Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 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 41 of 304 (404362)
06-08-2007 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Jon
06-08-2007 1:47 AM


Re: And so we are on to definitions...
Jon writes:
If cutting down every tree in the Amazon increased the positive inner-feelings (PIF) points of the world moreso than it decreased them”i.e., there is a net increase”, would it be right to cut down every tree in the Amazon? Would deforestation then be a good thing?
Yes. Why wouldn't it be?
I don't understand how you would ever calculate this. Or, even if you could, that it would ever result such as this. But yes, if it was, then deforestation would then be a good thing.
Remember, trees, wood, non-creatures, and plenty of animals do not have positive inner-feelings about which we must worry, so an answer such as 'but you're hurting the trees' feelings' will simply not be acceptable.
What makes you think that trees, wood, and plenty of animals do not have inner-feelings? Perhaps we're doing bad everytime we drink a glass of water and kill all the bacteria included? Maybe every breath we take is a bad thing? We can't know because we don't have the information (right now, anyway). And we have to make assumptions in order to carry on with our practical lives. We assume they aren't capapble of our "higher brain functions" simply because they don't have a brain. But what if they are capable of those functions in another manner? It could very well be that we're all doing a hell of a lot of bad things to creatures we're not even thinking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Jon, posted 06-08-2007 1:47 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Jon, posted 06-10-2007 1:04 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 42 of 304 (404364)
06-08-2007 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by ikabod
06-08-2007 7:30 AM


Re: Going out on a limb to test a hypothesis, any takers?
ikabod writes:
..and so you open the door letting the bomber and his bomb hidden in the box into the building
you seem to keep missing the ponit .. we are not equiped to tell what is a good act , we can only do what we "think" is right at the time.
But that didn't happen in my scenario.
I grant though, that if we're talking about your scenario then it certainly was not a good thing. It was even a bad thing.
We certainly are equipped to tell what is and what is not a good act. You agree that opening the door was good. However, opening the door for the bomber was bad. We're both equipped to see this. The fact that different situations are different is, well, rather obvious.
And yes, we can only do what we "think" is right at the time. That's why we have to wait until after the action to know if it was good or not.
I let him in. No bomb. It was good.
I let him in. Building explodes and thousands died. It was bad.
you can not make such judgments on what will increase the total world good , we act on what makes us feel/think that we are doing good , reguardless of the reality of the event and its consequenceis.
I agree completely. How does this change the fact that we can judge smaller things? There are things where we can ascertain "the reality of the event and it's consequences", and therefore we can judge whether or not these actions are good or bad.
what im saying is you cant pick a "good" and say this will increasing the inner-feelings of another person/s
That's exactly what I'm saying too. However, you can pick "an action", and if you're able to obtain information on the results of that action you can say if it was "good" or "bad".
you are not doing any absolute good , you are mere doing what you need to do to be able to live your life in a way acceptable to you.
Never said I was doing absolute good. I said I was doing good, and I know that I'm doing good.
I am not "merely doing what I'm able to in a way acceptable to me", I'm doing good, and I know that I'm doing good.
Good is increasing the inner-feelings of another being. You can't always tell if you're doing this. But sometimes you can, and if you can tell, then you can know that you did good. Then you can learn what is more likely to do good and what is not. Then you can attempt to do as much good as possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ikabod, posted 06-08-2007 7:30 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by ikabod, posted 06-11-2007 6:54 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 43 of 304 (404372)
06-08-2007 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by pelican
06-08-2007 7:58 AM


Re: But are you better?
Welcome to the debate Have fun!
dameeva writes:
I can tell you that you cannot predict your effect on others. Being good can rub some people up and you wouldn't know. Keep your own council and keep your own best interests at heart. You can't go wrong.
I half-agree.
I am in full agreement that "you cannot predict your effect on others". Which is why I've been saying you need to wait until you get some information about "your effect" before you know if you did any good or not.
Well, I also agree that if your motiviation is to better yourself then, yes, if you keep your own counsel and your best interests at heart then you can't go wrong.
But what if there's a better motivation?
I think that a motivation such as wanting to better others or increasing the amount of good in this world as much as possible are much better motivations. Perhaps they're all good, but certainly some will be better than others, no? These seem less selfish and more honorable to me.
Now if these are your motivations, then it won't be productive to keep your own counsel, and your best interests at heart. You need to try to help others as much as you can. But you need to learn how to help others, and understand if you're actually helping them as well. That's what I've been discussing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by pelican, posted 06-08-2007 7:58 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by pelican, posted 06-08-2007 7:16 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 44 of 304 (404381)
06-08-2007 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by JavaMan
06-08-2007 8:21 AM


The tricky parts are... tricky
Stealing (even from WalMart) is considered morally wrong in all societies. It may sometimes be justified, but it is never considered morally right or even morally neutral. If your definition of morality fails to allow for this fact, then there must be something wrong with your definition.
If you steal from me, that reduces my happiness; if I steal from you, that reduces your happiness. As a society, therefore, we voluntarily agree not to steal from one another, so that we can enjoy our possessions in peace. That voluntary agreement is enacted as a moral prohibition against the act of stealing, so that any such act, in whatever circumstances, attracts social and even legal punishment.
I'm not sure if you're not explaining yourself well, or if you mis-read what's going on. I agree that stealing is morally wrong (you seem to be arguing that I think stealing is morally neutral?).
I just do not agree that not stealing is morally good. I'm not stealing everything in the world right now. I'm not being morally good. I'm not doing anything at all. I'm being morally neutral... ineffective in a moral sense.
Not stealing is certainly better than stealing. Since even neutral or ineffectiveness is better than negative acts. However, it's still not morally good.
Or, I suppose if you want to push this and say it is morally good... Then, well, I would have to say that you are, in fact, increasing the inner-feelings of the WalMart store-owner by not stealing. I'm sure they'll be thank-ful you didn't steal from them. I just find it easier, when nothing really changes, to say that nothing really changed and call it neutral.
Again your purely psychological definition of morality is leading you astray. Fifty years ago you could have argued that leaving trash in the woods was a morally neutral act; but nowadays, when it's morally frowned upon and even illegal in some countries, it certainly isn't considered morally neutral.
Not quite right. Fifty years ago I could have argued that leaving trash in the woods was a morally neutral act; but nowadays, since we have learned about the damaging effects, we have learned that it is actually morally wrong.
Just like this: Five hundred years ago I could have argued that slavery was morally neutral; but nowadays, since we have learned about the damaging effects, we have learned that it is actually morally wrong. It was wrong five hundred years ago, we just didn't know it.
People are equal today, they deserve equal rights today, slavery is wrong today.
People were equal 500 years ago, they deserved equal rights 500 years ago, slavery was wrong 500 years ago. It just so happens that the majority of the population either didn't understand that or didn't care.
Trash damages the ecosystem of a forest today, it's wrong today.
Trash damaged the ecosystem of a forest 50 years ago, it was wrong 50 years ago. It just so happens that the majority of the population didn't understand that or didn't care.
Morality, in the main, is something decided upon by society as a whole, not by individuals. You don't get to decide that stealing or leaving trash in the woods are morally neutral.
That's my point. That this thinking is incorrect. Morality isn't decided upon by society or individuals. No one, individuals or society, gets to decide that stealing or leaving trash in the woods are morally neutral, good, or bad. It's bad. It's wrong. It's damaging the wood. That's it. No discussion. You can say you don't care, or didn't understand, or whatever. It's still morally wrong.
If you carry out either of those acts, and you get caught doing them, you'll suffer the appropriate social sanction, whatever your personal views.
This is actually talking about legal right/wrong. I agree with you completely here. But it has no bearing whatsoever on what is morally right/wrong.
The problems with figuring out if something is right/wrong is when there's insufficient information, and we're guessing. Like abortion. We can't know how the fetus' internal feelings are affected. We do know how the mother's internal feelings are affected. We can assume that the baby is being hurt, or that the baby isn't developed enough to understand or even possess internal feelings... but the full information just isn't there. We cannot know if this is good or bad. We just go with what we know... the mother's internal feelings, and that we think to the best of our knowledge that the baby does not possess inner-feelings... and we decide that it's good to let the mother decide.
I really don't want to get into an abortion right/wrong debate here. So if you push this analogy, I'll most likely just ignore it. I just wanted to grab a scenario where it's obvious that we don't have (maybe even cannot get?) all the information we need to judge it.
However, there are simpler scenario's where we do have all the information. Like slavery. People are equal. That's it. That's all the information we need. It's quite basic. Slavery is wrong because it's wrong for some people to force other people to do things against their will.
Can't explain why something is wrong? Then chances are it's not morally wrong, and you just personally don't happen to like it.
Granted... there are some basic principles that need to be agreed upon in order to objectively judge what is morally good. I propose that we only need one basic principle: Good is increasing the inner-feelings of other people. Agree to that, and we can objectively judge every situation we're able to aquire sufficient information.
Not only that, but I also propose that most people have already (possibly sub-concsiously or without really understanding...) have already agreed to this basic principle. Which is why:
Stopping a baby from being scalded by boiling water is a good thing. Everybody knows that.
(my bolding)
What I'm discussing is why does everybody know that? And I'm proposing that we know that because we know that:
Good = Increasing the inner-feelings of a being
The simple explanation of why it's considered a good thing is just that stopping people being harmed is a good thing. You don't need to create fanciful theories about the internal psychological state of the people (or babies) affected.
I admit that I was a little confused when I answered with the part you quoted. I just didn't erase that because I thought it was obvious that my correction (the edit added below the dashed line, right under the part you quoted) was replacing that answer. In my correction, I said mostly what you said here.
But you have to be careful. Not even "stopping people from being harmed" is always a good thing. What if the person wants to be harmed? Spanking is harming someone. Some people like to be spanked during sex. Preventing this harm from occuring to someone who wants it during sex is actually morally wrong.
And we're back to the same thing:
An act is only morally good IFF the being acted upon's inner feelings are increased.
(IFF = if and only if)
Getting scalded hurts, and stopping someone from getting hurt, other things being equal, is always a good thing.
That's just it though, isn't it? That tiny little part you added... the "other things being equal"... the "use your common sense"... the "everyone just knows it"...
Why? What is it that needs to be equal? What is the common sense? What does everyone "just know"?
I'm proposing that we all know:
An act is only morally good IFF the being acted upon's inner feelings are increased.
Hmmm.. my messages are steadily increasing in length I hope I'm not just being boring now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by JavaMan, posted 06-08-2007 8:21 AM JavaMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by skepticfaith, posted 06-08-2007 3:28 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 46 of 304 (404389)
06-08-2007 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by skepticfaith
06-08-2007 3:28 PM


The disagreement
skepticfaith writes:
Morality IS decided by society and/or individuals.
Yes, and no. What to base the morality on IS agreed by society and/or individuals. The morality itself is laid out by those foundations and is not decided upon, it is objective.
It is society (or certain segments of it ) that determime that leaving trash is BAD.
No. Society (or certain segments) agree on foundations such as "Good is what increases the inner-feelings of beings" or "Good is not hurting other people" or "Good is when men have dominion over women".
The fact is it IS NOT MORALLY WRONG TO ME or to many others.
That depends on what foundations you accept as valid. Do you accept that "Good is what increases the inner-feelings of beings"? Then yes, it certainly is morally wrong FOR YOU, or anyone else to litter and damage the "being" of the natural ecosystem.
You have no right to try to impose your beliefs on me.
No. But I do have a right to judge you as wrong. And if you agree that "Good is what increases the inner-feelings of beings" then I do have a right to inform you that littering is deceasing the inner-feelings of beings, and you're acting morally wrong.
The reason we have wars is because of DIFFERENCES in morality.
No. The reason we have wars is because of disagreements in the foundations for moralities. Or even just because some people do not want to accept the results of certain foundations.
Side A thinks that on issue A they are on the side of good, side B thinks they are opposite.
True. But thinking you are good has no bearing on whether or not you are good. In order to know if you are good or not, you must be able to define what good is.
Good is: increasing the inner-feelings of beings. Do you agree? If you don't, we may war. If you do, and just choose to ignore the objective consequence that littering is bad, we may war.
Do you agree?
If not, what is your foundation for what is good?
Perhaps your foundation is better than mine. Perhaps you'll convince me to use your foundation. I would love to have the opportunity to make myself a better person. Please share.
An alien from another planet would not give a hoot about our morality -they will not see good or evil in our civilization - all they will see is wars fought over power, and issues that people argue over.
You've talked to aliens? How do you know this? I would say that an alien from another planet would understand that a lot of people in our world want to do good, but do not understand what it is, or why it is. Hence all the childish bickering and warring.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
But this also will start wars.
Some people want others to rape them.
Are you saying that these people should rape others?
Then certainly those being raped against their will are going to war to protect themselves.
Again, we come back to:
An act is good IFF it increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon.
But, if you accept that, you must also accept that littering is wrong. You can still litter, you'll just have to accept that you're being a bad person when you do it. Or you can be intellectually dishonest, but that's also just accepting you're a bad person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by skepticfaith, posted 06-08-2007 3:28 PM skepticfaith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by skepticfaith, posted 06-08-2007 4:34 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 47 of 304 (404394)
06-08-2007 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by purpledawn
06-08-2007 7:28 AM


Re: Why it is Right?
Thanks for getting back to the topic. It's so very easy to wander on a topic related to morality.
purpledawn writes:
What is good changes through the ages, so it doesn't matter what is deemed good right now.
I think I agree. I'm going to re-word like this:
Good is what increases the inner-feelings of beings. Our understanding of what increases the inner-feelings of beings changes through the ages (as we learn more about it). So, it doesn't matter what is deemed good right now, or what was deemed good in any other past or future ages.
Would you agree? Or would you say it differently?
purpledawn writes:
In the OP Stile gives his definition of what it means to do good to others.
Stile writes:
Good is increasing the positive inner-feelings of another being.
Yes. I'm also interested in any other definitions of what it means to do good to others. Would you have another? I'm very interested in gaining new insights on this area, it may help me to become a better person.
So what is your argument? Is it right to do good to others or not?
Yeah... Jon and I seem to be discussing what is good rather than why it's right to do good. Although, an understanding of such is needed in order to move onto why it's right to do good. That's why I've been answering him. Hopefully Jon and I will be able to return our discussion back to the main topic in the near future. If not, I may have to refrain from replying to off-topic pitfalls

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by purpledawn, posted 06-08-2007 7:28 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by purpledawn, posted 06-08-2007 7:26 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 74 of 304 (405115)
06-11-2007 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by skepticfaith
06-08-2007 4:34 PM


Re: The disagreement
skepticfaith writes:
Lets just say our foundations of morality differ.
This is what I suspected.
I do believe being good is more about caring about those in your immediate vicinity than 'caring' about some starving people miles away in a distant land.
So do I. Although I'd explain it by saying it's about caring about those you have an effect on. It's just that most people don't have much of an effect on people miles away in a distant land.
I do not believe that anything to do conserving or 'saving' the enviornment can be good.
That's strange. So, if we destroy the environment, and all human life on Earth is destroyed. ...preventing this isn't good?
environmental activists are 'good' people because they 'care'
I've never said that. I said picking up a piece of trash was good. I never said dumping buckets of blood on others was good. Why would you make that assumption?
We as a species have this concept of good perhaps as a result of evolution or our Creator.
I think it's simply because we're able to tell if we hurt someone or helped them.
I don't understand your resistance to the do unto others principle. It doesn't refer to sexual perversions or apply to those who are mentally ill.
I know it doesn't. Which is why it doesn't work for all situations. Which is why it's not acceptable. It leaves the door open for others to prescribe what they think is good onto others. And that certainly is very evil.
I mean would you actually like to be raped?
Not me. Are you saying you know for certain that no one ever could possibly want to be raped? I'm pretty sure people exist who want to be raped. Or we don't even have to talk about rape.
I like to trim my nose-hairs. The golden rule then, says I should trim other people's nose hairs? I'm pretty sure some people will find it rather intrusive.
Another thing - I actually want to increase my inner feelings - I prefer to be happy so I don't buy your theory.
That's great, I think you're greedy, and it has no bearing on whether or not the theory is valid. I still think it is.
But I will not go to war with you over this though.
No Me neither.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by skepticfaith, posted 06-08-2007 4:34 PM skepticfaith has not replied

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


Message 75 of 304 (405122)
06-11-2007 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by New Cat's Eye
06-08-2007 5:01 PM


Re: And so we are on to definitions...
Catholic Scientist writes:
I think your definition could be improved, no offense.
None taken. In fact, I think this too. And it's also one of the big reasons why I post on this board. Of course the question is how can it be improved?
That's great that we can see problems or short-comings for it. But how do we alter the system so that it can include those issues?
I just think that you can do good in other ways as well.
I hope so. But I'm not convinced that we can.
1. something that nobody can notice
Then how do you know that you actually did any good? Certainly there are times where we think we've done good.. and then learn how hard it affected someone.. and understand that we actually did very bad.
Without the feedback, how do we know it was good and not just something we thought was good, or wanted to be good?
2. not doing something that is morally bad
Do you agree that morally neutral actions even exist? I mean... say... getting out of the left side of my bed or the right side in the morning. Do you agree that this action is morally neutral? If not, which is good? which is bad? why?
If morally neutral actions exist, then how do we define them? Wouldn't they be those actions where no one is affected? Therefore, how can something be good when no one is affected? That would just be neutral...
And not being bad, is equally morally neutral.
I think the problem here is mixing up the broad-usage of the word "good". Sure, not being bad can be considered "good" the same as "washing my hands before dinner" or "reaching level 12 on Tetris". But can they be considered "morally good"? I don't think they can.
I think morally neutral actions exist. And I think they only way to define what actions are morally neutral includes "not doing bad".
3. doing something that is morally good for a person is unconscious, or severly retarded enough that they aren't really "there", or an infant.
Again, I think this is the same issue. It's confusing "good" (better, or productive, or there-could-have-been-something-worse) with "morally good" (having an actual benficial impact). You say "doing something morally good"... but how can you possibly know if it was good or not without understanding their reaction? You're only doing what you hope is going to be good for them. It is a subtle difference, but it is an important difference, because it's what people use to prescribe their thoughts of what's "good" onto other people's lives. Which is some very bad evil.
Instead of adjusting your definition of good to include things that aren't in the definition, you labeled these things as 'not good'. Why is that? Are you very interested in 'keeping your definition'?
No. I'm not interested in keeping the definition. I'm interested in finding a definition that cannot be corrupted by people who want to justify doing evil in the name of "good". People who say "this is good" and think they should force it on everyone else "because it is good" and end up doing a whole lot of evil.
You definition of good requires someone to notice that you did the good act. Doesn't that kinda remove some of the greedlessness?
No. It removes the chance of corruption. Some people (either purposefully or with good-intentions) think it's their duty to force others into doing what they think are "good" things. This is a very large evil. And can lead down very evil paths. You could easily argue that it's the biggest evil we've ever encountered... responsible for the most amount of lives that "evil" is responsible for. Pretty much any religious war is attributable to people who want to force other people into doing things. And the leaders convince their followers that it is "good" to force the other people into these things.
If you opened the door for a blind guy and he didn't even know it, then your act is no longer good because you didn't increase his PIF?
That's lame.
What if your blind fellow hates it when people do things for him because he wants to be as independant as possible? What if the biggest joy he ever receives in his sight-less life is finding obstacles and finding his own way past them? Like finding closed doors, and figuring out how to open them. You just robbed this poor man of his most desired situation. How was that good?
Thinking that you are "so enlightened" that you "already know" exactly what others will like to have done for them... that is lame.
Your defnition also ignores the absence of bad as being good, itself. But that might just be a difference of opinion.
Yes. I think it is a difference of opinion. I think that morally neutral actions exist.
Your definition also does not account for good acts that are for people who are unable to have thier PIF increased.
No. My definition does not allow for us to know if we're doing good for people who we are unable to determine if their PIF is increased. And I think this is a very positive thing that would stop a great deal of evil if more people understood it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2007 5:01 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2007 4:43 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 76 of 304 (405124)
06-11-2007 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by purpledawn
06-08-2007 7:26 PM


Re: Why it is Right?
purpledawn writes:
I don't feel that your definition: Good is increasing the positive inner-feelings of another being is really a definition of good. An action that increases the positive inner-feelings of another being would be considered good, but I don't see it as a definition of good.
Even though we now have a noun form of the word, good is a descriptive word not a thing.
Yes, when I use the word "good", I tend to mean "morally good". Or even "an action that is considered to be morally good". It's just easier to say "good".
I suppose the point of this thread is to propose that I think "an action that is considered to be morally good" is "an action that increases the inner-feelings of another being".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by purpledawn, posted 06-08-2007 7:26 PM purpledawn has not replied

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


Message 77 of 304 (405126)
06-11-2007 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by ICANT
06-09-2007 7:50 PM


Re: Re-Good and Bad
ICANT writes:
It could be better said, "If there is no God with punishment for not being good, "Why bother"?
And my answer is exactly the same. When we interact with people, we'll leave a good effect, bad effect, or neutral effect. It is better (that's the basic definition of better) to leave a good effect. So that's what I'm going to try to do.
Now, how do you know if you've left a good effect?
You have to get feedback in some way. Body language, or oral communication are the more common methods.
ICANT writes:
Stile writes:
-leaving the world a better place for children
87.5 children are murdered every minute by abortion...
These are not the children you are talking about is it?
Of course they are. I included all children. If we could lower that number to 87.4 even, would that be leaving the world a better place? (I'm not here to discuss the morality of abortion, if you press the usage of that analogy, I'll likely ignore the point).
If this is being good, what would be being bad?
I never said any of that was good. In fact, I explicitly defined what was good:
Morally Good = doing an action that results in the positive increase in the inner feelings of the being acted upon.
Accordingly (obvious, to me):
Morally Bad = doing an action that results in the decrease in the inner feelings of the being acted upon.
Morally Neutral = doing an action that results in no change of another being's inner feelings.
I'm pretty sure I'm not using the words "Darwin" or "survival" or "fittest" or even "God" in there anywhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by ICANT, posted 06-09-2007 7:50 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 78 of 304 (405136)
06-11-2007 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by anastasia
06-11-2007 12:42 AM


We were talking about you?
I think this may be why you're so against anything I'm saying, anastasia. I never knew this before, but from what you just said here, I think we've found a very big issue that needs clearing up:
anastasia writes:
I contend that I would do good whether others were positive or negative or meh about it. I could care less what they think. So how can it be true that my morality is all about other people?
(my bolding)
anastasia, I'm not talking about you. I've never meant for any of this to be a reflection or description of your morality. I think it's kind of obvious your morality has God in it at least somewhere. I'm sure you're a very important person to your family, and your life, and everyone you interact with. But, well, I personally don't care enough to try to tell you what your morality is all about.
Hopefully that will clear it up a bit.
If you are nice to your wife's enemies, what are you doing to her positive mental state?
I agree we can't be nice to everyone. Does that mean we shouldn't try to be as nice as we can to as many people as we can? How do we know we're being nice?
First off, washing your hands was and is a big part of morality in some cultures. I might even consider washing my hands very moral if I am to serve others, or even if I care about myself.
I'm not talking about what some people may think is acceptable behaviour or not. I'm talking about what IS morally good. I can think holding my breath for 10 seconds every morning is morally good. It doesn't make it morally good, or even a moral action. Now, it's morally wrong for someone to try to stop me from doing such. But holding my breath, in and of itself, like washing your hands, in and of itself, is not morally good. It's morally neutral.
When I go to church, hell if that increases the positive inner feelings of my husband or my kids.
Walking into a building is morally good? I've even talked to priests about this when I used to regularly go to church myself. They wouldn't even say that going into a building was good.
How is going to church good? Who is it helping? Why do you say this is a good thing? Is going to the gas-station good? It's a building too. Or do I have to put a cross on the building? Then it's good? Sounds rather morally neutral to me. Of course, I'm not going to stop you from doing it. You're free to walk into or out of as many buildings as you please.
I consider drug use immoral for myself...
Good for you. Weren't you supposed to be thinking of examples of things that are good that didn't affect other people? So far, you've yet to do that.
Or are you saying that "not doing bad" is good? See my discussion with Catholic Scientist to see why I think morally neutral actions exist, and how they include "not bad" things.
Message 75
..where I quote his point number "2." and discuss why it's not morally good.
Stile, 'I increase the positive feelings of people because it increases the positive feelings of people' is still lame.
Maybe you didn't read it. I'll write it again.
When interacting with other people you must:
-increase their inner feelings
-not affect their inner feelings
-decrease their inner feelings
I choose to attempt to increase their inner feelings.
anastasia writes:
Stile writes:
No. I don't want anything in return.
Yes, you do.
This is awesome. You know what I want better than I do? How very arrogant, and incorrect, you are.
You at least want other people to do as you do.
I may want this. But I didn't say "I don't want anything". I said "I don't want anything in return for increasing the inner-feelings of other people.
And I don't want other people to do as I do, in return for increasing their inner feelings.
In return for increasing the inner feelings of other people, I want nothing.
In return for doing good, I want nothing.
Now, if someone agrees to live in peace with me. Then yes, in return for that, I certainly do expect them to not make me frown, or I'll throw them in jail. Just like everyone else. But that has no bearing on what I want in return for doing good.
You are going to have to pick and choose, and eventually someone will get hurt regardless.
Of course they will. But it's good to try and get as few people hurt as possible, no?
I was only asking why you place so much emphasis on what other people think, because it will get you into trouble at least rationally when you try to please everyone.
But it won't. In fact, finding out "what other people think" is the best way to rationally attempt to please them. How else do you know if you're actually pleasing them if you don't ask them?
You are going to have to hurt people in life.
Agreed. Do you agree that we should attempt to minimize this? If you want to minimize hurting other people... how do you do that? Don't you need to know what will hurt other people? How do you learn that? Wouldn't you have to find out what other people think?
Edited by Stile, : Added link to my post to CS

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by anastasia, posted 06-11-2007 12:42 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by anastasia, posted 06-11-2007 10:44 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 79 of 304 (405137)
06-11-2007 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by ikabod
06-11-2007 6:54 AM


Education free
you open the door for the person , cos you think it is the correct social thing to do , and you hope it has a positive effect on the person .....all of which comes from how you where ( in the larges sense ) educated ... change the education change what you consider to be good.
You started this thought exactly as I would have, then moved diferently at the end..
I'm saying it doesn't matter what we consider to be good. It matter's what the person we're doing the action for considers to be good.
you open the door for the person , cos you think it is the correct social thing to do , and you hope it has a positive effect on the person..
Exactly. I'm in total agreement with this statement.
.....all of which comes from how you where ( in the larges sense ) educated ... change the education change what you consider to be good.
And this is where I really disagree. Education has nothing to do with whether or not the action was good or bad. Education will affect how you attempt to be good or bad, but has no bearing on the action actually being good or bad.
The action being good or bad only depends on the person acted upon. In this example, it only depends on the guy having the door opened for him.
Buddy's happy the door was opened for him.
-It was good to hold the door open if I was highly educated.
-It was good to hold the door open if I was uneducated.
Buddy's horrified the door was opened for him.
-It was bad to hold the door open if I was highly educated.
-It was bad to hold the door open if I was uneducated.
Education of the door-opener doesn't matter. It matter's if Buddy wanted the door opened for him or not. Education may help us read Buddy, to help us understand if it's more likely he'll want the door held open... but it really doesn't matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by ikabod, posted 06-11-2007 6:54 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by ikabod, posted 06-12-2007 6:50 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 83 of 304 (405321)
06-12-2007 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by anastasia
06-11-2007 10:44 PM


Re: We were talking about you?
anastasia writes:
was wondering, in a world where how you treat people is the beginning and end of morality, do you ever get frustrated when you realize that you must eventually fail?
No, not at all. I don't get frustrated when I eventually fail, because I realize that I can't please everyone. Failing is inevitable and expected. Failing means though, that I am pleasing as many people as I can. If you never hit this "fail" mark, you're likely not helping as many people as you can.
There is nothing GOOD unless you are an absolutist, and you are swearing not to be.
Why is nothing GOOD unless you are an absolutist? That doesn't seem to make sense.
Let me say it again:
Good = an action that increases the inner feelings of the being acted upon.
Which will be relative to the person acted upon.
There is no distinction between morality and acceptable behaviour.
Sure there is. Driving your car to work is acceptable behaviour. It isn't moral behaviour. Why would you think these two things are inseperable? Drinking pop with dinner is acceptable behaviour. It isn't moral behaviour.
You can not make claims about what is neutral, you can't.
Sure I can. As soon as we agree that:
Good = an action that increases the inner feelings of the being acted upon.
We can objectively determine what is Good, what is Bad, and what is Neutral.
Now, do you not agree that:
Good = an action that increases the inner feelings of the being acted upon?
Why not? What else is Good, then? And why would it be good?
Walking into a building? No, of course not. Attending mass, that's a different story.
I see. So you admit that it's not the building. It's the people. You're going to church for the sense of community. Yours, and everyone elses who's there. You're attempting to increase the inner feelings of those in your community. How is this not helping anyone again?
If I avoid drugs it will be good, and it may or may not affect anyone.
No. You're confusing "good" (it-could-be-worse). With "morally good" (having an actual beneficial impact). I suppose you chose to ignore the nice link I gave to...
Message 75
...where I discuss the existance of morally neutral actions with Catholic Scientist?
Here, I'll cut and paste it for you this time:
quote:
Do you agree that morally neutral actions even exist? I mean... say... getting out of the left side of my bed or the right side in the morning. Do you agree that this action is morally neutral? If not, which is good? which is bad? why?
If morally neutral actions exist, then how do we define them? Wouldn't they be those actions where no one is affected? Therefore, how can something be good when no one is affected? That would just be neutral...
And not being bad, is equally morally neutral.
I think the problem here is mixing up the broad-usage of the word "good". Sure, not being bad can be considered "good" the same as "washing my hands before dinner" or "reaching level 12 on Tetris". But can they be considered "morally good"? I don't think they can.
I think morally neutral actions exist. And I think they only way to define what actions are morally neutral includes "not doing bad".
I also gave you the church example, which doesn't affect anyone.
Didn't you say yourself:
I just might also believe that going to church helps myself, and helps others who will be prayed for. So there.
So you admit you might be going to church in order to help people but you know it doesn't affect anyone?
In either case, you're either helping someone or you're not affecting anyone. In which case, how is this actually good, and not just something you're saying is good? Just because words come out of someone's mouth, doesn't make them true.
If how you treat people IS morality, would you be able to say anything was wrong with porn, or are you one of those who have no problem with it?
"Porn" is a thing. Like "rocks". Porn, in and of itself, like rocks, are objects. They are not good or bad. They're just things.
The whole point is that we can't just point at things and say "good" or "bad". We have to have an action, and see what that action does to people.
Forcing someone into porn against their will? Bad.
Bought porn as a gift for someone who was happy to receive it? Good.
Throwing rocks at a person's head? Bad.
Got rocks as a gift for someone who was happy to receive them? Good.
Why oh why are you acting as if morality were an absolute? YOUR version is moral, and should be for everyone just because it is.
"Morality" is not an absolute. It depends upon the foundations the individual chooses to adhere to. I choose the foundation:
"Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon"
I also propose that most people (conciously or not) also agree with this foundation of "Good".
Once we have a foundation that we agree upon. We can objectively state if an action is Good, Bad, or Neutral.
Think of a few general scenario's.
When someone is hurt, most people will think this is bad. Why?
Because this is decreasing their inner-feelings
When someone is laughing, most people will think this is good. Why?
Because it's an indication that their inner-feelings are increasing
This is the "common sense" that pretty much all people "just know". If you want to say that something else is Good. You're going to have to tell me what it is, and why it's actually Good. If you think you're so enlightened that you know that porn is actually decreasing the inner-feelings of anyone involved with it... why do you think so? Why is porn bad? Why do you think you should be able to tell other people what they feel?
anastasia writes:
Stile writes:
When interacting with other people you must:
-increase their inner feelings
-not affect their inner feelings
-decrease their inner feelings
I choose to attempt to increase their inner feelings.
La dee da. Is it so hard to tell me why?
Of course not. I'll even copy and paste...
Message 1
...again.
quote:
This is why I do good:
(This is why I choose to attempt to increase their inner feelings):
1. I interact with others.
2. Interacting with others will cause me to affect them.
3. This can leave a Good, Bad, or Neutral 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.
And I'll even quote this for you again too:
Good = an action that increases the inner feelings of the being acted upon.
You are the one deciding for the whole world what is morally neutral, good, and bad.
No. I'm explaining the consequences to everyone that agrees with:
Good = an action that increases the inner feelings of the being acted upon.
...which just so happens to be pretty much everyone.
Do you deny that something that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon is good?
What is good, then, anastasia? And why is it good?
Stile, I still have not gotten to the point about 'why' you get to decide what is good.
I don't get to decide. But as soon as a foundation is agreed upon... And most of this world agrees with the foundation I've proposed... then we can objectively say if something is actually good, bad, or neutral. I'm not deciding, I'm simply explaining.
And what if you don't like what they think?
Good = an action that increases the inner feelings of the being acted upon.
Read it. Maybe slower this time. It has nothing to do with what I think. It only deals with what they think.
How do you decide whom to please?
Again:
quote:
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 Neutral 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.
Therefore, I "decide to attempt to please" anyone I interact with. (It's the first 2 points).
In fact, the person you will choose to please will be the person who agrees with your morality.
No. I choose to attempt to please anyone I interact with.
If someone wants you to snatch a bill from the bar, and you think it will hurt someone, you won't do it, even if it would make that other person smile.
The action is "snatch a bill from the bar". It does not only include the person wanting me to do it. It obviously also includes the person owning the bar who I'm snatching from. The person wanting me to snatch the bill is choosing to ignore the inner-feelings of the bar-owner. Therefore any consideration of their inner-feelings are ignored. Now we're only dealing with the inner-feelings of the bar-owner, which will likely decrease if I steal from them (I've never met anyone who wants to be stolen from).
If someone asks you to pass a drink, you will, because that person agrees with YOU.
No. If someone asks me to pass a drink, I will, because it will hopefully increase their inner-feelings.
Please stop telling me how I feel and why I do things, anastasia. You don't seem to be very good at it.
It's about you, not others.
One last time:
quote:
Good = an action that increases the inner feelings of the being acted upon.
It's about others, it's not about me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by anastasia, posted 06-11-2007 10:44 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by anastasia, posted 06-12-2007 3:20 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 84 of 304 (405324)
06-12-2007 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Jon
06-11-2007 11:37 PM


Message 1, Again.
Jon writes:
He understands perfectly, but is simply unwilling to admit to his error, hence his failure to reply to my last message...
I didn't reply to your last message because it was deemed off-topic and un-replyable by an admin. Stay on topic, and focused, and I'll reply to anything you have to add.
He knows the only reason that he thinks doing right by others is good is because it makes him feel better.
This is incorrect, again. Here, I'll re-summarize Message 1 just for you (now with commentary ):
quote:
Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon.
Do you agree? If not, what is morally good, then? If you're going to reply with a scenario, why is that scenario morally good?
Now that we have a definition for what IS morally good. Why should we do anything that is morally good?
quote:
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 Neutral 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.
My decision to attempt to do morally good actions does not depend on "making me feel better". Sometimes I know it will (and it does) make me feel worse, but I do it because I hope to increase the inner-feelings of another person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Jon, posted 06-11-2007 11:37 PM Jon has not replied

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


Message 85 of 304 (405327)
06-12-2007 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by ikabod
06-12-2007 6:50 AM


Re: Education free
so you acept that your act is not "good" , now follow on and realise Buddy's reaction...
This is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that Buddy's reaction is what determines if the action was good or not. We cannot "accept that the act is not good" and then go on to analyze Buddy's reaction. We need to analyze the reaction to understand if the act was good or not in the first place.
I agree that Buddy's reaction will depend on his education/upbringing/experience/life/how-he's-feeling-that-day...
he now thinks he is in your debt because you performed a " good " act on him ...
This is fine. You still haven't finished, though. As far as I'm concerned:
If "thinking he is in my debt" increases his inner feelings (he likes that), then the act was good.
If "thinking he is in my debt" decreases his inner feelings (he hates that), then the act was bad.
If "thinking he is in my debt" doesn't change his inner feelings (he couldn't care less), then the act was neutral.
It all depends on Buddy's reaction.
We can even think the act was good:
We open the door for Buddy.
Buddy says "Hey, thanks for opening the door, that was nice."
We think we've increased his inner-feelings.
We think we've done a morally good thing.
Buddy, 10 years later, says "Hey, remember when you opened the door for me that one time? Yeah, I was trying to be polite, I hate it when people do that."
Now we understand we've actually decreased his inner-feelings.
We've actually done a morally bad thing.
It was morally bad 10 years ago, we just didn't know it.
Of course, this too may be "just something he's saying".
We can't actually, 100% know how someone else is feeling. But there certainly are times when we can be so confident that it's ridiculous to assume otherwise.
As the cliche goes, "it's not easy to be good".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by ikabod, posted 06-12-2007 6:50 AM ikabod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by anastasia, posted 06-12-2007 3:25 PM Stile has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024