What percentage of the people in the world are good?

[witesoxfan]

Just because I'm curious to see what people believe.

[southsider2k5]

99.9999%

[witesoxfan]

99.9999%

 

Of course you knew that was going to be in there.

[southsider2k5]

Of course you knew that was going to be in there.

 

 

I said 99% in the other thread, and I will stay with it.

[NorthSideSox72]

0%.

 

Also 0% for bad.

 

[pettie4sox]

Good or bad is subjective. It's like asking is morality relative or universal.

 

An honor killing could be considered a good act by some and bad by others. No black and white, just grey.

[witesoxfan]

Good or bad is subjective. It's like asking is morality relative or universal.

 

An honor killing could be considered a good act by some and bad by others. No black and white, just grey.

 

That's kind of the point. There is no definition, so I think it would be cool to see what percentage of people are "good" in the eyes of the people.

[Steve9347]

A lot.

[Steve9347]

Good or bad is subjective. It's like asking is morality relative or universal.

 

An honor killing could be considered a good act by some and bad by others. No black and white, just grey.

I consider anyone who doesn't commit awful crimes to be good.

 

One of my friends is a terrible racist, but only behind closed doors. I don't agree with him, obviously, and he's an upstanding citizen. So I guess I consider him good.

[Texsox]

99%

[Jenksismyhero]

I went with the low side of 70%. Maybe that's too harsh, I dunno. You can have flaws and be a good person, but there are some people who are just miserable and hateful and I would consider them "bad." Add in criminals and I think you've hit a decent chunk of the population.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

I went 70-80, I think it depends on how you judge good. When I say good, I mean that they arent purposefully trying to screw other people for their own gain.

[bigruss]

I'm just going to go with the 80/20 rule.

[chw42]

Depends on your definition of good.

[BigHurt3515]

3%

[cabiness42]

49.999%

 

If you're better than half the people, you're good. If not, you aren't.

[Leonard Zelig]

33.33333% Good

33.33333% Bad

33.33333% Ugly

99.99999%

[DrunkBomber]

I went with 10-20%

[greg775]

I think most people are "good" in regards to their own family. I'd say 75 percent.

I'd say most people are "good" in regards to crisis. Like if they see someone get hit by a car they'll go help; if there's a neighborhood crisis they'll help. I'd say 85 percent are "good" in times of need, even to strangers. Weird dynamic here.

 

I think 20 percent are "good" to people on a daily basis. Bosses are complete pricks; people are mean to people in the service industry; people are mean at work back stabbing to get ahead. I think except to their own family and in blatant crisis situations, people are very very selfish and miserable.

[BigEdWalsh]

I consider anyone who doesn't commit awful crimes to be good.

 

One of my friends is a terrible racist, but only behind closed doors. I don't agree with him, obviously, and he's an upstanding citizen. So I guess I consider him good.

Raises an interesting argument. To me, racism is an ugly awful trait and no way in the world would I consider a racist a good person. My father-in-law was a racist. I liked him in some ways, he could be a pretty funny and nice guy but would I consider him a good person? No. Would I have liked him at all if he weren't my father-in-law? No.

Maybe I'm pretty fussy but I consider only 20 to 30 percent of people in the world to be good.

[caulfield12]

That comes back to the point of how much can you blame someone for being racist when they were inculcated with that trait by their parents and grandparents?

 

It's not so simple.

 

Or how much should African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans get blamed for dealing with the institutionalized racism over the last 200 years....reverse racism, somehow sociologists are usually quicker to defend those who are the victims of discrimination and prejudice...those with the power are blamed, etc.

 

If you turn it into a religious argument, then we all know people who go to church every Sunday and tithe, and yet cheat on their wives or have never done any real volunteer/community project (faith without works is dead) of significance but perhaps they give a ton of money every year to the United Way or show up in the society pages at a non-profit fundraiser.

 

Christians might say atheists are "bad" even if their motivations were 100% aligned with the "Golden Rule"/10 Commandments, etc.

 

 

I'm not even sure that sometimes people are bad as much as the fact that trust has eroded over time. We don't trust picking up hitchhikers or accepting candy (even at Halloween) without thinking it has been poisoned. We've been taught to be skeptics, that our government or some nefarious group (Trilateral Commission, etc.) is out to control the world and screw over the middle class. There's no longer a sense that we're all in it together, rather the young are placed in opposition to the old (respect for elders is something you hardly ever see in the U.S., compared to China) and we're all broken down into demographic groups that seem to only unite for things like the Olympics, World Cup or 9/11 type of event.

[ptatc]

I think the only real answer is too few.

[Jake]

I think most people respond to their circumstances. If good is near, they're good. If bad is near, they're bad.

 

So are the only good people the ones who remain good in the face of the circumstances that usually produce bad? Or, are the only bad people those who remain bad in circumstances that usually produce good?

 

I've always been fascinated by the Holocaust and what stays fresh in my mind is the concept of "the banality of evil." It came from Hannah Arendt's description of a Nazi middle-management figure who was put on trial for his crimes against Jews. He, and most other perpetrators, were not exceptionally evil. Not born to be evil. They could have been caught up in something for the greater good. In this context, banality means not "trivial" but rather commonplace. The idea is that, for the most part, people go with the flow. Be it evil, be it good.

 

Nazi Germany, of course, isn't the only example and perhaps not even the worst (let's not get into the business of comparing human atrocities). Was every person that existed during slavery and Jim Crow America automatically evil unless they were actively fighting against those institutions? Are many of us or our loved ones evil due to the ways they enabled institutions (and more personal situations) to actively harm gay people? There are a million examples.

 

So, as to the original question, I don't know. We are capable of a lot. There aren't many people who will be reliably "bad," but not many who will be reliably "good" either.

[caulfield12]

I think most people respond to their circumstances. If good is near, they're good. If bad is near, they're bad. So are the only good people the ones who remain good in the face of the circumstances that usually produce bad? Or, are the only bad people those who remain bad in circumstances that usually produce good? I've always been fascinated by the Holocaust and what stays fresh in my mind is the concept of "the banality of evil." It came from Hannah Arendt's description of a Nazi middle-management figure who was put on trial for his crimes against Jews. He, and most other perpetrators, were not exceptionally evil. Not born to be evil. They could have been caught up in something for the greater good. In this context, banality means not "trivial" but rather commonplace. The idea is that, for the most part, people go with the flow. Be it evil, be it good. Nazi Germany, of course, isn't the only example and perhaps not even the worst (let's not get into the business of comparing human atrocities). Was every person that existed during slavery and Jim Crow America automatically evil unless they were actively fighting against those institutions? Are many of us or our loved ones evil due to the ways they enabled institutions (and more personal situations) to actively harm gay people? There are a million examples. So, as to the original question, I don't know. We are capable of a lot. There aren't many people who will be reliably "bad," but not many who will be reliably "good" either.

 

 

 

 

Viktor Frankl's book about the Holocaust addresses this topic exceedingly well..."Man's Search for Meaning"