[Person056]

i was in an INTJ daydream and this thought crossed my mind. why does it matter if we're nice people? evil people can get just as much success and happiness as good people can. what's the point in trying to be nice as opposed to trying to be happy? what does it mean, why does it matter?

i rationalized it saying thus: i try to be nice to create a good society and try to influence others to be good, intelligent, and kind people. we need a mutually beneficial society and so we i do my part in stimulating it. also, we must be open to the aspect of this involving the believed existence of God. i don't care about giving to the point where i lack. if nice guys finish last, God finishes the race for them and God always comes in first.

let's not try to turn this into a religious battle as i know many people are very much opposed to these beliefs but this is a debate forum. and keep in mind that this debate is on the topic of motives for being nice, not questioning the existence of God. we are not arguing that one's motives are built upon something that isn't real, we are discussing what people's logic is behind being a nice person.

ready, SET, GO!!!!

[Nick86]

It matters that we are nice or try to be nice to show that we care about people or have empathy, especially when we have to interact with people in our daily lives. Plus Jesus do unto others what you would have them do to you, so if we want to be treated nicely we should do the same to others, that is the most logical reason for me.

[Person056]

i think that, truly, everyone has a mix of a couple of these reasonings. Nick86, i very much like your explanation.

on a general note: i would ask pollers to pick their most prominent line of reasoning out of the mixture of reasonings they feel apply to them.

[CanrHoldLimes]

Absolutely, the only thing I really took from being forced to go to church as a kid is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and I try to live life like that.

[KelvinDjangoTeo]

Because being nice feels good, and it induces the other party to treat you nice. So you feel good again. That's double good, hence double win. Peace. But, I still have trouble being nice to everyone. I'm selectively nice to certain people, especially to my opposite sex.

[Booko]

	Originally Posted by Person056 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	evil people can get just as much success and happiness as good people can.

Do they?

If you define "success" as hoards or cash or power, they might be more successful. But I've yet to find anyone I'd think of as, well, evil, who was at all happy.

[MissionPossible]

As is often the case, I feel the need to nitpick about the wording here and clarify my reality from my own more specific perspective. I don't think that I "try" to be nice. I think that I am simply a person who naturally faces life, the world, people and most living creatures with a spirit of reasonable good-will. It seems to be my nature to be basically friendly, curious, constructive, and realistically positive. For those who cross the line of truly devious or harmful behavior, I am usually quite forward, direct, and clear about my assessments and my dislike. I won't go out of my way to be nice to such people, but I take no pleasure in being mean or harmful nor see any reason to waste my time doing so, except within the boundaries of reasonably firm and clear actions of defense, penalties, and reparations. I am basically a nice person, but I don't leave out any welcome mats for those who do not live with the same basic spirit of good-will.

I am neither religious, nor theistic; I am an agnostic atheist. I have no beliefs whatsoever in the existence of any gods conceived of in the minds of men. However, as a limited human being I do not claim to have exact knowledge of all things, and the word "god" is can mean many things, and thus I am agnostic.

I am basically nice because everything is related to everything else. I am part of everything and everyone I encounter and vice versa. I am this way because I enjoy being this way that feels most natural to me.

But what is nice? Some of the ways of thinking and being that I do are in fact, nice in my opinion, but are they perceived as nice by everyone? Is it is nice if I do too much for other people and as a result somewhere along the line they feel unhappy, powerless, unconfident, crowded, or helpless? Sometimes we can be nice by not doing or being what seems nice and results in some idea that we in fact performed some service for the other and as a result some positive recognition, payment, or thank you is expected from the beneficiary. Along the same lines, some people practice the art of strict rules of etiquette, without any regard for the people they practice it on, or, in direct spite of them. Without the spirit of true good-will and a real value of the Other, what really is the value and form of niceness and "good" etiquette? What seems to be niceness isn't always so nice and what is nice doesn't always seem nice.

[Person056]

	Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do they? If you define "success" as hoards or cash or power, they might be more successful. But I've yet to find anyone I'd think of as, well, evil, who was at all happy.

i can't name anyone i know, i would never want to know someone evil. but i cannot wrap my head around the idea that evil people can't be happy. why not? nice people can be sad, why can't bad people be happy? or is this saying that no one is happy? i don't think that's true. i think anyone can be happy, regardless of the life they choose to lead. it isn't fair, but it's possible.

[MissionPossible]

	Originally Posted by CanrHoldLimes To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Absolutely, the only thing I really took from being forced to go to church as a kid is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and I try to live life like that.

I have always disliked the "Golden Rule" because it ignores the reality of the Other and makes the self all-important.

I tend to live by a somewhat different rule: "Basically do unto others as they would have you do unto them that which is beneficial for them and not unreasonably harmful to the self."

We are not all the same. The Other is not Me and thus, may need or desire something different than I would. It is not healthy, constructive, or truly loving to do what someone wants just because someone wants it. In addition, there are indeed times when it seems good and necessary to take or allow negative actions for positive aims. These ought to be considered and weighed very carefully.

[Person056]

Originally Posted by MissionPossible To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As is often the case, I feel the need to nitpick about the wording here and clarify my reality from my own more specific perspective. I don't think that I "try" to be nice. I think that I am simply a person who naturally faces life, the world, people and most living creatures with a spirit of reasonable good-will. It seems to be my nature to be basically friendly, curious, constructive, and realistically positive. For those who cross the line of truly devious or harmful behavior, I am usually quite forward, direct, and clear about my assessments and my dislike. I won't go out of my way to be nice to such people, but I take no pleasure in being mean or harmful nor see any reason to waste my time doing so, except within the boundaries of reasonably firm and clear actions of defense, penalties, and reparations. I am basically a nice person, but I don't leave out any welcome mats for those who do not live with the same basic spirit of good-will. I am neither religious, nor theistic; I am an agnostic atheist. I have no beliefs whatsoever in the existence of any gods conceived of in the minds of men. However, as a limited human being I do not claim to have exact knowledge of all things, and the word "god" is can mean many things, and thus I am agnostic. I am basically nice because everything is related to everything else. I am part of everything and everyone I encounter and vice versa. I am this way because I enjoy being this way that feels most natural to me. But what is nice? Some of the ways of thinking and being that I do are in fact, nice in my opinion, but are they perceived as nice by everyone? Is it is nice if I do too much for other people and as a result somewhere along the line they feel unhappy, powerless, unconfident, crowded, or helpless? Sometimes we can be nice by not doing or being what seems nice and results in some idea that we in fact performed some service for the other and as a result some positive recognition, payment, or thank you is expected from the beneficiary. Along the same lines, some people practice the art of strict rules of etiquette, without any regard for the people they practice it on, or, in direct spite of them. Without the spirit of true good-will and a real value of the Other, what really is the value and form of niceness and "good" etiquette? What seems to be niceness isn't always so nice and what is nice doesn't always seem nice.

i like the way you phrase this and i tend to agree with a lot of you motives. i do naturally act nice and i do not take pleasure in hurting people. i do take pleasure in constructive criticism, however, even if it offends them initially. i do regret the fact that i sometimes hurt people to help them but sometimes it must hurt to heal. as long as the healing far outweighs the hurt, i have a clear conscious and am pleased with their benefit while though still preferring that pain were not inflicted to help.

as far as your last paragraph, yes indeed one will hurt someone trying to be nice. and in other ways than aforementioned. i would define nice, to comply with your points, as aspiring to have an overall positive impact on someone while causing as minimal damage as possible and also learning what things specifically offend people so as to cater to the individual's definition of a positive impact and not offend them.

[MissionPossible]

	Originally Posted by Person056 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	i can't name anyone i know, i would never want to know someone evil. but i cannot wrap my head around the idea that evil people can't be happy. why not? nice people can be sad, why can't bad people be happy? or is this saying that no one is happy? i don't think that's true. i think anyone can be happy, regardless of the life they choose to lead. it isn't fair, but it's possible.

Happiness and sadness like other emotions, are based on brain chemistry, thought patterns and beliefs, and what we value. Thus, yes, I do believe it is possible for an evil (devious, harmful) person to feel happy, although I cannot be certain that the happiness that they might feel is the same kind of happiness that I tend to feel with my very different path to that happiness.

[Paul Siraisi]

Being nice is easier, long term.

[Littllefilly]

I only have to try to be nice, to people I don't think nice things about. I feed off of other people. I respond to them. I don't TRY to. I sometimes have to TRY not to, because because I will lend a helping hand to those who the only help they really need is to get a heart, and know how to use it. Or to be a decent person. My letting them use my niceness is not good for me.. or for them in the long run. I like to be nice. But it is the people around me that inspire that. I do not really consider myself nice. All the people who tell me that, have in someway inspired my act of nice.. so it is their fault not mine. It is like they are the pot calling the kettle, black. <smile>

I am interested to see what others say.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Marcus Septim]

No..

I really don't try to be,no

[Social Torture]

I make an honest effort to be nice to people. My logic usually includes the following, and it isn't always in this order.

1) I like to have a clean conscience. Things have a lower likelihood of haunting me later.
2) I strive to keep collateral damage to a minimum. I have enough things to sort through.
3) When it comes to belligerent attitudes, I never throw the first strike, but I always see it through until the end.
4) Because public relations is important... even to an INTJ such as myself. It's better for business. LOL!

[Still Standing]

As is often the case, my answer is not in the poll. I don't try to be nice (I will be nice however if I'm in the mood), but I make an effort to do no harm.

[DrCiao]

	Originally Posted by CanrHoldLimes To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Absolutely, the only thing I really took from being forced to go to church as a kid is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and I try to live life like that.

Most people are never "nice or evil", they are a combination of both. With experience, we learn to attract similar people- hence the adage- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" It's a filtering method for attracting people with similar philosophies. No need to throw pearls before swine.

[CanrHoldLimes]

Originally Posted by MissionPossible To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I have always disliked the "Golden Rule" because it ignores the reality of the Other and makes the self all-important. I tend to live by a somewhat different rule: "Basically do unto others as they would have you do unto them that which is beneficial for them and not unreasonably harmful to the self." We are not all the same. The Other is not Me and thus, may need or desire something different than I would. It is not healthy, constructive, or truly loving to do what someone wants just because someone wants it. In addition, there are indeed times when it seems good and necessary to take or allow negative actions for positive aims. These ought to be considered and weighed very carefully.

I know =/
I would like people to be honest with me, I would like people to not come make idle talk with me at work, but on the other hand, sometimes I do realize other party wants the opposite. It's really hard for me to force myself to do things for someone unless I think I, myself would like it, because I consider people tend to reciprocate.

---------- Post added 05-13-2012 at 09:53 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by DrCiao To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Most people are never "nice or evil", they are a combination of both. With experience, we learn to attract similar people- hence the adage- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" It's a filtering method for attracting people with similar philosophies. No need to throw pearls before swine.

This seems accurate.

[Mr Fibuli]

The "do unto others" philosophy has worked well in my experience.

There were times when I had to "try" to be nice for no other reason than keeping the peace, as it were. To do otherwise would have created friction, conflict and drama and those are three things that stress me out no end. I would just as soon prevent if at all possible.

[Havoc313]

It makes me feel great

[roninpro]

Is it even necessary to provide a reason to be good to others? I think that the burden should be reversed: one should give reasons why he should be a jerk.

[reckful]

Originally Posted by MissionPossible To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I have always disliked the "Golden Rule" because it ignores the reality of the Other and makes the self all-important. I tend to live by a somewhat different rule: "Basically do unto others as they would have you do unto them that which is beneficial for them and not unreasonably harmful to the self." We are not all the same. The Other is not Me and thus, may need or desire something different than I would. It is not healthy, constructive, or truly loving to do what someone wants just because someone wants it. In addition, there are indeed times when it seems good and necessary to take or allow negative actions for positive aims. These ought to be considered and weighed very carefully.

It seems to me that you've straw-manned the Golden Rule.

I say that you should interpret the Golden Rule in accordance with the same assumptions-of-reasonable-intent that you would have others apply in interpreting your statements.

[Tequila]

I voted treat others how I wish to be treated. Then again, I've burn bridges. That means I'm not entirely a nice person after all.

Now, back the topic of being 'nice'. How does one define a nice person? By a single or few nice gestures without ulterior motives and conveniently forgets bits of the unnice things one does due to personal reasons? How can one be truly labelled as a nice person?

[True Rune]

It's more how I am than any conscious effort.

[Samoan Corleone]

	Originally Posted by True Rune To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's more how I am than any conscious effort.

Exactly. I don't try to be nice; it's just natural for me to mind my manners, say "please" and "thank you", offer handshakes when greeting, impose as little as possible, etc. I behave as such because, a. that's how I was brought up and b. I believe good manners and diplomacy can help society run smoothly as a whole, although not at great expense to the practitioner. Having a spine is good too.