in bumper sticker terms, both the utilitarian and the neutral good advocate the greatest good for the greatest number.

This commitment to the greater good can present some potential problems. For the utilitarian, one classic problem is that what seems rather bad can have great utility. For example, Ursula K. Le Guin’s classic short story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” puts into literary form the question raised by William James:

Or if the hypothesis were offered us of a world in which Messrs. Fourier’s and Bellamy’s and Morris’s utopias should all be outdone, and millions kept permanently happy on the one simple condition that a certain lost soul on the far-off edge of things should lead a life of lonely torture, what except a specifical and independent sort of emotion can it be which would make us immediately feel, even though an impulse arose within us to clutch at the happiness so offered, how hideous a thing would be its enjoyment when deliberately accepted as the fruit of such a bargain?

In Guin’s tale, the splendor, health and happiness that is the land of Omelas depends on the suffering of a person locked away in a dungeon from all kindness. The inhabitants of Omelas know full well the price they pay and some, upon learning of the person, walk away. Hence the title.

For the utilitarian, this scenario would seem to be morally correct: a small disutility on the part of the person leads to a vast amount of utility. Or, in terms of goodness, the greater good seems to be well served.

Because the suffering of one person creates such an overabundance of goodness for others, a neutral good character might tolerate the situation. After all, benefiting some almost always comes at the cost of denying or even harming others. It is, however, also reasonable to consider that a neutral good person would find the situation morally unacceptable. Such a person might not free the sufferer because doing so would harm so many other people, but she might elect to walk away.

A chaotic good type, who is committed to liberty and freedom, would certainly oppose the imprisonment of the innocent person—even for the greater good. A lawful good type might face the same challenge as the neutral good type: the order and well being of Omelas rests on the suffering of one person and this could be seen as an heroic sacrifice on the part of the sufferer. Lawful evil types would probably be fine with the scenario, although they would have some issues with the otherwise benevolent nature of Omelas. Truly subtle lawful evil types might delight in the situation and regard it as a magnificent case of self-delusion in which people think they are selecting the greater good but are merely choosing evil.

Neutral evil types would also be fine with it—provided that it was someone else in the dungeon. Chaotic evil types would not care about the sufferer, but would certainly seek to destroy Omelas. They might, ironically, try to do so by rescuing the sufferer and seeing to it that he is treated with kindness and compassion (thus breaking the conditions of Omelas’ exalted state).

Postoje...Oni su vazda kivni na tudje uspjehe

Jedan lep Zokijev tekst na tu temu. 

edit, ne videh da je isto ko i pocetno samo sto nije obelezen autor 

edit2 Inace, nesto od Dzordz RR Martina 

Rekao bih da u mnogim ljudima postoji zlo i samo je pitanje na koji se način pokazuje!
Jedan od vidova zla je fanatizam. Čovek bez zla u sebi ne može biti fanatik!
Nebitno je da li je taj fanatizam uperen protiv druge rase, nacije, veroispovesti, navijača drugog kluba ili protiv neke druge (veće ili manje) skupine.

Nauka je dokazala da egoisti ne vole sebe...

Samim tim je iskljucena mogucnost za tako nesto...

ne mora znaciti.sta ako je neko neki geek fanatik ?


inace mnogo glupo pitanje u naslovu teme

naravno da postoje zli ljudi.da ne postoje onda bi ona mašina za štancanje para radila dan i noć i niko ne bi bio ni gladan ni žedan,uzivali bi u najčisćem kokainu,jedino bi radoholicari radili onako za svoj gušt,nehljebari i mrskoradi bi imali socijalnu pomoć od 10.000 evra mjesecno i tako to.

Mislim da nedostaje definicija zlog coveka.
Jel to neko ko konstantno cini zlo bez razloga - cisto zlo ili sa razlogom - osveta?

hmm...postoje ljudi koji pokusavaju da budu zli...
jer u ulozi dobrice zivot im ne ide bash najbolje... 
a to su uglavnom dokoni jako dokoni ljudi...
koji nadju neki cudni dozer adrenalina ...zapakovan u te zlockaste fukarluke ...
a takvih su bolnice poprilicno pune...

ja znam da postoji mnogo zlih ljudi...ali to nisu ljudi - nego nesto drugo...

a sto se tice ostalih ljudi obicnih ljudi ..nema ni dobrih ni zlih..
postoje samo oni koji cine dobre stvari.... i oni koji cine lose stvari...

a to bi znacilo da i covjek koji radi uglavnom dobre stvari...da  moze veoma lako...da postane jako zao
ako mu ucinis nesto lose...

...kako ce se ljudi odnositi prema tebi...to uglavnom zavisi u velikoj mjeri od tebe....
sve je u zivotu onako kako zasluzis...