Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 4:09 AM
21 online now:
Dr Adequate, Heathen, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,107 Year: 5,144/19,786 Month: 1,266/873 Week: 162/460 Day: 7/97 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 16 of 304 (404108)
06-06-2007 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Stile
06-06-2007 3:16 PM


Utilitarianism...
Happiness has no bearing on what makes an action right or wrong. I don't have time or the energy to explain to you the flaws of utilitarianism or read through your muddled reasoning.

Please, go to your local community college and take an ethics course. Do it for your own betterment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Stile, posted 06-06-2007 3:16 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by AdminNosy, posted 06-06-2007 5:49 PM joshua221 has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 17 of 304 (404118)
06-06-2007 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by joshua221
06-06-2007 5:10 PM


Speaking of ethics....
You consider lying about who you are ethical?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by joshua221, posted 06-06-2007 5:10 PM joshua221 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by joshua221, posted 06-06-2007 8:58 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 18 of 304 (404153)
06-06-2007 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by AdminNosy
06-06-2007 5:49 PM


Lying is not deception/Do I owe you the truth?
Matthew 2
1Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

2Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

3When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

4And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

5And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,

6And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

7Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

8And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

9When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

10When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

11And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.

12And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by AdminNosy, posted 06-06-2007 5:49 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by AdminAsgara, posted 06-06-2007 9:08 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 19 of 304 (404156)
06-06-2007 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by joshua221
06-06-2007 8:58 PM


You don't owe us anything except a permanent goodbye
Tweedledum or Tweedledee, I don't care which so no emails telling me I got the wrong twin.

This name added to which ever one I get to first and banned AGAIN.


AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 18 by joshua221, posted 06-06-2007 8:58 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

        
    anastasia
    Member (Idle past 4061 days)
    Posts: 1857
    From: Bucks County, PA
    Joined: 11-05-2006


    Message 20 of 304 (404184)
    06-07-2007 12:03 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Stile
    06-05-2007 4:13 PM


    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!

    What is good?
    Good is increasing the positive inner-feelings of another being.

    I have to ask, why are you starting a question with an answer? I feel we are still not on the same page. You want to know what exactly is good for others? I have no idea.

    I want to know why you say 'increasing a person's positive feelings' is good.

    I don't care why you do your version of good. I asked why you think it IS good.

    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.

    These are reasons for doing YOUR version of good. How did you deeremine what was good about GOOD? Ugh, I mean, smiles.

    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

    Let's just see.

    You want to make people smile so that less people will frown.
    You want to make fewer children have a reason to frown.
    You want a few smiles in return.
    It is motivating to just increase smiles.

    Good. So tell me why you want smiles?

    C'mon, Stile, smiles aren't morality. :)

    Any parent knows that frowns are a part of growing up. You don't give kids whatever they want, you don't give adults whatever they want. How are you going to determine what is 'good' for another person? By and large, you can't. That doesn't mean you can give up on your idea of what is good. No one does that.
    We let people do as they please only because we think that is a good thing. 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. If you don't want to do 'good', we throw you in jail. 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.

    Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

    Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Stile, posted 06-05-2007 4:13 PM Stile has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 23 by JavaMan, posted 06-07-2007 9:17 AM anastasia has not yet responded
     Message 24 by Stile, posted 06-07-2007 12:56 PM anastasia has responded

        
    Jon
    Inactive Member


    Message 21 of 304 (404186)
    06-07-2007 12:26 AM
    Reply to: Message 7 by Stile
    06-06-2007 11:02 AM


    Re: Morality is independent of Intent...
    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.

    The same action can very easily be good and bad to different people.

    Excellent, we agree :).

    Jon writes:

    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.

    I try my best to increase the positive inner-feelings of others...

    Why? If you had a heart attack every time you increased someone else's positive inner-feelings, would you continue to do so?

    ...it would depend on your inner-feelings as well, since you are involved in these actions.

    Aren't you involved in all of your actions?

    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?

    They have no loved ones—none you are aware of—how does this change the goodness of your actions?

    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.

    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.

    ...to help kill this man is not good.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Honestly, I think you're joshing all of us here. You can't really be serious... can you? :confused:

    Jon


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by Stile, posted 06-06-2007 11:02 AM Stile has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 27 by Stile, posted 06-07-2007 3:55 PM Jon has responded

      
    ikabod
    Member (Idle past 2601 days)
    Posts: 365
    From: UK
    Joined: 03-13-2006


    Message 22 of 304 (404205)
    06-07-2007 7:01 AM
    Reply to: Message 8 by Stile
    06-06-2007 11:30 AM


    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.

    plesae name one unquestionalbe good

    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 ,

    history is full of people doing what in thier view they was good and right .. but are now jugded to be heinous crimes ...

    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 ...

    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 .
    or should you do good for just a few at the expence of the majority , because doing good is better than doing no harm ?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by Stile, posted 06-06-2007 11:30 AM Stile has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 28 by Stile, posted 06-07-2007 4:15 PM ikabod has responded

      
    JavaMan
    Member (Idle past 427 days)
    Posts: 475
    From: York, England
    Joined: 08-05-2005


    Message 23 of 304 (404208)
    06-07-2007 9:17 AM
    Reply to: Message 20 by anastasia
    06-07-2007 12:03 AM


    Smiles and morality
    C'mon, Stile, smiles aren't morality. :)

    Oh, yes they are (in a sense).

    What is morality when we get down to it, apart from the rules we use to regulate our behaviour towards one another? And why do we need to regulate our behaviour? So that I can get on with pursuing the things I want to do, and you can get on with the things you want to do.

    I'd argue that there's nothing more to morality than that. If I increase your pain or reduce your happiness, I'm acting immorally; conversely, if I reduce your pain or increase your happiness, I'm acting morally.

    Any parent knows that frowns are a part of growing up. You don't give kids whatever they want, you don't give adults whatever they want. How are you going to determine what is 'good' for another person? By and large, you can't. That doesn't mean you can give up on your idea of what is good. No one does that.

    You might think that your argument here contradicts the utilitarian formula I gave in the previous paragraph, but it doesn't. You are still basing your moral judgement on what is in the child or adult's best interests, i.e. what will increase their happiness in the long run, even if, in the short term, they have to suffer an increase in pain.

    We let people do as they please only because we think that is a good thing. 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. If you don't want to do 'good', we throw you in jail.

    Again, you might think that this contradicts the utilitarian formula as well. But, again, I'd argue that it confirms it rather than contradicts it. In any action I take, there's more than just me and you to consider; there's the rest of society as well. If I take an action that increases your happiness, but also increases the pain of a whole bunch of other people, my action could be considered immoral. And we jail an individual person who has broken the law precisely for such utilitarian reasons. We jail them:

    (a) to ensure that they don't cause harm to other people (reducing their happiness to reduce the possble pain that may be caused to others);

    (b) to deter other people from committing the same offense (reducing their happiness to create a tangible legal sanction against acts that society considers immoral).

    So, I'd argue morality is all about smiles (and frowns), Anastasia. Miles and miles of smiles :) :) :) and frowns :( :( :(....


    'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 20 by anastasia, posted 06-07-2007 12:03 AM anastasia has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 29 by Stile, posted 06-07-2007 4:18 PM JavaMan has not yet responded

      
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 3436
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004
    Member Rating: 5.2


    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 responded

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

        
    working out eating chips
    Member (Idle past 1646 days)
    Posts: 1623
    Joined: 01-12-2004


    Message 25 of 304 (404231)
    06-07-2007 1:33 PM
    Reply to: Message 24 by Stile
    06-07-2007 12:56 PM


    First of all, it is not a grade school paper. I received it at the college I've been attending. The paper was written by a Cambridge PhD and you're calling it grade school. You haven't refuted anything that I have written. You really have no clue what morality is. You should take an ethics course. Actually, Jon just tore your flimsy reasoning to pieces. Asgara doesn't care who she attributes the posts to because of her first mistake. Nor should she for that matter. You my friend, are sick. I really did not want to have dialogue with you, but I put the paper in the newest morality thread because they closed down my topic on it. See the thing is, if you had something to say or if you had a good argument I wouldn't have made this reply. You have nothing. You tried to reason a subject out you have no education on. It's like if you were to decide if fox-hunting is right or wrong at this very minute. I just can't understand how someone who has been proven wrong at every point starts trying to hurt his opponent's character. In terms of intelligence, I am miles ahead of everyone at this board. Jar runs in at a close second. I keep telling him to do what is right because it is right.

    I don't mean to give the Admins headaches. I apologize for continuing to register names and post. A light-hearted joke that was "Ignatius" turned into something bad. I don't mind too much because I can't be posting here forever. You guys will probably see me on TV in a few years. I've received a lot from this board and I apologize for breaking its rules this much. It really was an accident that my name got banned in the first place.

    I won't post again so you don't have to worry about me. Maybe in five years I'll try to redeem myself so I can post.

    -messenjah

    Edited by riotcoming, : .


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 24 by Stile, posted 06-07-2007 12:56 PM Stile has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 30 by Stile, posted 06-07-2007 4:23 PM working out eating chips has not yet responded

      
    New Cat's Eye
    Inactive Member


    Message 26 of 304 (404234)
    06-07-2007 2:26 PM
    Reply to: Message 24 by Stile
    06-07-2007 12:56 PM


    can you provide a single example where something is morally good that does not increase the inner-feelings of another being?

    1. something that nobody can notice
    2. not doing something that is morally bad
    3. doing something that is morally good for a person is unconscious, or severly retarded enought that they aren't really "there", or an infant.

    1. Picking up a piece of trash out in the woods
    2. Not stealing a pack of gum from WalMart
    3. Stopping the boiling water from spilling on the baby


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 24 by Stile, posted 06-07-2007 12:56 PM Stile has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 32 by Stile, posted 06-07-2007 4:43 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

      
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 3436
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004
    Member Rating: 5.2


    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 responded

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

        
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 3436
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004
    Member Rating: 5.2


    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 responded

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

        
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 3436
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004
    Member Rating: 5.2


    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 yet responded

        
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 3436
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004
    Member Rating: 5.2


    Message 30 of 304 (404253)
    06-07-2007 4:23 PM
    Reply to: Message 25 by working out eating chips
    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 working out eating chips, posted 06-07-2007 1:33 PM working out eating chips has not yet responded

        
    Prev1
    2
    3456
    ...
    21NextFF
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019