Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 304 (403973)
06-06-2007 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stile
06-05-2007 4:13 PM


Morality is independent of Intent...
Stile writes:
What is good?
Good is increasing the positive inner-feelings of another being.
The only way to know if you've actually done some good is to get the information from the being you're dealing with. Sometimes this is easy and the information is freely offered with a head-nod or a smile. Sometimes it is difficult, and we are only able to use the knowledge we have to hopefully affect someone (or something) in a good way.
Why do people do good?
This is why I do good:
1. I interact with others.
2. Interacting with others will cause me to affect them.
3. This can leave a Good, Bad, or Meh effect.
4. I am capable of empathy.
5. If I had a choice, I would like Good things to happen to me.
6. Since I do have a choice on how I affect others, I will attempt to leave Good effects rather then Bad or Meh effects.
7. When I interact with others, I'm going to do my best to cause Good effects.
First, are you aware of every single effect of your actions, both short- and long-term, and have concluded that those effects do nothing other than increase the positive inner-feelings of others?
Second, can action X performed on individual A increase A's positive inner-feelings, yet action X performed on individual B decrease B's positive inner-feelings; or, does a good action always increase the positive inner-feelings of an individual no matter on which individual it is performed? If you increased individual C's positive inner-feelings by constantly providing the individual with hard liquor despite the individual's recent liver transplant, are you doing good?
Third:
It is right to do good if we want to increase the amount of good in this world.
What if our goal is not to increase the amount of good in the world? What if our goal is for eternal life? Is it then not necessarily right to do good?
What if we have 'twisted morals', and feel that feeding the poor will bring about an Armageddon and wish for the world to end, and so we feed the poor because we want to increase the likelihood of an event we feel is bad, by performing an action that our twisted world-view tells us is awful and evil? Is it wrong to do good for such reasons? Does the starving man who's just been served his plate of spaghetti give a damn? Were his positive inner-feelings increased?
Is the good of the action not still present? Is the rightness of performing the act not still existent despite the performers intent?
Is saving the old lady in the street from getting hit by a bus not still good, even if you do it simply because she has yet to pay you for mowing her lawn last week?
I would also like for anyone to offer other answers for the two questions so we we can compare and discuss differences.
What is good?
Good is an increase in the positive inner-feelings of one's self.
Why do people do good?
This question is very difficult to answer, because it brings up so many other questions. Do people do good? Does the definition of good apply to short-term or long-term inner-feelings? Is it possible to determine when a person has done good?
Jon

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Stile, posted 06-06-2007 11:02 AM Jon has replied

  
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?
Jon

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

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

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 304 (404305)
06-08-2007 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Stile
06-07-2007 3:55 PM


Is that your final answer?
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.
Well, now I'm as confused as the guy we've been giving drinks to. First you said:
...the good is decided afterwards...
Then I pointed out the flaw:
quote:
Then you can never claim that you are deciding to do good, since you cannot know that you've done good until after the action is carried out.
And now you have changed your tune:
Sometimes you can know during the action
Is that your final answer?
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.
Okay, not heart-attacks. Let's just say you felt like absolute shit every time you increased someone's positive inner-feelings. How about, for every one point increase of positive inner-feeling you give to someone else, you vomit. Going to continue increasing other peoples' positive inner-feelings?
Yes, that was poorly worded by me.
Well, are you going to clear it up then?
It's not "wrong to kill him". It's "wrong to kill him with the information you provided for the situation".
Information? What information? You've already said that we can't know until afterwards. Okay, I'm standing next to his bed, bloody knife in my right hand, his dead body atop the sheets. It's after the act; it's afterwards. What logical steps should I take to calculate the morality of my actions?
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.
Why? Whose positive inner-feelings is it better to increase now? You will add one point of positive inner-feelings to the rape victim because now he/she is no longer being raped. But, you will subtract 2 positive inner-feeling points from the rapist”one for stopping them from raping, another for killing them. Based on your system, you've now just done more harm than good, as you've left a net of -1 positive inner-feelings (PIF) points.
So, using your system of positive inner-feelings of others, why is it right to kill the rapist?
No one has the right over anyone else to tell them what to do or what to stop doing.
...
...the only way to stop them is to kill them...
Not only did you lower his PIF points by stopping him, but by stopping him you also seem to have done something that you yourself declared to be 'not right.' Better subtract another point; that puts you at -2.
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).
As far as science and technology are concerned, we cannot technically know anything 100%. But if we let that get in the way of our decision making, we'd get nowhere. At some point or another, we must make up our minds; we must ask the question 'is that our final answer?'
Murdering someone is claiming that you don't think someone else deserves to live any longer. That decision is not up to you.
Yet you have no problem killing the rapist? First you stop the poor fella from raping, which takes off 1 point for his PIF, and another for doing something you had no right to do. But now, it would also seem that it's not just doing something that takes off a point, but the decision to do it also takes off a point. That puts you at -3.
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.
Yet playing the game by your rules leaves you in the hole. Counter-productive indeed. Now, lets play the game by my rules and see if we end up ahead:
I stop the rapist because it increases MY PIF, + 1.
I make the decision to kill the rapist because it increases MY PIF, +1.
I carry through and kill the rapist because it increases MY PIF, +1.
I rescue a helpless rape victim because it increases MY PIF, +1.
Final score:
Stile = -3
Jon = +4
Jon

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ ____________ _ _ _ _ _
En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Stile, posted 06-07-2007 3:55 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Stile, posted 06-08-2007 11:33 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 304 (404307)
06-08-2007 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Stile
06-07-2007 4:43 PM


Re: And so we are on to definitions...
Stile writes:
Can you provide a single example where something is morally good that does not increase the inner-feelings of another being?]
Catholic Scientist writes:
1. Picking up a piece of trash out in the woods
I would say such an act is morally neutral.
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?
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.
Jon

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by purpledawn, posted 06-08-2007 7:28 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 37 by pelican, posted 06-08-2007 7:58 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 41 by Stile, posted 06-08-2007 11:46 AM Jon has replied

  
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 seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 304 (405235)
06-11-2007 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by anastasia
06-11-2007 10:44 PM


Re: We were talking about you?
Is it so hard to tell me why?
Of course it is. He knows the only reason that he thinks doing right by others is good is because it makes him feel better. If he admitted it, however, his entire argument would fall to tatters, and so we are left watching him beat around the bush while we sit here and scratch our heads wondering why he's having so much trouble understanding.
He understands perfectly, but is simply unwilling to admit to his error, hence his failure to reply to my last message, and why he will not reply to this one.
Jon
___________________
Now he'll have no choice but to reply
Edited by Jon, : Verbs, nouns, and merry-go-rounds...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by anastasia, posted 06-11-2007 10:44 PM anastasia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Stile, posted 06-12-2007 9:35 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 304 (405464)
06-13-2007 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Stile
06-12-2007 3:52 PM


Re: Education free
These definitions sound meaningless.
Ultimately, they are. But that does not stop each person from putting his/her own meaning into it and using those meanings to live their life as productively as they know how.
It's the same as we assign an idea of beauty to the light/chemical reactions that create a sunset, or humour to a string of words. It's common for humans in all areas of life to assign meaning to things that have no meaning whatsoever, and to use that meaning to enhance their experience of life.
Just like we all find our own levels of beauty in different sunsets, or humour in different jokes, so too do we find good in different acts. And as much as it is true that our feelings of beauty and humour are based on our own perceptions, it is true that good is based on our perception, and not the perception of others.
Since every thing each individual experiences in life is ultimately boiled down to his/her own perception on that thing, why do you feel that morality is somehow different?
How would you begin to define good/bad if you were the only person left on Earth? What if there was only one person on the planet, and to her, dumping toxic waste in the Nile just tickled her pink like none other. What if there is another person along side her who thinks that dumping toxic waste in the Nile is evil as evil comes? The gal is trying to increase the inner feelings of the other fella, while the fella is trying to increase the inner feelings of the gal. So what, now she stops dumping toxic waste in the Nile and he starts doing it?
What happens when tree-huggers and big industries go at it? Do the tree-huggers fight saying, 'you should be allowed to pollute the aquifer because it increases your inner feelings,' and the industries argue, 'we shouldn't be allowed to pollute the aquifer because it decreases your inner feelings'? No. Instead people fight for their own morality, because it is only their own morality that matters.
If you don't see this after reading this post, then you are simply remaining ignorant to humour yourself. I do not think you are a religious fundamentalist, so you clearly have the capacity to grasp a concept as simple as this, and we have all now wasted nearly 100 posts to tell you the same thing over and over again:
Morality is based on our OWN inner-feelings, and NOT the inner-feelings of others.
Got it now? Let's hope so, 'cause I know I'm through wasting my time.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Stile, posted 06-12-2007 3:52 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by ikabod, posted 06-13-2007 6:19 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 96 by Stile, posted 06-13-2007 10:40 AM Jon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024