Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 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
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


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


Stile, you have been responding to prophex, I can tell by his avatar...but I will try to give you a decent response over here to get this back on track. I actaully do agree with him in many ways, but I find it sad that he can't just follow the rules. Whatever!
What is good?
Good is increasing the positive inner-feelings of another being.
I have to ask, why are you starting a question with an answer? I feel we are still not on the same page. You want to know what exactly is good for others? I have no idea.
I want to know why you say 'increasing a person's positive feelings' is good.
I don't care why you do your version of good. I asked why you think it IS good.
Why do people do good?
This is why I do good:
1. I interact with others.
2. Interacting with others will cause me to affect them.
3. This can leave a Good, Bad, or Meh effect.
4. I am capable of empathy.
5. If I had a choice, I would like Good things to happen to me.
6. Since I do have a choice on how I affect others, I will attempt to leave Good effects rather then Bad or Meh effects.
7. When I interact with others, I'm going to do my best to cause Good effects.
These are reasons for doing YOUR version of good. How did you deeremine what was good about GOOD? Ugh, I mean, smiles.
There are many motivations for wanting to increase the amount of good in this world, a few examples:
-not wanting the bad in this world to increase
-leaving the world a better place for children
-hopefully getting some personal benefits sometime in this life or possibly even the next
-even just wanting to increase the amount of good is a motivation in itself
Let's just see.
You want to make people smile so that less people will frown.
You want to make fewer children have a reason to frown.
You want a few smiles in return.
It is motivating to just increase smiles.
Good. So tell me why you want smiles?
C'mon, Stile, smiles aren't morality.
Any parent knows that frowns are a part of growing up. You don't give kids whatever they want, you don't give adults whatever they want. How are you going to determine what is 'good' for another person? By and large, you can't. That doesn't mean you can give up on your idea of what is good. No one does that.
We let people do as they please only because we think that is a good thing. We let them get away with as much as possible before they start interfering with OUR morality. When they don't let us do as WE please. If you don't want to do 'good', we throw you in jail. No different from throwing folks in jail because they don't worship OUR God. Our God right now is humanity. If you don't worship humanity, you are evil.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

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

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

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 69 of 304 (405054)
06-11-2007 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Stile
06-07-2007 12:56 PM


Stile, sorry I didn't see your reply yet. I realize you opened this thread sort of because of me.
It's still not working.
Stile writes:
That's what I think IS good. I think it IS good to positively increase a person's inner feelings. I also think it's obvious and a basic fact of life. That's it. Nothing else "is good".
Right, I know you are an absolutist about this. Positive feelings and all this New Age sounding stuff, yep. It's good just because it's good just because...blah.
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?
You can't please everyone. If you are nice to your wife's enemies, what are you doing to her positive mental state? {Hypothetically of course.} See, you are bound to treat folks equally, because your morality is YOURS. It is not determined by how anyone else feels about it.
Of course, killing animals and other creatures can easily be considered bad as you are lowering the inner-feelings of those creatures.
I love animals, but seriously, I am not going to talk about the height or depth of their inner feelings.
If you do not agree with this answer, can you provide a single example where something is morally good that does not increase the inner-feelings of another being? Careful here (and this probably causes a lot of confusion) washing your hands before your eat may certainly well be good as in "beneficial to one's health", but it is not "morally good", which is what we're talking about (it's morally neutral).
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 am not on the paranoid side, but hello, I can think of tons of examples of immorality that has naught to do with others.
Example A.
When I go to church, hell if that increases the positive inner feelings of my husband or my kids.
Example B.
I consider drug use immoral for myself, and hell if I increase the positive inner feelings of the people I try to steer away from addictions.
I won't back down from my convictions just to make people feel good.
Of course they are. That's why the system is preceded by the title "This is why I do good". Because they are the reasons why I do good. I bolded it this time in case you're missing it.
Stile, 'I increase the positive feelings of people because it increases the positive feelings of people' is still lame.
No. I don't want anything in return.
Yes, you do. You at least want other people to do as you do. You will stop people form behaving in a way that threatens your morality. If a guy makes someone frown, you put him in jail. Figuratively please, you don't need to get concerned with muscle formations and all. I am talking a lot about smiles becuase they are so silly and petty and transient. I had hoped that you would see that they are not in themselves an indication of good being done.
Where is this coming from? I haven't said anything even remotely similar to possibly worshipping anything at all. You're only evil if you purposely "lower the inner-feelings of others".
You are going to have to pick and choose, and eventually someone will get hurt regardless. 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. You are going to have to hurt people in life.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Stile, posted 06-11-2007 2:12 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 70 of 304 (405063)
06-11-2007 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by purpledawn
06-10-2007 6:16 AM


Re: Still no Answer
PD, in sum, I consider it 'right' to treat others as well as possible without validating my personal convictions, because Jesus asks it, and because it makes rational sense in a world where I feel we are all equals in being. I feel that I am not the judge of others, but that we are all subject to the Supreme Judge and thus I am in the same state of trial in life. I believe that my actions can lead others astray and cause them to harbor resent or despair, which will seperate them from what they are called to do, and exalt myself beyond my place.
I see that in a morality without God, the love of others on the universal scale has been retained as 'good' even though the reasoning behind it has been removed.
There are two things which I've noticed:
Science has preserved the idea that this 'good' IS good, when presenting theories for why we should help each other.
Non-religious people do not question the idea or the findings of science. They tell us it is good for survival. Yet, many have expressed the idea that they desire nothing in return for their behaviour. This leaves us only with the option that we have an instinct to love because it has been 'programmed' via evolution as a survival tool.
So, I question this because it seems obvious that we have an equal if not greater instinct to selfishness, as obviously we need sentient thought, preaching, laws, etc., to goad us into loving even enemies.
I also question why we do not use our intelligence to reason out 'good' based on the goal of survival. Some do, as far as natural resources and conservaton. These things are just beginning to come under the heading of good and moral. For instance, it is not necessarily a 'sin' to litter, although it is a shame. It is not, however, a world where we worship the planet more than men, or the future more than the present. It's getting there, as this would be the necessary conclusion if we abandon the worship of God. Just think of how much praise is given to forward-looking organizations.
There are an awful amount of catches to it all IMO. I am not saying that we need God to be moral, and sure if God wants us to love, I can trust people to love because society is still full of the ideas of equality. I would just prefer a bit of honesty and integrity, and a few personal convictions about human life and what it means, rather than the confused 'I think I maybe was evolved to care about people, and well, I was taught to do that, and it's just 'right'. It't not 'just right'. It was an idea that was based on something, namely, equality under God or under the stars. When Christians say that others can't be moral, it is partially because we are just not hearing these personal convictions from people, and without them, it is hard to know how far they can be trusted. I am just a person who feels that morality is a conscious effort for a purpose, that our purpose has shifted from the eternal/theological to the present/humanitarian, and I am tryng to ascertain the current purpose of loving others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by purpledawn, posted 06-10-2007 6:16 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 80 of 304 (405217)
06-11-2007 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Stile
06-11-2007 2:12 PM


Re: We were talking about you?
Stile writes:
Hopefully that will clear it up a bit.
Well I am glad you are catching up.
This is not about MY morality, or YOUR morality exactly, it is about how the whole moral system changes when you don't believe in God.
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.
So what is this all about? Sounds rude, like you may want to compare morality and find mine deficient. I think we should be honest and say we can no longer look for the juiciest apple on the table, because now we've got oranges.
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?
Yeah yeah. We should. I 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? It doesn't matter to me if I don't please everyone, but I guess we agree that its the trying which counts.
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.
I thought we were onto an understanding. There is nothing GOOD unless you are an absolutist, and you are swearing not to be. You have to choose your goal, and then and only then, can you decide what is acceptable behaviour. There is no distinction between morality and acceptable behaviour. You can not make claims about what is neutral, you can't. Your morality simply doesn't work for everyone. I am telling you for a FACT that it was moral to wash your hands in Jewish culture...and guess what? It is still immoral to cook on Saturday, or during a shiva, or on Passover, etc. It is immoral to use heat of any kind in preparing food. It is immoral for a Catholic to read porn, and that is a FACT. These are the real teachings of certain groups. They are based on rational reasoning, and your opinion of what is moral does not count whatsoever when you want to prance around and make declarations. You want to be a relativist, or not?
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.
Walking into a building? No, of course not. Attending mass, that's a different story.
If I believe God wants me to go to mass, and my morality is about God, then hell yeah its moral to go to church. I just might also believe that going to church helps myself, and helps others who will be prayed for. So there.
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.
What? I don't believe drug use is moral. If I avoid drugs it will be good, and it may or may not affect anyone. I also gave you the church example, which doesn't affect anyone. If I read porn that doesn't affect anyone. Maybe you feel it is vital to buy porn just to make the actors happy? I don't know, but I wouldn;t want to be n a moral system where I can't succeed.
Let me ask you this: 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?
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.
Re: And so we are on to definitions... (Message 75)
..where I quote his point number "2." and discuss why it's not morally good.
I will check it out, but I am sure that it is just as silly. There is no such thing as bad or good, except in the mind of the individual. 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. I've been down a long hard road with this topic, and I am an absolutist by choice, but at least I am not denying it.
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?
This is awesome. You know what I want better than I do? How very arrogant, and incorrect, you are.
I know that you don't know what you want. Honestly, I am not arrogant. You are the one deciding for the whole world what is morally neutral, good, and bad.
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.
Stile, I still have not gotten to the point about 'why' you get to decide what is good. You think it is good to be nice, and you do expect others to abide by your rules. It doens't matter whether they agree, or whether you have even met them.
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?
Of course. And what if you don't like what they think? How do you decide whom to please? In fact, the person you will choose to please will be the person who agrees with your morality. 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. If someone asks you to pass a drink, you will, because that person agrees with YOU. It's about you, not others.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Stile, posted 06-11-2007 2:12 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Jon, posted 06-11-2007 11:37 PM anastasia has not replied
 Message 83 by Stile, posted 06-12-2007 9:23 AM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 86 of 304 (405393)
06-12-2007 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Stile
06-12-2007 9:23 AM


Re: We were talking about you?
Stile writes:
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.
It doesn't bother you that you can't be moral? Of course most of us will fail miserably at some point, but not acting morally, and having a system of morality that is impossible to commit to, are two different things.
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?
Nope, I don't agree. What is GOOD is determined by the good-doer. It is relative to the individual's belief system.
I am an absolutist in the sense that I believe some things are good in themselves. See if this makes sense:
Helping others 'is good'. It is not GOOD. Sometimes it is definitely BAD to help people, and I don't know why you can't see that.
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?
Incorrect. Where did I say that? It is the service, and my attendance to it. It matters not a bit if I am the only person to show up, besides the priest.
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.
I told you that my going to mass CAN benefit people if I pray for them. I don't go there TO benefit people. Obviously people may never, ever know I went, and maybe I prayed for their souls, and maybe they will not have any inner feelings to speak of, so in that way, no one is 'benefitting' in the way you have used that word. No one is getting happy feelings or smilies.
It is really getting hard to talk about this again and again. You keep referring to good as 'affecting other people positively'. The point of the thread was to find out why you have come to that conclusion. It was not to judge others according to your conclusion.
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.
Because that is how life works.
You believe that it is always GOOD to increase positive inner mushiness, of course the 'how' is relative, but that doesn't make you a relativist.
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.
This is going nowhere. Either of these things could be moral, or immoral. If you have a suspended license, is it moral to drive? If you have diabetes, is it moral to have pop? I would have to say, no! You know why, Stile? Because I consider honesty part of morality, and I consider taking care of myself to be GOOD as well.
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.
What a cop out. It't not the stupid book or video which is 'bad' or 'good', and you don't have to buy something for a person or shove someone's nose in something to make it 'active'. All you have to do is read. That's an action, and it CAN be bad or good.
"Morality" is not an absolute. It depends upon the foundations the individual chooses to adhere to.
Good.
". 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?
Now, if you know I don't choose to adhere to the same principles as you do, how can you tell me what is 'good' with so much confidence? You know I don't agree that good is all about increasing inner feelings, so why project YOUR system onto MY reading material? That is being absolute.
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).
Stile, you are choosing to ignore the inner feelings of the would be thief. You are choosing to protect the bar owner because you feel he will like what you like. It is SO true that none of us will do things which we find wrong, just to make someone happy. How do you pick whether to make a thief happy, or a bar owner? You judge them. You judge them according to YOU. I am not being rude, we all do it, and its a fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Stile, posted 06-12-2007 9:23 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Stile, posted 06-12-2007 4:39 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 87 of 304 (405395)
06-12-2007 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Stile
06-12-2007 9:47 AM


Re: Education free
Stile writes:
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.
I really feel bad for you. It was moral to hold the door, and no one's inner feelings can change that. How could you look back on life and see that everything you thought was good was bad? The point is, if you thought it was good, it was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Stile, posted 06-12-2007 9:47 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Stile, posted 06-12-2007 3:52 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 90 of 304 (405441)
06-12-2007 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Stile
06-12-2007 4:39 PM


Re: So, what is good to you?
Stile writes:
Why can't I be moral?
You can ,but only sometimes. You already know why: because you can't please everyone.
But when is increasing the inner-feelings of another being BAD? And why is it BAD?
You already know this too. Sometimes you have to be BAD in order to make someone happy. Like, I would be able to fornicate and make people happy. You, if someone likes it, you are moral. At least that is what you are saying.
Why? Why is going to church a good thing?
It is necessary for my spiritual health.
Is it because God wants you to? Does good = doing whatever God wants you to?
Yes, for me. I find that more rational than doing whatever people want of me.
Plenty of people have committed suicide or even murder because they truly believed they were doing what God wanted them to.
And plenty of people have commited murder because they truly ARE doing what a person wants them to. It all comes down to what YOU believe as an individual.
You may at this point admit that you believe in doing good to others ONLY when what they want doesn't hurt someone else.
The other point to this thread is to find out why others think it is right to do good, and what good is to them. You have yet to define this. You keep saying "helping others can be BAD" or "going to church is good", but you have yet to explain why this is so. Other than, of course, that you say it is.
I say that good is whatever a person believes it is. I certainly feel that my ideas are worthy, and I treat them as absolutes. You must do that in order to even have morality make sense. I mean, if something isn't good, why even bother doing it?
Maybe you're saying I'm choosing to forfeit the respect for the theif's inner-feelings? Why shouldn't I if they choose to forfeit the respect for someone elses inner-feelings? Why is this bad, or wrong in your mind? It sounds rather equal to me. What's the problem here?
There really is no problem, I would do the same thing. I just wanted you to see that making people happy is not all there is to morality.
I like to make people happy, and sure I think it is a good thing, but I admit that I can't make everyone happy because I would have to betray my own values.
I will ask you once again: what is the reason why you feel that making people happy is good? As far as I havethought about it, there are only 2 acceptable answers.
1. We are all equal acoording to some philosophy or other.
2. It benefits us or society in general.
I have already picked apart answer 2. It's still an ok answer, but not as good as 1. I have no problem with folks defining their own moralities, its just that so far no one has shown that they have put much thought into it. I feel that loving others is a hand-me down moral left over from a Christian society. When one is not Christian, the motives for it seem to get hazy. I chose you to speak to, because out of everyone, you said you want nothing from morality. That may be so, but it is only because you are indoctrinated into a moral system where you are supposed to love people just because. The sentence used to read 'just because God made us all equal'. I would have ended this a long time ago if you would simply have put out some warm fuzzy thoughts along those lines. I am sure it is possible for atheists to respect equality, no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Stile, posted 06-12-2007 4:39 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Stile, posted 06-13-2007 9:31 AM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 91 of 304 (405442)
06-12-2007 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Stile
06-12-2007 3:52 PM


Re: Education free
Stile writes:
You're saying that the 9-11 suicide bomber attacks were good? You're saying that using a nuclear bomb to destroy lives for over 50 years is good? I'm certain the people who did these things thought it was good. What about an abstract example? If someone thinks it's good for them to rape another person, then it's good?
If God is judging us, we can only be judged based on what we TRIED to do. This doesn't mean everything we do will be good in itself, but the trying will lend it some legs.
If men judge each other, some things will be good, some bad. We are lenient, we appreciate the thought of someone trying to get us a nice gift, even if we secretly hate it. I am sure God is the same way.
None of this affects what may be truly 'good'. We either live in a world where some things were meant to be, as in, a higher power designated them, or we live in a world where WE are the authorities on good. If the latter is true, nothing is really good, but rather, good changes as we change. I can't say 9-11 is bad. I can only say it seems that way right now, and to some people. It seems bad to me, because I don't think God likes murder. 10 cammandments and all, ya know? It seems bad to you, because you don't want people to be sad for some reason, and it seems GOOD to the bombers, because they believe God wants them to be vengeful or protect themselves. Who is right?
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

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 95 by Stile, posted 06-13-2007 9:42 AM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 99 of 304 (405604)
06-13-2007 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Stile
06-13-2007 9:31 AM


Re: Repeated again.
Stile writes:
Yes, that's what I said. I'll try to be moral, but I will eventually fail. Like everyone else. Do you know of anyone who is always moral? Anyone who never does anything wrong? Let's try not to add additional side arguements if you agree with what I'm saying. It can only confuse things.
I made a clear distinction between a system doomed to failure, and a person who sometimes fails. I am not going down a dilly-dally trail about who is always moral.
So, anything that is "necessary for anastasia's spiritual health" is a good thing?
Sure. Just as good as that which is necessary for my mental or physical health. Don't you agree that these things are important?
I don't understand your example, can you explain it? Why would you fornicating make people happy? It wouldn't make me happy. I don't know of many people that would really care about your fornication preferences.
Hello, obviously the person I would fornicate WITH would be happy, and I can think of several people who care about my preferences in that regard. But for me, it would be BAD. So voila, I would have to be bad to make some people smile.
What is "necessary for anastasia's spiritual health"? And who get's to decide what is and what is not? It sounds to me like you can make up whatever you want to be "necessary for your spiritual health" and therefore make up whatever you want to be GOOD.
There are many things necessary for spiritual health. I follow what my religion teaches to an extent, but since no one is me or goes through the same exact life, by and large I have to make decisions myself.
Who said anything about doing whatever people want of you? I'm talking about doing what increases the inner-feelings of the people your actions affect. Why do you think that is equivalent to "doing whatever people want you to"?
Oops! Pardon moi for assuming that folks generally want things that DO make them happy. It's all the same thing, Stile. You have no clue what will make people happy, you can only do what you believe they want done. You are messing with words.
And how do you know what God wants you to do? How do you get this information? Does God himself tell you? How do you know it's God telling you? Many people have performed acts of evil because they believed "God told them to". How do you know you're not falling into that trap?
Like I said, I can follow my religion and the examples of good people before me. Aside from that, I have to make my own decisions. We can't get uptight about knowing things for sure, because morality is all about doing what we believe, not what we know.
I've stated many times that if someone wants me to hurt someone else, they are ignoring that person's inner-feelings and therefore deserve no regard for their own inner-feelings. Have you not been reading anything I've posted? I think I've only been repeating myself for... over 90 posts now. I still keep having to refer back to Message 1.
You have no reason to get impatient, because I have been responding to your 90 posts, repeating myself, and rereading your beloved message 1, right along with you. I still haven't received an answer to my questions, and this is probably something that will never be resolved over the internet.
Of course it is. Why do you think I keep saying that when someone ignores a person's inner-feelings, then they forfeit any respect towards their own inner-feelings? Because people are equal. We seem to agree that people are equal. Let's just leave that alone here (it's off-topic). We can go through that in another thread though, if you really want to start one.
It's not off topic, because when I first asked you about 'why is it good to do good to others' in that other thread, this was exactly what I was talking about.
Your answer is 'it increases their inner feelings'. That is the same thing in different words. Doing good to you is making someone happy. You can't say 'I believe in making people happy because it makes them happy'.
I can tell you quite simply that I do good to others because we are all equal and should treat each other equally. This means above all, MENTALLY, as in 'love the sinner, hate the sin'. I don't have to murder someone, because I don't believe in it. I am under no obligation to worry about anyone's feelings, because feelings are liars and they have nothing to do with what is good. But I certainly can't abuse, talk down to, or harm, the person who does murder.
Of course it is. Why do you think I keep saying that when someone ignores a person's inner-feelings, then they forfeit any respect towards their own inner-feelings? Because people are equal. We seem to agree that people are equal. Let's just leave that alone here (it's off-topic). We can go through that in another thread though, if you really want to start one.
How are you treating people equally if you do what one wants, and force the other to forfeit his feelings? I can make someone forfeit their happiness, but hey, I am not the one who said that being moral was all about making others happy. You need to do what YOU believe in, not what makes someone happy. If you happen to believe it is good to make people happy, that is fine. But just please understand that you can not go against yourself at any time, because there are many sides to 'good'. You can't murder, because you feel it is wrong for YOU to do it...it has nothing to do with making someone else sad. They may die so quickly they won't have time for sad.
I am not afraid of people like you, because society does have in place so many accepted norms that dictate your behaviour, and yes, they ARE Christian. I just want you to see that this way of thinking has the potential to be harmful if we didn't have fail safes like laws, and yes, indoctrination. You are indoctrinated, we all are, so just accept it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Stile, posted 06-13-2007 9:31 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Stile, posted 06-14-2007 1:09 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 100 of 304 (405606)
06-13-2007 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Stile
06-13-2007 9:42 AM


Re: Education free
Stile writes:
I'll change this to "If the-God-anastasia-believes-in is judging us..."
But, regardless, it still depends on if God is even judging us. What if he isn't?
Nothing. We are back to judging each other, and getting stuck in the position where we don't know if we did good unless someone else smiles.
Exactly. So, how do we go about figuring out what is truly 'good'?
Same way we have been. Figuring it out as we go along.
I don't agree at all. The system I propose says that WE are the authorities on good. However, what is really good (truly 'good') certainly exists, constantly.
Factually inaccurate, and also impossible. How could a species that changes so much have one constant morality? Where would this constant good be coming from, if we are the ones making it up?
Would you care to propose how anyone (even God) may think such a thing is actually GOOD?
I propose that if morality is a survival mechanism, rape would at times be good. I also feel that the victim would be so 'programmed' as to acquiesce in whatever action will benefit survival, or at least intelligent enough to do so. Since I don't believe in the survival scenerio, but rather in an intelligent decision making process which is superimposed on instinct, then I don't feel rape is good. I believe God can look the other way if the person doing the raping believes it is good.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Stile, posted 06-13-2007 9:42 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Stile, posted 06-14-2007 1:26 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 107 of 304 (405805)
06-14-2007 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Stile
06-14-2007 1:09 PM


Re: More of the same
Stile writes:
It's you who say my goal is to please everyone. My goal is to please as many people as possible. Not only is this system not "doomed to failure" but it's the best possible method for success. You certainly haven't offerred a better alternative, anyway.
I don't have an alternative to pleasing people, because that is not my goal. It is nice when that happens, but over all my goal is to treat people fairly and with respect. I CAN do that to everyone.
Yes. Very important. It's also important for me to remember to put gas in my car. How does that make it a morally good thing? Anything that's important is morally good? I thought it was anything "necessary for anastasia's spiritual health"? No? Do you actually know what good is? You seem to be saying pretty much anything. And it's all coming down to "good is what anastasia thinks is good". Which, of course, is an easily corruptible definition.
I am not the one who made a thread defining 'good' and then plugging in what I thought was good.
Why is that obvious? If you fornicated with me, I certainly wouldn't be happy. Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
Stile, I assure you , some people would be happy. If they weren't, it would be rape. Do you need names or something?
And, again, what's GOOD and BAD is only "what anastasia thinks is GOOD and BAD". So, then, what's GOOD and BAD is also "what Jimbo thinks is GOOD and BAD". And Jimbo doesn't think you fornicating is BAD. And voila, you're not bad anymore. How is this productive?
Because it doesn't matter what Jimbo thinks. It matters what anastasia thinks. anastasia does not think she needs to make everyone happy, only as many as possible. It is up to her to decide who to make happy, and the rest are impossible. Because, of course, GOOD doesn't = making someone happy.
So, again, we're back to GOOD and BAD is "whatever anastasia decides for herself is GOOD and BAD".
That's how it works, and it's not about me. Don't tell me you haven't decided what is good. Do you just follow the crowd, or did you receive a heavenly message?
So nothing is ever good or bad? Jimbo thinks killing babies is GOOD. So, killing a baby is GOOD? Jimbo thinks feeding a starving child is BAD. So, feeding a starving child is BAD?
What a person thinks does not make a thing good or bad. I am only saying that a person can be moral and still do bad things, because he or she thinks they are good. I must say you are the first atheist I
have met on the boards who believed in absolutes.
No wonder the world is full of hatred and people telling others what they should think, and what they should do. Your whole thinking system is dependant on it.
False. I already said I must respect others. Morality is only about what I think I should do.
And this is the problem. You're treating other people the way you want to treat other people. The "examples of good people before you" are only examples of people who thought they were good before you. And if you continue to assume that whatever you think is GOOD. Then you'll inevitably start doing a lot of BAD to a lot of different people.
It is inevitable that all of us will decrease some inner feelings. How do you escape the fact that you treat people the way you want to?
My way -> Find out what makes other people happy, and try to do that.
anastasia's way -> Personally decide what makes other people happy, and try to do that.
False again. My way is to do what I think is right to people, and whether they are happy or not I can't help.
When you asked "why is it good to do good to others", you wanted me to explain why I think people are equal?
Not exactly. I just wanted you to say that you believed in equality, and that is why you treat people the way you would like to be treated.
Wow. No wonder we have so much confusion. I'm sorry I was unable to decipher that what you asked had absolutely nothing to do with what you wanted me to answer.
I am sorry you misunderstood the question, for some 30 posts.
Basically, I think people are equal because I cannot find a reason why they shouldn't be equal.
That's a bad answer anyway. I could think of plenty of reasons why we aren't equal. Some are healthy, strong, intelligent, and moral. Some aren't. There is nothing equal about us, there is only one common bond that puts us all on the same footing. We are all human, and we all have souls. You don't have to agree with the soul part, but basically, we are not equal humans, we are equally human.
No, not quite again. My answer to "why it is good to do good to others"
OK, I can see that. You like to be treated a certain way, so you want other people to be happy too. I guess I was getting a little philosophical here, in wondering why you would care about how other people felt. You see, it is a relatively new thing for anyone to care about the feelings of those not directly in their circle or tribe.
But what is "good" to you? You've already shown that GOOD is "whatever anastasia thinks is GOOD". So, you do "whatever anastasia thinks is GOOD" to others because we are all equal. That doesn't sound equal at all. It sounds incredibly lop-sided and only up to you.
There is nothing else I CAN do. I can't do what other people think is good, or what makes other people happy, because I will ultimately have to lie to myself. I have to do what I think is good, what I think is right. Plain and simple.
I've never said I'm forcing anyone to forfeit their feelings. They choose to forfeit their own feelings when they choose to forfeit anyone elses feelings. "I" isn't anywhere in there. "I" didn't do anything. And, this reasoning seems very equal. How do you think it's unequal?
So would you ask the bar thief if he was willing to forfeit his happiness in order for you to do what you felt was right? I think that might be a nice gesture. I do many times say 'I am sorry, but I can't do that'. Of course I am being sorry for them, but of course I have to do what I think is right.
If you'd like to keep pressing this, please show how it is so. And please do it in another thread. Just because anastasia "says" I'm indoctrinated has no bearing on if I actually am or not.
Simply, because morality must be learned. We are born with a conscience, and how we apply it thereafter is a trial and error process, which we pick up from life, society, past generations, etc. You are part of a moral system that took thousands of years to create.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Stile, posted 06-14-2007 1:09 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Stile, posted 06-15-2007 9:38 AM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 108 of 304 (405810)
06-14-2007 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Stile
06-14-2007 1:26 PM


Re: Sounds very relative
The constant morality could be the one I described in A Summary (Message 97).
The constant good is:
Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon
Of course "the actions" are going to change. And the reactions of the beings acted upon.
But the way to determine if you're doing good or not is constant. The way to determine if you're doing good or not is to get feedback from the beings you're acting upon.
How is that not constant? Or even impossible?
If you want constants, you are an absolutist, period. It has not been constantly moral to help strangers. It was at the least neutral, and sometimes bad. That is, in the eyes of the world. It may be that it was always good and we just didnt know or care, but in order for that to be true, you would still have to tell me why it IS good to help people. You say it makes them happy, which is nice and makes me wonder why you care about people when so many generations haven't. Makes me think you must have a deeo thought to explain it, but since you don't, I must assume you are relying on what other people have taught you.
I didn't ask how "rape may at times be considered good". I asked how anyone (even God) could see how a rapist purposefully raping a young girl, and making her feel scared and vulnerable the rest of her life, could be seen as GOOD. You seem to think they can. You seem to think that GOOD is "whatever we think is GOOD".
I am pretty sure that you argued against absolutes with me before. That is why this is funny. I am not the one thinking good is whatever I make up. YOU are the one thinking that good is whatever makes people happy. Whatever THEY make up. I would at least like to be responsible for myself, instead of projecting my beliefs onto others and claiming folk forfeit the right to happiness when they betray what YOU believe in. At the other side of your mouth youhave no problem repeating that GOOD is WHATEVER increases someone's feelings of happiness.
Why not this?
Good = whatever increases someone's inner feelings without decreasing anyone else's?
Nah, nevermind, don't go there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Stile, posted 06-14-2007 1:26 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Stile, posted 06-15-2007 10:26 AM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 121 of 304 (406173)
06-17-2007 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Stile
06-15-2007 10:26 AM


Re: Sounds very relative
Stile writes:
Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon
So, if we have an action that increases the inner-feelings of one being acted upon, yet it decreases the inner-feelings of another being acted upon. We have two different scenarios, not just one.
So the action will be morally good for the being who's inner-feelings were increased. And the action will be morally bad for the being who's inner-feelings were decreased.
Are you confusing moral with morale? YOU have to decide what is moral, regardless of how any one feels about it.
It is a mistake to pit my moral system against your own. I have been speaking very generally. We all make up morality. Somehow you believe that if you put a title on a book, and then allow others to fill in their thoughts on YOUR subject, then you are not responsible for the project. You are actually being very different from most of us who aknowledge that morality is personal and a big part of who we are. I don't want someone else filling in the pages for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Stile, posted 06-15-2007 10:26 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Stile, posted 06-17-2007 2:54 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 126 of 304 (406222)
06-18-2007 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Stile
06-17-2007 2:54 PM


Stile writes:
I don't know what you're talking about. What I'm saying is that we listen to other people, and we certainly are responsible for how our actions affect them. You're the one saying "regardless of how any one feels..." That's you who's jerking responsibility, not me.
So are you telling me that you would stop following your moral system if it bothered someone? Would you stop being nice to people if I asked you to, or are you going to continue regardless of how I feel?
The system I've decided on that shows what is moral is clearly very involved with "how any one feels about"... it's based on how others feel about it.
Well, I hope you are in the right place, and that this thread is showing you how others feel about your system. I have to say that a sytem in which nothing is good until its done and someone appreciates it, is screwing with the whole concept of morality. It's good to help people. Doesn't matter how you go about it. There are always variables, and you can't replicate or predict every situation in life. People don't appreciate things, but if you TRIED to help, their inner feelings don't make good turn to bad any more than black turn to blue. I really, honestly, thought that everyone knew morality was something YOU own, that you do, and that as long as you were true to yourself and your code of honour, that you could be a moral person. Haven't you ever heard someone say "I know I am a good person"? The whole world is saying, 'look, it may not seem like I care, but I really am trying'. You get the few who don't care and don't try...but really, what we are discussing is what we are trying to do. You are trying to increase people's inner feelings, I only asked why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Stile, posted 06-17-2007 2:54 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Stile, posted 06-18-2007 2:24 PM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 127 of 304 (406224)
06-18-2007 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Stile
06-17-2007 4:13 PM


Re: I did miss it..
Stile writes:
So, our two ways are more... you say it's good, until you learn it's bad? While I say it's unknown, until I learn it's bad? (Specifically if we think we're doing good, when we're actually not).
Yeah, obviously I don't get this either. Feels like you are missing something, or maybe thinking too hard. No one is plugging in a happy feeling for an unknown. We are really looking at things very differently altogether, and maybe it has to do with God subconsciously. CS and I can KNOW something was good because we did it with a good heart and good intentions, and we could have chosen not to care or not to do anything. We believe that God watches our actions, that He knows what we do for others, even if it was the wrong choice or went unnoticed. I would say that without God, I myself would know what I did, and I would feel good about myself for doing it, because I was true to my beliefs and I tried to make someone happy. Being moral is simply following your own honour system, and no one but you can decide or know whether you are fulfilling that.
How 'bout this?
If you increase inner feelings by accident, is that moral, when their was no effort?
If you increase inner feelings for selfish reasons, or to get a rush, is that moral?
I already know you will say 'no' to the second one, which leads me to believe that you are very aware of the personal honour system, but it negates your definition of GOOD = anything which increases inner feelings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Stile, posted 06-17-2007 4:13 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Stile, posted 06-18-2007 2:41 PM anastasia 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