Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1 of 304 (403877)
06-05-2007 4:13 PM


The purpose of this thread is to discuss the validity of understanding what is right and to propose a full foundation for the existence of 'good' without the need of God or any other supernatural entity.
There are two questions to answer:
What is good?
-because we need to know what it is in order to do it
Why do people do good?
-what sort of motivations make a person want to do good
What is good?
Good is increasing the positive inner-feelings of another being.
The only way to know if you've actually done some good is to get the information from the being you're dealing with. Sometimes this is easy and the information is freely offered with a head-nod or a smile. Sometimes it is difficult, and we are only able to use the knowledge we have to hopefully affect someone (or something) in a good way.
Why do people do good?
This is why I do good:
1. I interact with others.
2. Interacting with others will cause me to affect them.
3. This can leave a Good, Bad, or Meh effect.
4. I am capable of empathy.
5. If I had a choice, I would like Good things to happen to me.
6. Since I do have a choice on how I affect others, I will attempt to leave Good effects rather then Bad or Meh effects.
7. When I interact with others, I'm going to do my best to cause Good effects.
It's been noted that without God, one cannot answer the question "Why is it right to do good?".
It is right to do good if we want to increase the amount of good in this world.
There are many motivations for wanting to increase the amount of good in this world, a few examples:
-not wanting the bad in this world to increase
-leaving the world a better place for children
-hopefully getting some personal benefits sometime in this life or possibly even the next
-even just wanting to increase the amount of good is a motivation in itself
I have answered the questions "What is good?" and "Why do people do good?" without the use of a supernatural being. I would like anyone to show me where my reasoning is flawed or incomplete (religiously or not, I would like to alter my morality for the better if I can). I would also like for anyone to offer other answers for the two questions so we we can compare and discuss differences.
------------------------
------------------------
This thread was started because I was pulling another thread off-topic.
The original topic is here:
Message 1
The discussion was between anastasia and I starting around Message 61 and Message 68 or so.
------------------------
------------------------
A clarification Summary of this position can be found later in this thread at Message 97
Edited by Stile, : Added link to Summary message

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 06-06-2007 3:50 AM Stile has replied
 Message 4 by Jon, posted 06-06-2007 5:56 AM Stile has replied
 Message 5 by ikabod, posted 06-06-2007 8:34 AM Stile has replied
 Message 9 by joshua221, posted 06-06-2007 1:56 PM Stile has replied
 Message 20 by anastasia, posted 06-07-2007 12:03 AM Stile has replied
 Message 56 by ICANT, posted 06-09-2007 7:50 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 6 of 304 (404007)
06-06-2007 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
06-06-2007 3:50 AM


Re: Johnny B Goode
Phat writes:
What does Meh mean?
My apologies, I nabbed a bunch of the text for that opening statement from a post of mine in the previous thread. I must have deleted the part where I explained that when I was attempting to condense and clarify the starting post.
"Meh" is equivalent to "Whatever" or specifically a neutral effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 06-06-2007 3:50 AM Phat has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 7 of 304 (404024)
06-06-2007 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Jon
06-06-2007 5:56 AM


Re: Morality is independent of Intent...
Jon writes:
First, are you aware of every single effect of your actions, both short- and long-term, and have concluded that those effects do nothing other than increase the positive inner-feelings of others?
Not even close. I'm just a regular guy as far as I can tell. I try my best to increase the positive inner-feelings of others, learn from my mistakes and continually update my strategies.
Second, can action X performed on individual A increase A's positive inner-feelings, yet action X performed on individual B decrease B's positive inner-feelings;
Sure it can. Different people react to actions in plenty of different ways.
or, does a good action always increase the positive inner-feelings of an individual no matter on which individual it is performed?
It is not "a good action that increases the positive inner feelings of an individual". This is backwards, the good is decided afterwards, only if the positive inner feelings of an individual were increased.
The same action can very easily be good and bad to different people.
If you increased individual C's positive inner-feelings by constantly providing the individual with hard liquor despite the individual's recent liver transplant, are you doing good?
For the theory implied and to play into this specific example... it would depend on your inner-feelings as well, since you are involved in these actions.
Practically, almost always not. What about the inner-feelings of individual C's loved ones or children when their care-giver dies from liver failure? Or even is this individual just a bit depressed right now and not fully understanding the consequences of their continued drinking?
We are not able to acquire all the information about inner-feelings of others and how they are affected. We can only make a decision with the information available to us, and our educated guesses about any missing information. Realistically, I would say it is not good to do so because so much information that could be acquired is missing, and I have learnt that such missing information in this scenario would likely show us that to help kill this man is not good.
It is also possible that we will think an action was good, but later learn that it was not upon getting more information on how people were affected.
Unless you know how everyone affected was actually, genuinely affected, you cannot know for certain if what you do is good or not. We can only try our best.
What if our goal is not to increase the amount of good in the world? What if our goal is for eternal life? Is it then not necessarily right to do good?
I'm defending a non-religious foundation for doing good, not the only one.
If your goal is something else, then you'll have a different moral system entirely. And yes, you will not necessarily be judged right by my standards.
If you agree with me that good exists and we should try to increase the amount of good in this world, then we can continue our moral discussions over what accomplishes this better or worse. If you do not agree, then depending on how viciously you disagree, I may not interact with you, or even fight you if you insist on cramping my personal rights and freedoms.
What if we have 'twisted morals', and feel that feeding the poor will bring about an Armageddon and wish for the world to end, and so we feed the poor because we want to increase the likelihood of an event we feel is bad, by performing an action that our twisted world-view tells us is awful and evil? Is it wrong to do good for such reasons? Does the starving man who's just been served his plate of spaghetti give a damn? Were his positive inner-feelings increased?
For this specific example, I would judge such an action as good. However, I would also judge the same action with an alternative motivation such as "because the poor are hungry" as much better.
Is saving the old lady in the street from getting hit by a bus not still good, even if you do it simply because she has yet to pay you for mowing her lawn last week?
Sure it's still good. It's just better if you save her because you think she'd rather live.
What is good?
Good is an increase in the positive inner-feelings of one's self.
Sounds greedy to me. I would say that my answer is better than yours.
Why do people do good?
This question is very difficult to answer, because it brings up so many other questions.
Yet answer it I did.
Do people do good?
Yes.
Does the definition of good apply to short-term or long-term inner-feelings?
Both.
Is it possible to determine when a person has done good?
Yes, as much as it is possible to determine anything.
Generally, all you have to do is ask them. Sometimes their body language will tell you without even needing oral communication. Of course, some people will put up a facade so discretion and constant vigilance is required.
No one said doing good was easy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Jon, posted 06-06-2007 5:56 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Jon, posted 06-07-2007 12:26 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 8 of 304 (404032)
06-06-2007 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by ikabod
06-06-2007 8:34 AM


ikabod writes:
nothing is good .. there is no absolute .. good is dependant on a large number variables which are also dependent on the specific circumstances at the time of the act.
But if nothing is good... how can it possibly depend on anything, let alone "a large number of variables"?
Plenty of things are good.
Do you deny that saving an innocent life is good?
btw do we need to do good
Yes, we do.
.. where is it writen
Right here in this thread, I've just typed it all out.
.. is doing no harm not a viable stand point .. or just not doing bad ??
No, not good enough. In order to increase the amount of good in this world we need to do good things.
Now, if you'd like to argue that "increasing the amount of good in this world" is something you're not interested in, then that's a valid position. It's a wrong, bad and even evil position. But it certainly is a valid moral position.
I'm not saying that "increasing the amount of good in this world" is the best moral system. I am saying it's better than the one you just provided, and any others I've ever heard of. If you can show me an even better system, I'll switch to that. So far, I haven't heard of one.
why do people do good ...they dont they do what the THINK is good , the reasoning process that a individual uses to pick out the good from the non good is .. well individual.
Almost there... they hope and try to do good.
The subjectiveness of "good" is in how different people react differently to situations. However, once someone has reacted, the good or bad of that reaction can be objectively obtained and reflected upon to determine if the action was actually good or bad. It is a personal choice of individuals if they want to attempt to learn what is good and bad, and attempt to increase the good. This is how we differentiate between "good" and "bad" people.
Subjective does not equal useless. Within morallity it just means there's no look-up table to find out if you're doing good or not. You have to learn from people because different people react differently. Not only that, but it isn't even good enough to learn from one person, you have to learn from everybody. A daunting task to put it mildly. It really isn't easy trying to be good.
the motivation to do good again is individual , doing good as its own reward , good good to seek advantage , doing good in the hope of reciprecation ..
Yes, and even these motivations themselves can be judged as good and bad.
It's like an onion, the levels just keep coming...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ikabod, posted 06-06-2007 8:34 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by ikabod, posted 06-07-2007 7:01 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 11 of 304 (404078)
06-06-2007 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by joshua221
06-06-2007 1:56 PM


Pretty Paper.
Yes, and how does this affect anything?
As your paper describes them, would you classify me as an absolutist or a relativist?
I cannot be an absolutist because I agree that different actions can cause different subjective opinions in people.
I cannot be a relativist because I say we can objectively know what is right, what is wrong, and discuss the fine points.
So where do I fit?
Take the fox-hunting scenario.
Simon is against fox hunting. (Absolutist)
Genghis is for fox hunting. (Absolutist)
Rosie says neither is correct. (Relativist)
I say one is right and the other is wrong and we only need more information to determine who. (Absolutist? Relativist? ???)
Let's keep this simple. I will ask if the fox-population is having ill-effects on our society. I'll give you two possible answers and two objective answers for who is right and who is wrong.
1. No, foxes don't bother us and their popoulation is coming close to extinction.
Then Simon is right and Genghis is wrong, it is bad to kill foxes. Killing a fox will lower the inner-feelings of the fox (it won't have any anymore).
2. Yes, foxes are over-populated, advancing on our civilization and even beginning to injure small children.
Then Genghis is right and Simon is wrong, it is not bad to kill foxes. The foxes are infringing on our equal right to live in this world. It's time to defend ourselves and fight back.
I understand I've provided an extremely simplistic scenario. But I hope it gets the point across.
So, I have definite absolutist-answers, however they hinge upon subjective-relativistic additional information. Where does this fit into the paper?
Yes, there are going to be situations where we cannot gather all the information we need to make decisions.
This does not mean we can't make decisions on those situations we have plenty of information about. Or that we can't make the best decision we can with the information available to us when we need to act.
The paper is immature, only skimming the surface of morality. It needs to dig a little deeper and get to a functional, practical system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by joshua221, posted 06-06-2007 1:56 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by joshua221, posted 06-06-2007 2:50 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 13 of 304 (404082)
06-06-2007 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by joshua221
06-06-2007 2:50 PM


Objective is not the same as absolute
Rosietherelativist writes:
You are an absolutist because you recognize that fox hunting is either right or it is wrong.
This is incorrect. Or perhaps you have changed the definition of "absolute".
An absolutist would say that fox hunting is always right or always wrong.
I say that whether it is right or wrong is relative to the subjective situation. That doesn't sound very absolute.
The choice of someone's favourite colour is subjective.
Once someone has a favourite colour, the fact that such a colour is their favourite is objective.
You seem to be saying that once a specific is chosen, then it is an absolute. This is incorrect. It is objective, but not absolute.
Unless you'd like to contend that people who like green are absolute "green-ists"? Then all choices would be absolute, and the word would have no meaning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by joshua221, posted 06-06-2007 2:50 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Stile, posted 06-06-2007 3:16 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 15 by joshua221, posted 06-06-2007 5:07 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 14 of 304 (404086)
06-06-2007 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Stile
06-06-2007 3:02 PM


Just Rambling...
Each person is forced to create and maintain their own morality.
The only way we can tell if it's any good, is by how it affects other people.
Funny how something that only exists because of how others feel, is soley dependent on how the individual feels.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Stile, posted 06-06-2007 3:02 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by joshua221, posted 06-06-2007 5:10 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 24 of 304 (404228)
06-07-2007 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by anastasia
06-07-2007 12:03 AM


anastasia writes:
Stile, you have been responding to prophex, I can tell by his avatar...but I will try to give you a decent response over here to get this back on track. I actaully do agree with him in many ways, but I find it sad that he can't just follow the rules. Whatever!
Yes, I knew I was I suspected it from the first post. Who else would need to register a new name only to post a grade-school paper as if it actually held deep meaning? And was convinced by the second, even without the avatar the junior-style is quite telling. But I like responding to them, it's easy to refute and fun to see them prop themselves on thrones where their legs can't reach the floor
I feel we are still not on the same page. You want to know what exactly is good for others? I have no idea.
We aren't on the same page. I wonder if we've ever been?
I don't care why you do your version of good. I asked why you think it IS good.
Positively increasing a person's inner feelings isn't the reason. It's the answer. That's what I think IS good. I think it IS good to positively increase a person's inner feelings. I also think it's obvious and a basic fact of life. That's it. Nothing else "is good". Pick up a rock and wash the dirt off it? Not good. Not bad either, but not good. Of course, killing animals and other creatures can easily be considered bad as you are lowering the inner-feelings of those creatures. But this is more specifics.
If you do not agree with this answer, can you provide a single example where something is morally good that does not increase the inner-feelings of another being? Careful here (and this probably causes a lot of confusion) washing your hands before your eat may certainly well be good as in "beneficial to one's health", but it is not "morally good", which is what we're talking about (it's morally neutral).
The reason I want to know what is "good for others" (read: what increases their inner-feelings) is to understand if my actions are actually good or not.
Stile writes:
This is why I do good:
1. I interact with others.
2. Interacting with others will cause me to affect them.
3. This can leave a Good, Bad, or Meh effect.
4. I am capable of empathy.
5. If I had a choice, I would like Good things to happen to me.
6. Since I do have a choice on how I affect others, I will attempt to leave Good effects rather then Bad or Meh effects.
7. When I interact with others, I'm going to do my best to cause Good effects.
anastasia writes:
These are reasons for doing YOUR version of good.
Of course they are. That's why the system is preceded by the title "This is why I do good". Because they are the reasons why I do good. I bolded it this time in case you're missing it.
How did you determine what was good about GOOD? Ugh, I mean, smiles.
From what I observe from people.
Sometime's it's direct and people tell me what they like.
Sometime's it's indirect and my sense of empathy informs me of what they like.
There are many methods.
Why is a smile better than a frown? In and of itself, it isn't, it's just muscles moving. But, when people tell me they'ed rather smile than frown... When they tell me they smile when good things happen to them and frown when bad things happen to them. I can understand that when someone is smiling that this is a good thing. And when they are frowning that this is a bad thing. (Of course, this is only a surface example, people's facial expressions aren't always genuine).
You want to make people smile so that less people will frown.
No. I want people to have good done to them rather then have bad done to them. People tell me that when good is done to them they smile instead of frown. So I want to try to make people smile, not because I like that muscle formation, but because it is an indication of those people having good done to them.
You want to make fewer children have a reason to frown.
No. I couldn't care less about anyone's (including children's) facial muscle formations. I just want fewer children to have bad things happen to them. Frowns just happen to be a convenient indication of bad things.
You want a few smiles in return.
No. I don't want anything in return.
It is motivating to just increase smiles.
Increasing smiles is irrelevent. Increasing that which makes people smile (read "GOOD") is what's important.
C'mon, Stile, smiles aren't morality.
Of course they aren't, they're just expressions. However, it's what the smile is expressing that is important, and that is morality.
When other people are around, it is INEVITABLE that you will do one of these three things:
1. Increase their inner-feelings.
-(make them smile)
2. Decrease their inner-feelings.
-(make them frown)
3. Have no effect on their inner-feelings.
-(they don't smile or frown)
I'm just saying I think the best choice is to attempt to make them smile (increase their inner-feelings).
Use whatever word you want to describe that.
Most people use the word "good".
How are you going to determine what is 'good' for another person? By and large, you can't.
Exactly. But we can try to find out. Use your skill of empathy.. read their smiles, read their body language, hell ask them if you really need to.
And once you learn.. try to keep doing this for as many people as you can.
Doing good isn't easy simply because you have to do stuff.
Doing good isn't easy because it's difficult to ascertain what's good in the first place and then you still have to do stuff.
We let people do as they please only because we think that is a good thing.
You really have to stop thinking that everyone else thinks the same way you do. This is incorrect.
I let people do as they please because it's not my place to tell them what they should and should not be doing. We're equal.
We let them get away with as much as possible before they start interfering with OUR morality. When they don't let us do as WE please.
Not quite so. I let them get away with anything as long as they don't interfere with others who don't want them to. It's when they interfere with those who don't want them to that I will no longer let them do as they please. And it's impossible for them to interfere with my moraltiy. Well, maybe not if they lobotomized me.
If you don't want to do 'good', we throw you in jail.
I'm not talking about legalities. I'm talking about how to treat other people. Good-bad, right-wrong... morality.
No different from throwing folks in jail because they don't worship OUR God. Our God right now is humanity. If you don't worship humanity, you are evil.
Where is this coming from? I haven't said anything even remotely similar to possibly worshipping anything at all. You're only evil if you purposely "lower the inner-feelings of others".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by anastasia, posted 06-07-2007 12:03 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Trump won, posted 06-07-2007 1:33 PM Stile has replied
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-07-2007 2:26 PM Stile has replied
 Message 69 by anastasia, posted 06-11-2007 12:42 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 27 of 304 (404248)
06-07-2007 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Jon
06-07-2007 12:26 AM


Re: Morality is independent of Intent...
Jon writes:
Stile writes:
This is backwards, the good is decided afterwards, only if the positive inner feelings of an individual were increased.
Then you can never claim that you are deciding to do good, since you cannot know that you've done good until after the action is carried out.
Nonsense. Sometimes you can know during the action. Or you can use what you've learnt to know that what you're going to do will result in good.
But yes, usually you're just trying to do good.
Why do you think so many make mistakes with good intentions? They want to do good, they just didn't know that they weren't until after the action and they found out that it was actually bad. Sometime's you're right, sometime's you're wrong. The point is to learn as much as you can so that you can guess correctly as much as possible. After a while, it's hardly guessing at all.
Why? If you had a heart attack every time you increased someone else's positive inner-feelings, would you continue to do so?
But... um... I don't have a heart attack every time I increase someone else's positive inner-feelings. And no, I'd probably die from the heart attack and not be able to continue.
The point is that when interacting with others I will either increase, decrease, or not change their inner-feelings. Therefore, I'm going to choose to try to increase them.
Aren't you involved in all of your actions?
Yes, that was poorly worded by me.
Why is it wrong to kill him? Once he is dead, his inner-feelings become irrelevant. Can you ask him afterward? Will you ever know if killing that man was good? Based on your method for categorizing good and non-good actions, one would have to say that there is no way of determining whether killing someone is good or non-good.
It's only wrong to kill him if it's against his wishes. How do you know what his wishes are? Even if he tells you, are you going to risk irreversibly taking his life on the chance that he may just be temporarily confused, especially since we're feeding him alcohol?
It's not "wrong to kill him". It's "wrong to kill him with the information you provided for the situation".
Based on your method for categorizing good and non-good actions, one would have to say that there is no way of determining whether killing someone is good or non-good.
Only if one is dense. If someone's going to rape someone else, and the only way to stop them is to kill them, then it is right to kill them.
For someone asking you to take their life, and you agreeing, yes. It isn't possible to know for sure if they really wanted you to kill them (as far as I know about current technology, anyway). But, there certainly are ways to be convinced as much as you can be convinced of anything else. Killing is rather... permanent, though. I suggest being extra careful when deciding if killing someone is actually good.
Realistically, not giving him alcohol is as much an action as giving him alcohol. You do realize, though, that you are only decreasing his positive inner-feelings by denying him a drink? And his inner-feelings are irrelevant once he's dead.
Oh? How do you know that denying him a drink is lowering his inner feelings? Maybe he just wants someone to deny him one, then he'll agree that that's a good plan. If it actually is decreasing his inner-feelings, then yes... denying him the drink is wrong. And it's right to let him make his own decisions and drink all he wants.
I want you to use your own system of analysis for determining the morality of an action and tell me why murder is wrong. Walk me through the steps in your head, if you would, please.
Murder is wrong for the same reason stealing is wrong. People are equal. No one has the right over anyone else to tell them what to do or what to stop doing. Murdering someone is claiming that you don't think someone else deserves to live any longer. That decision is not up to you.
Wrong things are easy, you don't even need to consider subjective inner-feelings most of the time. It's "doing good" where we need to incorporate those ideas, so that we can understand when we're actually doing good.
Jon writes:
Stile writes:
Of course, some people will put up a facade so discretion and constant vigilance is required.
Wow. You'd bug the Hell out of someone to determine if you had done good by them? Well, whatever good you had done, I'm sure you will have undone it by then.
Let me explain this to you step by step, it seems to have gone in one ear, and out the other.
Here are the two things I mentioned you should keep an eye on which you even quoted. I'll bold them this time so you can't miss them:
Discretion: Use this specifically so that you do not "bug the Hell" out of someone.
Vigilance: The vigilance is not to keep harping on people to figure out if you've done good. The vigilance is to keep re-assessing your own methods so that you can make sure you're still actually doing things that increase the inner-feelings of others and not just what you think are the inner-feelings of others.
...this is not a complete list.
Why would you assume that in order to do good I'd want to irritate people? Doesn't that seem a bit counter-productive? Remember that the entire basis of this system is about trying to make other people feel better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Jon, posted 06-07-2007 12:26 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Jon, posted 06-08-2007 1:32 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 28 of 304 (404249)
06-07-2007 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by ikabod
06-07-2007 7:01 AM


Going out on a limb to test a hypothesis, any takers?
ikabod writes:
plesae name one unquestionalbe good
An abstract example:
Saving an innocent life.
A specific example:
A guy is holding a box and asks me to open the door for him, in order to help him get inside. I open the door for him.
so you justed typed that we need to to good , that needing to do just makes it your view which may or may not be a good thing
No, it is my view and therefore possibly not the best view. But it is objective that it is "a good thing".
Didn't you ever learn?
A good thing = increasing the inner-feelings in another person.
Go ahead, try to think of "a (morally) good thing" that is not based directly on increasing the inner-feelings of another person. Do that, and I must seach again for what good actually is.
As I told anastasia, you need to be careful. Washing your hands before you eat can be "a good thing"... to benefit your health. But it is not morally good, it is morally neutral.
If you know all the information on how a situation affected others, you can objectively say if that situation was good or bad. However, the same situation can subjectively affect different people in a different manner.
history is full of people doing what in thier view they was good and right .. but are now jugded to be heinous crimes ...
Exactly, we know information about how those situations affected others now that they didn't.
as to saving a innocent life .. is it good .. well what if you saved the life of innocent 5 year old .. who later in life due to the trauma of having their life saved suffers a mental break down and goes on a killing rampage .. was that a good act ...
This is all the information? Then no, it wasn't good, and his life was far from innocent. Going on a killing rampage and all... I'd think that would be obvious.
so in order to increase the the good in the world , not sure how you can measure this ,is it good to let a few suffer if the majority have more good , thus making a larger total good .
Yup. Of course, this is pretty much impossible to measure. How do you know who should suffer and who should not? How do you know someone you choose to suffer won't one day make a huge amount of good for even more people? If you were able to answer those questions, then yes, you should be able to make those suffer who should suffer and make the majority have the most good. The situation is, however, impossible for any human to gain that kind of information. At least, I'm currently unaware of any all-knowing (including the future) humans.
or should you do good for just a few at the expence of the majority , because doing good is better than doing no harm ?
Doing good for a few at the expense of the majority isn't even "doing good" in the first place. It's being greedy for the "few" you're doing good for. How is "at the expense of the majority" equal to "doing no harm"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ikabod, posted 06-07-2007 7:01 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ikabod, posted 06-08-2007 7:30 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 29 of 304 (404250)
06-07-2007 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by JavaMan
06-07-2007 9:17 AM


Re: Smiles and morality
Thanks man, I was beginning to feel lonely and lose confidence Good to know at least some other people feel these ideals are basic to what is right and wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by JavaMan, posted 06-07-2007 9:17 AM JavaMan has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 30 of 304 (404253)
06-07-2007 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Trump won
06-07-2007 1:33 PM


=messenjah of one writes:
In terms of intelligence, I am miles ahead of everyone at this board.
If you want people to listen to you, don't make statements like this. If you really do have intelligence, you won't need to say it, it will show.
Statements such as this are merely pedantic at best.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Trump won, posted 06-07-2007 1:33 PM Trump won has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 31 of 304 (404255)
06-07-2007 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by joshua221
06-06-2007 5:07 PM


Re: Objective is not the same as absolute
Rosietherelativist writes:
I see that you are a relativist.
But the paper stated that a relativist does not objectively decide upon one side or the other, but rather "rides the fence", regardless of how much information they have. I may very well be a relativist, as far as the word is defined in regards to morality. However, as far as the word was defined in that paper I most certainly was not a relativist, as your initial answer proves.
I do objectively decide. I just do it once enough information's in to warrant such a decision.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by joshua221, posted 06-06-2007 5:07 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 32 of 304 (404257)
06-07-2007 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by New Cat's Eye
06-07-2007 2:26 PM


And so we are on to definitions...
Stile writes:
Can you provide a single example where something is morally good that does not increase the inner-feelings of another being?]
Catholic Scientist writes:
1. Picking up a piece of trash out in the woods
I would say such an act is morally neutral. Why do you say it is morally good? I can see it being morally good if you add some more information such as:
-the wood was dying from pollution. In which case "the being" you're helping here is the wood itself. I was trying to be careful and not use the word "person" so as to include any living creature. Including plants.
But, well, that just helps my point.
2. Not stealing a pack of gum from WalMart
That's not "good". It's just "not bad". I would say this is morally neutral, or "meh" as I put it in Message 1. Again, why do you think this is morally good?
3. Stopping the boiling water from spilling on the baby
Not being able to read the future, I won't be able to say that this baby is going to be incredibly thank-ful or not. Chances are though, once they are capable to express their thanks, they would.
What if the baby wanted to be burnt? I agree this is almost a totally absurd question. But, well, there are lots of things that people like that I find absurd.
---------------------------------------
I thought of something else on my ride home.
The inner-feelings of the baby are still increasing. If the boiling water hits the baby, we can pretty safely assume that the baby's inner-feelings are going to decrease dramatically, no? So preventing the boiling water from hitting the baby is increasing the inner-feelings of the baby from negative-to-neutral. This is still an increase.
Edited by Stile, : Added extra explanation below the dashed line

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-07-2007 2:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Jon, posted 06-08-2007 1:47 AM Stile has replied
 Message 38 by JavaMan, posted 06-08-2007 8:21 AM Stile has replied
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2007 5:01 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 40 of 304 (404359)
06-08-2007 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Jon
06-08-2007 1:32 AM


Re: Is that your final answer?
Jon writes:
Stile writes:
...the good is decided afterwards...
Then I pointed out the flaw:
Then you can never claim that you are deciding to do good, since you cannot know that you've done good until after the action is carried out.
And now you have changed your tune:
Stile writes:
Sometimes you can know during the action
Is that your final answer?
No, my final answer is the same as the first. The good is decided afterwards. You can't know you're doing any good unless you somehow receive information from whoever you're acting upon that their inner-feelings are actually increasing.
"Sometimes you can tell during the action.." ..was supposed to get you thinking about scenarios. Scenarios like this:
Alex begins to paint his house. His girlfried visits and says "You're doing a wonderful job honey, I love how you're making the house look". Alex now knows during his action of painting the house that he's doing good for his girlfriend. He can confidently complete the action knowing that it is doing good.
Then again, perhaps you are right here. Even getting this information during the act, Alex still doesn't know how his girlfriend will react after the house is finished. I suppose this information just helps him understand that he's probably on the way to doing some good.
Yes, I will retract that you can know what's good during an action, it needs to be after to find out if it was good or not.
If you think you can know that you're doing good before you do an action... then please give an example of such. How can you possibly know that doing something pleases someone until you do it and you receive some information to that effect?
They could tell you, but that would still only be them expecting that the action will make them feel better. You still can't really know until after it's done and they can see how their feelings changed.
Like in the painting example. Alex could finish, and his girlfriend could visit, and she might say "Oh.. well, I didn't think it would look like this.. how ugly". This would mean that painting the house was actually a bad thing for Alex to do to his girlfriend.
Notice how the same action maybe good for, say, his mom (if she liked the paint job).
So now you may ask "Was painting the house good or bad, then?" And the answer is that the question doesn't make sense. Paining a house in and of itself isn't a good or bad thing, it's just a coating of a substance on a wall.
The question is "Was painting the house good for his girlfriend? (or Mom?)" And the answer is no (or yes).
How about, for every one point increase of positive inner-feeling you give to someone else, you vomit. Going to continue increasing other peoples' positive inner-feelings?
If I wanted to be a good person and do good, then yes. If I valued myself and my own health over being a good person and doing good, then no. Of course, then I'd never do any good things, either.
Well, are you going to clear it up then?
Umm... yes... that's why I posted a rather large reply to you.
Okay, I'm standing next to his bed, bloody knife in my right hand, his dead body atop the sheets. It's after the act; it's afterwards. What logical steps should I take to calculate the morality of my actions?
You can't. You'd have to get the information from him. And, well, he's gone. You can use the information available to you to guess if what you did was good or not. But you can't figure out whether or not you increased his inner feelings, as far as I know, anyway. This is why killing someone is so risky if you want to do good. You can't really know if it was actually good after you killed them. Even if they're in extreme pain, no hope for recovery, will be forced into this pain for 20 years, they plead you to kill them and assure you it's what they want... you can be relatively confident that killing them will be a good thing. But you can't know for sure, because they won't be able to tell you if it was good for them or not afterwards.
Why? Whose positive inner-feelings is it better to increase now? You will add one point of positive inner-feelings to the rape victim because now he/she is no longer being raped. But, you will subtract 2 positive inner-feeling points from the rapist”one for stopping them from raping, another for killing them. Based on your system, you've now just done more harm than good, as you've left a net of -1 positive inner-feelings (PIF) points.
Not only did you lower his PIF points by stopping him, but by stopping him you also seem to have done something that you yourself declared to be 'not right.' Better subtract another point; that puts you at -2.
I think you're confused. People are equal. It is wrong to force yourself on another. The rapist has decided to lower the IF of another being. He has decided to forfeit the respect of their IF and in turn, forfeits any respect for his own IF. Therefore it's right to stop him and increase the IF of the victim. The rapist has forfeited any respect towards his own IF, they are no longer in "the equation".
Sorry, I was assuming such a thing was obvious, I hadn't been talking about such basic scenario's. Haven't you ever heard "You're right to swing your fist stops where my face begins"?
Yet you have no problem killing the rapist? First you stop the poor fella from raping, which takes off 1 point for his PIF, and another for doing something you had no right to do. But now, it would also seem that it's not just doing something that takes off a point, but the decision to do it also takes off a point. That puts you at -3.
As I said above, the rapist forfeited any respect for his own IF when he decided to forfeit the respect for another's. His IF no longer exist in the equation. You can't subtract something from nothing. How many apples can you remove from an empty basket?
Yet playing the game by your rules leaves you in the hole.
No, you played by your rules. Which were not mine. You can play by any rules you like. No matter how nonsensical they are. I'll stick with my practical, workable, and best-I've-heard-of-so-far system for understanding when I'm doing good and when I'm doing bad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Jon, posted 06-08-2007 1:32 AM Jon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024