What's your badness level?
 

The half full/half empty thread got me thinking about how we percieve ourselves. I loved how Lilo illustrated Stitch's badness level. Sometimes I wonder about my own.

How good a person are you, percentage-wise? Or rather - how good a person do you think you are? How you measure these things is up to you - ethics, charity, kindness, generosity, honesty, hard work, drive....or on the half-empty side, selfishness, spite, petty theft, condescension, malice, laziness, apathy....etc.

I'd give myself 85 percent goodness, I think. Perhaps I'll qualify it later.

I'm as good as I choose to be on any given day and, when I choose to be bad, I enjoy it. :)

To use one of my favorite quotes

"When I'm good, I'm very good. When I'm bad, I'm better"
-Mae West


I'd like to think I'm a good person, but I do find that there are times when I should be more compassionate, kinder and more considerate, and I'm not. Pretty much the same for everyone, I would guess, in a general fashion.

Well, yes.

Anyone have anything less general to say? ;)

Oh, the Agony of being good...

Am I not sensitive,
Clever,
Well-mannered,
Considerate,
Passionate,
Charming,
As kind as I'm handsome
And heir to a throne? (OK well maybe not that one..)
I am everything maidens (or blokes) could wish for!


....actually, I'd put myself (truthfully and Mary-Poppins-Like) at about 90+% (good, that is...)

This is one of those things that depends on so many variables, not to mention codified definitions of things good and bad. Also, most people tend to define themselves as at least basically good- a study cited on a show I watched too long ago to remember interviewed a lot of prison inmates, and it posed a similar question to them: are you a good or bad person? Most thought they were solidly on the good side, even though they were in for things like rape and murder.

If I were to be totally honest, I would have to say that: on my scale of good/badness, I am about 60%. My scale is a complex mess of Judeo/Christian Western mores, with a bit of Eastern karmic philosophy thrown in. It got very convoluted when I took Philosophy and Ethics in college, and continues to shift and change as I gain in life experience.* I say 60% because I know where I would like to be and I try to live up to my expectations, but reality has an ugly way of rearing it's head and I have to choose between the proverbial 'lessers'. I don't always choose wisely, but I can honestly say that at least 60% of the time I try. I think.


*My euphemism for old age.

I don't try to be "good" and I have no particular intention to make the world a better place for having been in it, so I don't know how I'd rate myself. As far as what I consider appropriate behavior I'd say I'm up there on my scale.

By other peoples scales I probably bottom out at around 10% goodness up to about 75%.

That's the really interesting part - we each have our own measure of what makes a "good person". Some people feel that if you do not devote yourself to helping others you aren't "good", and others feel that if you do not devote enough time to yourself you're not "good". Some feel that if you do not continue to stretch your education past basic schooling you're not "good", while others would never touch another book again and still be "good". And so on, and so forth.

I fall in the middle in a lot of different value statements, such as "Good people work hard" or "good people know how to relax". I'm sure everyone does. But I suppose the question is, no matter what your standard - do you feel you meet your own expectations?

We've got quite the range so far. I'll vouch for Lash being very, very good. ;)

I think everyone is basically good...it just depends on how often you listen to your dark side.

Personally, there are some days where I'm Jughead Goody-Goody...and others where my goodness level is in the negatives. But, for the most part, if you value respect, then you give respect.

(Again, I'm not sure how much sense I'm making, as I just got up...but I think it makes sense. LOL!)

I think that people individually tend to be generally good. Groups of people, on the other hand, tend to be bad. Thus, various social structures (governments, religions, homeowners' associations) are constructed to control those badness urges.

So, why group badness? I think people fear a loss of individuality, of control. Taken singly, that's not such an issue, and the inner good nature can roam free. In groups, the drive to conquer starts to build, and people will do whatever it takes to eliminate their perceived competitors and move themselves into prominence.

So one-on-one I'm pretty damn nice. But if there's a group - I'll cut you, bitch.

Gotta love a man who can quote Sondheim... :snap: