Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 11:39 AM
45 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,910 Year: 8,946/19,786 Month: 1,368/2,119 Week: 128/576 Day: 29/99 Hour: 5/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others
Stile
Member
Posts: 3503
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


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 responded

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

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3503
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


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 responded

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

    
skepticfaith
Member (Idle past 3885 days)
Posts: 71
From: NY, USA
Joined: 08-29-2006


Message 48 of 304 (404400)
06-08-2007 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Stile
06-08-2007 3:52 PM


Re: The disagreement
Lets just say our foundations of morality differ . I definitely do not agree with the inner-feelings of the being acted upon theory. 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. I do not believe that anything to do conserving or 'saving' the enviornment can be good.Maybe it is beneficial to the human race as a whole (that is maybe too) but no way the environmental activists are 'good' people because they 'care'.
We as a species have this concept of good perhaps as a result of evolution or our Creator.
I am not God so I don't know if my concept of good is any better than yours. 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 mean would you actually like to be raped? S&M is consensual activity too -- rape isn't.

Another thing - I actually want to increase my inner feelings - I prefer to be happy so I don't buy your theory.

But I will not go to war with you over this though ..)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Stile, posted 06-08-2007 3:52 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Stile, posted 06-11-2007 12:00 PM skepticfaith has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 304 (404404)
06-08-2007 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Stile
06-07-2007 4:43 PM


Re: And so we are on to definitions...
I don't like your definition because it relys on good acts to be performed on individuals and it requires them to notice it.

I just think that you can do good in other ways as well.

That's not "good". It's just "not bad".

Well I see "not bad" as good. You said that you sitting there NOT doing an infinite number of bad things, so, you're being good, right?

The inner-feelings of the baby are still increasing.

No, they're not. The baby's brain isn't even developed enough to have 'inner feelings' like that.

I wish you would have replied to the general statements instead of the specific examples.

Me writes:

you writes:

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.

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'?

You definition of good requires someone to notice that you did the good act. Doesn't that kinda remove some of the greedlessness?

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.

Your defnition also ignores the absence of bad as being good, itself. But that might just be a difference of opinion.

Your definition also does not account for good acts that are for people who are unable to have thier PIF increased.

I think your definition could be improved, no offense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Stile, posted 06-07-2007 4:43 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Stile, posted 06-11-2007 1:03 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 3149 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 50 of 304 (404417)
06-08-2007 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Stile
06-08-2007 1:54 PM


Re: But are you better?
Oh dear, who says you aren't good enough? Who is doing the judging here?
I really believe the motivation to which you refer, is everything.
But 'bettering' yourself as a motive?
You are already 'better'. You break my heart when you refer to yourself as 'less than'. Not much of a foundation to build your life upon.
On the other hand if someone (from the goodness of their heart) merely suggested that I could 'better' myself, I would not be a happy chappy and neither would they, believe me.
Trying to be good and trying to do good is telling yourself and others, you are not good enough and they are not good enough. It's just not good enough! ha ha


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Stile, posted 06-08-2007 1:54 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1621 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 51 of 304 (404419)
06-08-2007 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Stile
06-08-2007 4:08 PM


Re: Why it is Right?
quote:
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.

Per Merriam-Webster the advancement of prosperity or well-being (the good of the community) (it's for your own good) is a more general meaning of the noun form of good. There is also - something useful or beneficial.

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.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Stile, posted 06-08-2007 4:08 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Stile, posted 06-11-2007 1:12 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 3149 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 52 of 304 (404426)
06-08-2007 7:57 PM


Another perspective of good and bad
The judgement of good or bad human behaviour will always promote new arguments. Just for one moment, step back from the issues and have a look at the consequences of the judgements. Wars!
So what is the motivation for this judgement of being good and bad? Just focussing on the motive, we cannot know. We have to look to who benefits and what is the consequence? The consequence is we are not in control. We are fighting amongst ourselves whilst those who can abuse power have the opportunity to do so. We present the opportunity to them on a silver platter.
Pull back, now. Look at history. How have the masses been kept under control? Look at the way we have judged each other on the ground level. Time and again 'divide and conquer' has worked and is still working.
We're better than you. You are better than them. They are not as good as me. I am not as good as you. Excellent tools of control if that be your motive.
Is it possible this notion of good and bad is merely a tool to control the masses?
Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by purpledawn, posted 06-09-2007 7:02 AM pelican has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1621 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 53 of 304 (404701)
06-09-2007 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by pelican
06-08-2007 7:57 PM


Good and Bad not the Issue
quote:
Is it possible this notion of good and bad is merely a tool to control the masses?
Not the issue of this topic. Getting past all the misdirection it is about why it is right to do good to others. IOW, why does society or an individual consider it right to do good to others?

Doing "good" to someone else is generally considered a positive action and not a harmful action.

Since humans tend to feel that violence begets violence, they also tend to feel that positive actions beget positive responses. I feel that is why humans consider it right to do "good" to others.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by pelican, posted 06-08-2007 7:57 PM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Grizz, posted 06-09-2007 5:52 PM purpledawn has not yet responded
 Message 68 by pelican, posted 06-10-2007 9:09 PM purpledawn has responded

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 3635 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 54 of 304 (404770)
06-09-2007 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by purpledawn
06-09-2007 7:02 AM


Re: Good and Bad not the Issue
We are all ultimately hedonists - As sentient beings our actions in life are directed towards the goal of bringing about pleasure(physical and mental) and minimizing pain. This not only insures our surivival but also the survivial of society.

We are driven to eat, sleep, and procreate by this drive within us. Even our mental activites and instituions such as scientific inquiry are driven by this hedonist desire. The individual is motivated to understand the world as it brings about an inner positive mental experience that satiates curiosity. Lack of understanding brings about anxiety and continued discomfort.

The religious believer finds a positive mental experience in the comfort and security of belief. The believer is driven to satiate the desire of the deity in order to bring about the ultimate goal of eternal pleasure and avoid eternal suffering.

Along these lines we do good to others because not to do so would bring about a negative mental experience in most individuals- guilt, shame, sadness. We have empathy and can associate with the plight of fellow beings. To ignore the plight leads to guilt.

On the other side of the coin most of us(outside sociopaths) do not intentionlly bring about pain and suffering on others. The result would be negative -shame, intense guilt, self loathing. Most of us therefore avoid these activities.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by purpledawn, posted 06-09-2007 7:02 AM purpledawn has not yet responded

    
pelican
Member (Idle past 3149 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 55 of 304 (404788)
06-09-2007 7:22 PM


Judgement of good and bad
The point of good and being good and doing good must mean that bad exists or potentially exists. For one to be merciful there must be one who needs mercy. For one to be good there needs to be at least awareness of bad. Whilst goodness exists badness exists.
They are both judgements based on conformity and control. It matters not that judgment, control and conformity may be deemed as essential as it does not change the effect. Goodness can and does promote evil. The Jesus story shows us this. I use this merely to illustrate human behaviour. As the story goes, his goodness created enemies who did not understand him. His turning the other cheek gave rise to it being slapped again. His goodness promoted fear, greed, betrayal and eventually his murder.
The point is that the negative effects of goodness are usually ignored, or dismissed because it doesn't suit the argument. Again using the Jesus story, this demonstrates the extremes of goodness and badness. It illustrates the WHOLE picture.
If one is to maintain being 'good' then one has to be 'good' at all times, even with one's enemies. One cannot be the judge of who deserves one's 'goodness.' That judgement alone negates one's goodness, and furthermore, that judgement can create badness.
Some of those who are judged as undeserving do not appreciate being judged in this way and will react accordingly.
Whilst the notion of goodness seems a noble one, the judgements surrounding it are very dubious. Only those with similar life experiences will agree and so the judgement of goodness will always promote division, which is the opposite.

Edited by dameeva, : No reason given.


  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 56 of 304 (404793)
06-09-2007 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stile
06-05-2007 4:13 PM


Re-Good and Bad
It's been noted that without God, one cannot answer the question "Why is it right to do good?".

It could be better said, "If there is no God with punishment for not being good, "Why bother"?

Lets get on with Darwins theory of survival of the fittist, meanest, badest person, or groups of people on earth. Come to think of it, that seems to be exactly what we are doing.

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/About_HFC/Death_Rate/death_rate.html

1.78 DEATHS PER SECOND
107 DEATHS PER MINUTE
6,390 DEATHS PER HOUR
153,000 DEATHS PER DAY
56.0 MILLION DEATHS PER YEAR
3.9 BILLION DEATHS PER AVERAGE LIFETIME (70 YEARS)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/health/main524231.shtml
Presently:
1 person dies every 40 seconds of suicide.
1 person dies every 60 seconds of murder.
1 person dies every 100 seconds from armed conflict.

http://teenink.com/Past/2005/September/19234.html
17 people die from starvation every minute.

-leaving the world a better place for children

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html
87.5 children are murdered every minute by abortion. But they are not counted in the above numbers as they don't exist

These are not the children you are talking about is it?

If this is being good, what would be being bad?


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
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 57 by jar, posted 06-09-2007 8:09 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 61 by purpledawn, posted 06-10-2007 6:16 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 77 by Stile, posted 06-11-2007 1:26 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 57 of 304 (404796)
06-09-2007 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by ICANT
06-09-2007 7:50 PM


Re: Re-Good and Bad
It could be better said, "If there is no God with punishment for not being good, "Why bother"?

Only by sociopaths.

Lets get on with Darwins theory of survival of the fittist, meanest, badest person, or groups of people on earth. Come to think of it, that seems to be exactly what we are doing.

Another great example of both the Christian Cult of Ignorance as well as the dishonesty of the Christian Cult of Ignorance.

What you posted is a total misrepresentation of either Darwin's theory or of the Theory of Evolution. In fact the mischaracterization is so extreme an example that one must wonder if it was simply through ignorance or intentional falsehood.

The Theory of Evolution says that those best adjusted to an environment will go one to breed and evolve.

Then you continue by introducing some irrelevant death statistics which have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with behavior, good or bad.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by ICANT, posted 06-09-2007 9:18 PM jar has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 58 of 304 (404806)
06-09-2007 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by jar
06-09-2007 8:09 PM


Re: Re-Good and Bad
Then you continue by introducing some irrelevant death statistics which have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with behavior, good or bad.

I don't know about you but I think murder is bad.
I also think war is bad.
I think people starving to death is bad.
I think taking the life of 87 fetus per minute is bad.

Somebody eithr does these things or causes them to happen.

jar is that good, bad or irrelevant?


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by jar, posted 06-09-2007 8:09 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 06-09-2007 9:48 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 59 of 304 (404809)
06-09-2007 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by ICANT
06-09-2007 9:18 PM


Re: Re-Good and Bad
I don't know about you but I think murder is bad.
I also think war is bad.
I think people starving to death is bad.
I think taking the life of 87 fetus per minute is bad.

Somebody eithr does these things or causes them to happen.

jar is that good, bad or irrelevant?

More misrepresentation from the Christian Cult of Ignorance.

War is usually good and bad and almost always unfortunate. Over history it has also been a primary Christian endeavor.

Murder is bad.

People starving is bad.

Abortion is unfortunate.

BUT:

1.78 DEATHS PER SECOND
107 DEATHS PER MINUTE
6,390 DEATHS PER HOUR
153,000 DEATHS PER DAY
56.0 MILLION DEATHS PER YEAR
3.9 BILLION DEATHS PER AVERAGE LIFETIME (70 YEARS)

is totally unrelated to any of the above. It is the classic Christian Cult of Ignorance tactic of trying to misdirect the pigeons attention while palming the pea.

It is also TOTALLY unrelated to the topic, to the matter of faith or why it is right to do good to others or to what I posted in Message 57 where I pointed out

Another great example of both the Christian Cult of Ignorance as well as the dishonesty of the Christian Cult of Ignorance.

What you posted is a total misrepresentation of either Darwin's theory or of the Theory of Evolution. In fact the mischaracterization is so extreme an example that one must wonder if it was simply through ignorance or intentional falsehood.

The Theory of Evolution says that those best adjusted to an environment will go one to breed and evolve.

Palm them peas gang.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by ICANT, posted 06-09-2007 9:18 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 304 (404834)
06-10-2007 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Stile
06-08-2007 11:46 AM


Welcome to Planet Stile: # of free rapists? 39,847; # of trees? 0.
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.

Let's say everyone in the world is pro-deforestation, but you are against it. You, in fact, are vehemently opposed to cutting down any number of trees.

So, you start a campaign trying to get some type of regulations/limits set on tree-chopping. You go to the pro-deforestation camp (the rest of the world), and say, 'I think you should all stop cutting down trees.' They ask you 'why?'. Your reply:

'Because deforestation is good/wrong (circle one).'

If you were someone in that position, would you honestly argue against deforestation, all the while maintaining that it is good simply because everyone else likes it?

We assume they aren't capapble of our "higher brain functions" simply because they don't have a brain..

How is that an assumption? 'Higher brain functions' require three things:

1) Brain
2) Functions
3) Higher

(1) does (2) at level (3). Without (1), the others cease to be relevant.

Got brains?

Jon

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread.
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Stile, posted 06-08-2007 11:46 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev123
4
56
...
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