Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 88 of 304 (405399)
06-12-2007 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by anastasia
06-12-2007 3:25 PM


Re: Education free
anastasia writes:
The point is, if you thought it was good, it was.
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?
Everything is good, then? Then what is bad?
These definitions sound meaningless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by anastasia, posted 06-12-2007 3:25 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by anastasia, posted 06-12-2007 11:06 PM Stile has replied
 Message 92 by Jon, posted 06-13-2007 1:00 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 89 of 304 (405403)
06-12-2007 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by anastasia
06-12-2007 3:20 PM


So, what is good to you?
It doesn't bother you that you can't be moral?
Why can't I be moral?
Again, anastasia:
Morally Good = an action that increases the inner feelings of the being acted upon.
Why can't I increase the inner feelings of other people? I do it all the time. My girlfriend, family, and friends assure me that I do it for them. Why do you think such a thing is impossible?
...not acting morally, and having a system of morality that is impossible to commit to, are two different things.
Yes, they are. Nice comment. One of these things we're talking about, the other hasn't been mentioned except by you right here.
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.
When is helping someone BAD? Then again, I agree that "doing what you think is helping someone" can be BAD sometimes.
But when is increasing the inner-feelings of another being BAD? And why is it BAD?
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.
Yes, we all know already that I don't consider "going to church" to be a good thing.
You seem to.
Why? Why is going to church a good thing?
Is it because God wants you to? Does good = doing whatever God wants you to? Of course.. how do you know it was God? Plenty of people have committed suicide or even murder because they truly believed they were doing what God wanted them to.
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.
And I already told you why I came to that conclusion in Message 1. 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.
You know I don't agree that good is all about increasing inner feelings, so why project YOUR system onto MY reading material?
Because, you haven't shown yet why increasing inner-feelings isn't good.
I don't need you to agree that increasing inner-feelings is the only thing that is moral. You can add as much extra baggage to your morality as you'd like. As long as you do agree though, that "increasing the inner-feelings of beings you act upon" is a good thing, then I certainly can tell you what is Good, Bad, or Neutral.
You agree that keeping a baby away from scalding water is a good thing. (I officially define it as a morally neutral act, but certainly think it's good as in "beneficial").
You agree that getting a friend their favourite book for their birthday is a good thing.
You agree that being unselfish and letting someone in front of you in traffic is a good thing.
You agree that being nice and holding the door open for someone is a good thing.
Why? Why do you agree with these things?
Why do you not agree that increasing the inner-feelings of someone is good? What's bad about it? I'm not saying it's "the only possible thing anyone can ever possibly consider to be good". I'm saying it is good. If you're saying it's actually bad, why are you saying that? Why is it bad?
That is being absolute.
It is being objective. And, once the foundations are layed out, we can be objective about any scenario in how it lines up to those foundations. If the information is available, anyway.
Stile, you are choosing to ignore the inner feelings of the would be thief. 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 choosing anything, and I am not picking anyone.
The theif has chosen to forfeit any respect for their own inner-feelings as soon as they chose to forfeit the respect for the bar-owner's inner-feelings. What choice did I make? Who did I pick?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by anastasia, posted 06-12-2007 3:20 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by anastasia, posted 06-12-2007 10:56 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 94 of 304 (405504)
06-13-2007 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by anastasia
06-12-2007 10:56 PM


Repeated again.
anastasia writes:
You can ,but only sometimes. You already know why: because you can't please everyone.
Um.. yeah. That's what I said in the first place. If you agree with me, why argue? Perhaps you don't remember our conversation:
Stile writes:
I don't get frustrated when I eventually fail, because I realize that I can't please everyone. Failing is inevitable and expected.
anastasia writes:
It doesn't bother you that you can't be moral?
Why can't I be moral?
anastaia writes:
You can ,but only sometimes.
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.
Sometimes you have to be BAD in order to make someone happy.
Why do you think you sometimes have to BAD in order to make someone happy? Do you have an example that you can explain? I would think that if you made someone happy, then you'd have been GOOD. What do you mean?
Like, I would be able to fornicate and make people happy.
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.
anastasia writes:
Stile writes:
Why is going to church a good thing?
It is necessary for my spiritual health.
So, anything that is "necessary for anastasia's spiritual health" is a good thing?
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.
anastasia writes:
Stile writes:
Does good = doing whatever God wants you to?
Yes, for me. I find that more rational than doing whatever people want of me.
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"?
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?
In order to know if I'm "increasing the inner-feelings of other people", I can ask them.
How can you ask God? How are you sure it is God who answers? Do you decided if the answer is actually from God or not? Doesn't that mean you're still deciding what is GOOD? Doesn't that mean you're still creating whatever you'd like to be GOOD?
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.
Why do you insist I'm saying I'll do whatever a person wants? I've always said that doing good = increasing the inner-feelings of the person being acted upon.
I am not "admitting at this point" that I believe in doing good to others ONLY when what they want doesn't hurt someone else. I admitted that way back in Message 1. I'll quote it again for you, you don't seem to be reading it:
quote:
Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the person acted upon
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.
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?
But, by this reasoning, evil or bad doesn't exist. Everyone does what they believe in. Hitler didn't do any evil? Stalin didn't do any evil? Anyone using nuclear force never did any evil? There has never been an evil war? Rape isn't evil? Kicking an old lady isn't evil? This definition of GOOD renders the word 'good' useless.
I will ask you once again: what is the reason why you feel that making people happy is good?
And I will answer, again, by referring you back to Message 1 where I state:
quote:
What is good?
Good is increasing the positive inner-feelings of another being.
Our discussion has prompted me to clarify this statement to:
Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon.
quote:
This is why I do good:
1. I interact with others.
2. Interacting with others will cause me to affect them.
3. This can leave a Good, Bad, or Neutral effect.
4. I am capable of empathy.
5. If I had a choice, I would like Good things to happen to me.
6. Since I do have a choice on how I affect others, I will attempt to leave Good effects rather then Bad or Neutral effects.
7. When I interact with others, I'm going to do my best to cause Good effects.
If you want to reduce "increasing the inner-feelings of another being" to "making people happy". That's fine, but you cannot change what I'm talking about, or you're not dealing with what I'm talking about.
I just wanted you to see that making people happy is not all there is to morality.
I still don't see how "increasing the inner-feelings of the being you're acting upon" isn't all there is to morality.
If someone wants me to kill someone. My action of killing someone is acting upon the person I'm killing, not the guy who requested it. Obviously killing someone against their will is going to lower their inner-feelings.
And, remember, that the person requesting this action has decided to ignore the victim's inner-feelings. So in turn they forfeit any respect for their inner-feelings.
As far as I have thought 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.
What's wrong with the answer I've given? Why is it unacceptable?
I feel that loving others is a hand-me down moral left over from a Christian society.
Okay. I don't feel that it is at all. But, regardless, this is off-topic. I'm not talking about loving others, nor am I talking about a Christian society. I'm talking about increasing the inner-feelings of people your actions affect. That doesn't mean trying to love them. That means trying to respect them, and help them.
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.
You can believe and say whatever you wish. It has no bearing on the truth. I, however, have supported my statements with explanations. None of these explanations rely on indoctrination, or loving people. If you want to show that they do, you'll have to show that they do rather than just state it.
I am sure it is possible for atheists to respect equality, no?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by anastasia, posted 06-12-2007 10:56 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by anastasia, posted 06-13-2007 10:08 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 95 of 304 (405506)
06-13-2007 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by anastasia
06-12-2007 11:06 PM


Re: Education free
anastasia writes:
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.
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?
None of this affects what may be truly 'good'.
Exactly. So, how do we go about figuring out what is 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 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.
I can't say 9-11 is bad.
I agree that 9-11 is a tricky-two-sided malleable scenario. We may just have enough information about it to know if it was actually good or bad. Let's take something simpler.
Do you agree that some people purposely rape other people, totally against the victim's will?
Do you agree that such a thing is bad?
Would you care to propose how anyone (even God) may think such a thing is actually GOOD?
If we don't know what is good or what is bad, why do the words exist? What are they describing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by anastasia, posted 06-12-2007 11:06 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by anastasia, posted 06-13-2007 10:19 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 96 of 304 (405513)
06-13-2007 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Jon
06-13-2007 1:00 AM


Repeat once more
Jon writes:
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 did you get the idea that I think morality is any different?
Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon.
Whatever "increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon" is going to depend on "every thing each individual experiences in life, (and their) perception on that thing".
In other words, I totally agree with your quote, and everything about how people's reactions to things are subjective.
How would you begin to define good/bad if you were the only person left on Earth?
Let me get to the gist of your idea here and re-word to me being the only "being" left on Earth.
I would define good/bad exactly the same, if I were the only being left on Earth. It would just so happen that I wouldn't do any good, or any bad. Everything would be morally neutral.
If I have no affect on anything's inner-feelings, I'm not being morally good or morally bad.
I'll refer you to Message 75 where I discuss the existance of Morally Neutral actions:
quote:
Do you agree that morally neutral actions even exist? I mean... say... getting out of the left side of my bed or the right side in the morning. Do you agree that this action is morally neutral? If not, which is good? which is bad? why?
If morally neutral actions exist, then how do we define them? Wouldn't they be those actions where no one is affected? Therefore, how can something be good when no one is affected? That would just be neutral...
And not being bad, is equally morally neutral.
I think the problem here is mixing up the broad-usage of the word "good". Sure, not being bad can be considered "good" the same as "washing my hands before dinner" or "reaching level 12 on Tetris". But can they be considered "morally good"? I don't think they can.
I think morally neutral actions exist. And I think they only way to define what actions are morally neutral includes "not doing bad".
If there's no being to act upon, all actions would be Morally Neutral and therefore Morally Good and Morally Bad actions would not exist.
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.
Are we assuming no animals exist? And that no other being is being affected? ..even possibly in the future? Then sure, why would this be bad? Would you consider it bad? Why? Because you personally don't like toxic waste? That's exactly the point of my system.. to get rid of personal prescription of morality.
What if there is another person along side her who thinks that dumping toxic waste in the Nile is evil as evil comes?
You're talking about doing bad again. I'm talking about doing good. In order to deal with why something is bad, we need to show which being is being harmed. We know that toxic waste has very long-term negative affects to many beings, so dumping it where it can affect these beings (at any time in the future) would be bad. Regardless of who thinks what. But, if for the purposes of your idea we're going to assume that there is no harm being done to any being (present or future), then no, it wouldn't be bad at all. Regardless of what anyone thinks or says.
So what, now she stops dumping toxic waste in the Nile and he starts doing it?
My system doesn't have magic powers that forces people to take actions. It describes if an action taken is actually good. That's it. It has no power to force anyone to do anything, or stop anything. All it does is say if an action is good.
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.
It's exactly "fighting for their own morality because that's what matters" that causes such "going at it" in the first place.
This system doesn't force people to do things, or make their arguements. All it says is "if polluting the aquifier increases the inner-feelings of the beings acted upon, then polluting the aquifier is good." (Very unlikely, with what we know about the affects of pollution) People can still very easily choose to do evil, or choose to do good, or choose to do whatever they want. However, we now can determine if the action in question is actually good or bad. As long as we can gain the information, anyway.
If you don't see this after reading this post, then you are simply remaining ignorant to humour yourself.
But... I agree with everything you've posted. It's just that nothing you've said has any bearing on anything I've said. You're just talking about totally separate ideas and telling me that's what I'm talking about.
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.
Are you saying that what was is always good, both sides of a war are always good? Are you saying that rape is good? People go to war based on their OWN inner-feelings... so anyone ever going to war is morally good? Rapists rape based on their OWN inner-feelings... so rapists are always morally good?
That's what you're saying?
You still have yet to define what "good" is. You still have yet to define why good is not:
Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon
All you have to do is come up with a scenario that is Morally Good where a being's inner-feelings are not increased, and explain why it's still Morally Good (generally includes defining what good is).
Anastasia's trying, but everything's coming down to what she thinks is good. And if "good" is nothing more than what anyone "thinks is good" then everything is good, and evil does not exist. Do you believe that evil does not exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Jon, posted 06-13-2007 1:00 AM Jon has not replied

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


Message 97 of 304 (405518)
06-13-2007 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by ikabod
06-13-2007 6:19 AM


A Summary
ikabod writes:
the basic problem is you can only get a score of good and bad from a external observer , who has a crib sheet of every possible act and has pre rated then G or b , and what we are talking about is some god like being , who can then hands down rules and regulation , so you can look up your score ( if you chosse to follow that set of rules ).
other wise its just humans being human and making the world up as they go along .
Ah yes. Would you be surprised to hear that I agree with this? I agree that this correctly describes the extreme positions.
---------added by edit---------
I mis-read what I quoted off of you. You say only an external observer can get a score of good and bad. How do you know this? Why is that so? What's so special about being an external observer? Why does there need to be an absolute list of what exact scenarios are good, and what exact scenarios are bad? You even agree that it's about choosing the rules. I'm just saying that the majority of the worlds population has seemingly already chosen the basic rules. I'm just saying what those rules are, and what the consequences are.
---------added by edit---------
Is assissted suicide good or bad? How can we know? I don't know. (because I cannot determine if it actually helped the person we've killed or not).
If we say it's good, aren't we just making it up? Yes.
If we say it's bad, aren't we just making it up? Yes.
But... this seems to break down for simpler scenarios where we are able to obtain the information we need.
A rapist rapes a young girl against her will and makes her feel scared and vulnerable for the rest of her life.
Can we know this is good or bad? Yes we can.
If we say it's good, are we making it up? Yes, because it's not good.
If we say it's bad, are we making it up? No, because it is bad. It's bad because it's obvious that the rapist is forcing themselves onto the young girl against her will.
Do you agree that we're able to know when some things are good or bad, but not always able to know when all things are good or bad?
If we can determine some things... how do we determine those things?
With a few simple things:
quote:
1. Beings are equal, and deserve equal rights to life and pursuit of happiness.
2. Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of another person.
With these two basic points, and enough information about a scenario, we can objectively determine if the scenario is good, or bad, or neutral.
On Morally Neutral:
quote:
Do you agree that morally neutral actions even exist? I mean... say... getting out of the left side of my bed or the right side in the morning. Do you agree that this action is morally neutral? If not, which is good? which is bad? why?
If morally neutral actions exist, then how do we define them? Wouldn't they be those actions where no one is affected? Therefore, how can something be good when no one is affected? That would just be neutral...
And not being bad, is equally morally neutral.
I think the problem here is mixing up the broad-usage of the word "good". Sure, not being bad can be considered "good" the same as "washing my hands before dinner" or "reaching level 12 on Tetris". But can they be considered "morally good"? I don't think they can.
I think morally neutral actions exist. And I think that when we define what actually is morally neutral, we see that this includes "not doing bad".
And we can now develop a reasoning on why we should do good things:
quote:
This is why I do good:
1. I interact with others.
2. Interacting with others will cause me to affect them.
3. This can leave a Good, Bad, or Neutral effect.
4. I am capable of empathy.
5. If I had a choice, I would like Good things to happen to me.
6. Since I do have a choice on how I affect others, I will attempt to leave Good effects rather then Bad or Neutral effects.
7. When I interact with others, I'm going to do my best to cause Good effects.
Why is this not acceptable?
What is being left out?
What is the problem?
What scenario does this not cover?
(I admit that if we cannot gain enough information about a scenario, then we won't be able to objectively determine if it's morally good, bad or neutral. But this seems rather obvious to me).
if you choose to follow that set of rules
Do you?
Why are people not equal?
Why is increasing the inner-feelings of the people you affect not good?
Do you really think that anything anyone dreams up should be considered as good?
Do you really think that evil does not exist?
Edited by Stile, : added edit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by ikabod, posted 06-13-2007 6:19 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by ikabod, posted 06-14-2007 6:38 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 102 of 304 (405687)
06-14-2007 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by New Cat's Eye
06-13-2007 4:43 PM


The bottom line
Assuming there is an objective morallity, it doesn't matter if we know if the action is good or not. It can be good wthout us knowing it.
Exactly.
An action can be good without us knowing it.
An action can be bad without us knowing it.
An action can be good with us thinking it was bad.
An action can be bad with us thinking it was good.
So how do we find out if it was good or bad? By the consequences.
Without any feeback we cannot now. I guess we'd have to rely on our hearts. (not the organ)
I agree. We can't know. We can rely on our hearts (brains, past experience, feelings, any information we can gather...) to hope that is was good. But we cannot know. And, with possibly gaining the feedback at a later time, we can determine if our hope was correct or not. The hoping it was good does not make the action good.
Like, you were going to do something bad, but then you didn't. That would be a good thing.
I understand what you're saying. And I still think, as long as it doesn't affect anyone, it's a morally neutral action. Why is it a good thing? I agree it's better than doing the bad thing. But why is it actually good? You may have to define "good" to answer that. We can then compare it to what I think.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Stile writes:
People who say "this is good" and think they should force it on everyone else "because it is good" and end up doing a whole lot of evil.
Not all the time and that still is just your opinion. If those people are correct, then they are doing good, even if you think it is bad.
Yes, I agree. But how do we know if they are correct or not? We have to get the feedback of whether or not their action has increased the inner-feelings of the beings they're acting upon.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Stile writes:
What if your blind fellow hates it when people do things for him because he wants to be as independant as possible? What if the biggest joy he ever receives in his sight-less life is finding obstacles and finding his own way past them? Like finding closed doors, and figuring out how to open them. You just robbed this poor man of his most desired situation. How was that good?
But it still points out a flaw in your definition. If the guy does want to be helped but doesn't notice you helping him, then according to your definition, you have done no good. I disagree with your definition.
No, it doesn't point out the flaw, it very nicely points out the incredible benefit.
If the guy does want to be helped, but doesn't notice you helping him, then according to my definition, I don't know that I've done good. I actually have, I just don't know it.
Of course, if I help him, and he's the curious-blind-man-who-likes-to-solve-puzzles I described. Then I still don't know I've done good. And, in fact, I've actually done bad.
Can you see the difference?
Your way, and we're prescribing to the blind man our thoughts of what is good and bad onto him. The action, however, is affecting him.
My way, we're finding out how the action affected him. We only know if we do good or not depending on how the action is received.
Your way is prescription of what is good based on what Catholic Scientist thinks should be good. "Opening doors for blind people" is good. You obviously don't care about all the curious-puzzle-solving blind people. You're effectively descriminating against them and saying they don't matter as people. Do you not see the similarities between this way of thinking and why pretty much all wars the world has ever seen have been started?
My way is receptive of what is good based on how "the being" acted upon reacts. I end up opening doors for the blind who want them open, and letting those who want to find them... find them. I'm treating each individual equally and with the same respect.
Your way helps most blind people.
Your way hurts some blind people.
My way helps all blind people.
My way hurts no blind people.
Why is that a flaw?
So you definition is only for determining a way to know that we are doing good?
Exactly. Remove the guessing. Remove the possibility of someone prescribing "their good" onto others.
I thought it was for good, in genereal, whether or not we know it.
No. It is for good, in general, whether or not we think it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2007 4:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-14-2007 10:53 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 103 of 304 (405705)
06-14-2007 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by anastasia
06-13-2007 10:08 PM


More of the same
anastasia writes:
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.
Doomed to failure? 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.
anastasia writes:
Stile writes:
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?
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.
Hello, obviously the person I would fornicate WITH would be happy..
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?
..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.
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?
anastasia writes:
Stile writes:
So, anything that is "necessary for anastasia's spiritual health" is a good thing?
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.
So, again, we're back to GOOD and BAD is "whatever anastasia decides for herself is GOOD and BAD".
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?
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.
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.
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.
have no clue what will make people happy, you can only do what you believe they want done.
That's right. I'm in the same boat you are with this.
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.
My way, I'll always help other people.
Your way, you'll actually hurt some of the people you're trying to help.
I still haven't received an answer to my questions
How is what's posted in my summary Message 97 not answering your questions? I've told you what good is. I've told you why I do good. You can't seem to elaborate on why you don't find my answers acceptable. That's your problem, not mine.
anastasia writes:
Stile writes:
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.
When you asked "why is it good to do good to others", you wanted me to explain why I think people are equal?
...
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.
Basically, I think people are equal because I cannot find a reason why they shouldn't be equal.
Your answer is 'it increases their inner feelings'
No, not quite again. My answer to "why it is good to do good to others" is that we must either increase, decrease, or not change the inner-feelings of others, and it is better (self-defining) to increase those feelings. For reasons coming from the use of empathy. It's all right there in the 7 points in the summary Message 97.
"Increasing their inner feelings" is only the answer to "what is a morally good action?".
I can tell you quite simply that I do good to others because we are all equal and should treat each other equally.
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.
How are you treating people equally if you do what one wants, and force the other to forfeit his feelings?
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?
You are indoctrinated, we all are, so just accept it.
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.
By the same reasoning, just because anastasia "says" something is GOOD or BAD, has no bearing on if it actually is or not.
I've explained a fine system for determining what is GOOD in the summary Message 97. You have yet to point out any flaw in that system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by anastasia, posted 06-13-2007 10:08 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by anastasia, posted 06-14-2007 10:55 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 104 of 304 (405706)
06-14-2007 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by anastasia
06-13-2007 10:19 PM


Sounds very relative
anastasia writes:
Stile writes:
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?
The constant morality could be the one I described in 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?
I propose that if morality is a survival mechanism, rape would at times be good.
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 believe God can look the other way if the person doing the raping believes it is good.
Really. So even your God is a moral relativist. Rape isn't even always wrong? Your "absolute" morality is based upon God's relativistic decisions? What sort of absolute morality changes from situation to situation? And I thought you called yourself an absolutist. I guess you just like to mask things with whatever words you choose.
Sounds a lot like how you decide what will be GOOD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by anastasia, posted 06-13-2007 10:19 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by anastasia, posted 06-14-2007 11:14 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 105 of 304 (405710)
06-14-2007 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by ikabod
06-14-2007 6:38 AM


Re: A Summary
ikabod writes:
sorry but you two basic premisses are so arbitrary that you could claim thenmm as the rules of your new made up on the spot religion , they are not objective , and so will force the outcome you plan .
the "scenario" is not good bad or neutral .. its just a scenario .. you then chosse to aplly a label to it based on view of how the universe should be .
Of course I just picked them. I think they best describe what we're talking about, and what we see in the world. That's not the point. The point is if you and I agree with them.
So again:
1. Beings are equal, and deserve equal rights to life and pursuit of happiness.
-If you disagree, why do you think people do not deserve equal rights to life and pursuit of happiness?
2. Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of another person.
-If you disagree, why do you think "an action that increases the inner-feelings of another person" isn't morally good?
However the problem with this example is that , and history can show us example that the above action was considered a good act by certian people/s and was activly premoted as a good act ....
again there are no absolute in the real world ..
I'm not talking about what anyone has ever considered or promoted as a good act. I'm also not saying anything about the existance of absolutes.
I'm saying if you agree with the 2 above points, then we can objectively define what actions are good, bad, or neutral.
So, again, if you don't agree with those two points, why not? What's wrong with them?
ikabod writes:
well if as you claim
Stile writes:
all Beings are equal, and deserve equal rights to life and pursuit of happiness.
then anything anyone dreams up should be considered as good , that means the racist , the nationalist , the insane murderer, the religious fundimentalist , are all able to say what is good and have a equal right to follow that view ....
...and considered good by whom . ..me ,you , a random selection of people , a priest , a god ??
I agree. IF that was all I was claiming. But it's not. This was, of course, only the first of two points. The second one quite explicitly defines what good is. And very nicely no longer allows anyone to just "decide" what's good for any other person.
And we're back to the same question:
If you do not agree with those 2 points, why not? What's wrong with them? Why are they incorrect?
And what do you mean by evil having an existance .. by this are you saying evil is a force .. that you can find it as a partical or in energy form ...are you saying it is more than a label for extreme action carried out by human beings ?
No. I think evil is simply a label for extreme actions carried out by beings. All I meant was that if good was defined to be "anything anyone thought was good". Then everything would be good. And there would be no bad, and hence no evil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by ikabod, posted 06-14-2007 6:38 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by ikabod, posted 06-15-2007 7:35 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 110 of 304 (405852)
06-15-2007 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by anastasia
06-14-2007 10:55 PM


Re: More of the same
anastasia writes:
Stile writes:
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".
Because it doesn't matter what Jimbo thinks. It matters what anastasia thinks.
...
What a person thinks does not make a thing good or bad.
I hope you can see my confusion here. First you're saying that GOOD and BAD only depend on "what anastasia thinks". Then you say good and bad doesn't depend on "what a person thinks".
Can you clarify this, please?
Don't tell me you haven't decided what is good.
...
I must say you are the first atheist I have met on the boards who believed in absolutes.
I'm not talking about what I've decided is good or not. Neither am I talking about believing in absolutes.
I'm talking about, as described in Message 1 and Message 97, IF we agree on some simple principles:
1. Beings are equal, and deserve equal rights to life and pursuit of happiness.
2. Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of another person.
THEN we can objectively say what is morally good, morally bad, or morally neutral.
I'm also saying that most people likely already agree to these rules. They seem relatively basic and perhaps even inherent. If you do not agree with them, could you please state why you do not agree with them?
Why are people not equal?
Why is increasing the inner-feelings of beings you act upon not morally good?
How do you escape the fact that you treat people the way you want to?
Please read Message 97. It clearly shows how I attempt to treat people the way they want me to, not how I want to. The whole system relys on getting feedback from the people your actions affect to determine if what you're doing is good or not. There is no personal prescription of what is good, there is only getting the feedback from others.
anastasia writes:
Stile writes:
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.
Umm... okay. We'll fix it then:
My way -> Find out what makes other people happy, and try to do that.
anastasia's way -> Personally decide what is right, and try to do that regardless of whether or not it makes other people happy.
I'm starting to have a very hard time seeing what, exactly, is actually so "moral" about your moral system.
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.
I do believe in equality. But that's not "why I treat people the way I'd like to be treated". What I'm trying to say is that I don't even "treat people the way I'd like to be treated". I try to treat people the way those people want to be treated. It's almost the direct opposite.
I could think of plenty of reasons why we aren't equal. Some are healthy, strong, intelligent, and moral. Some aren't.
...
You don't have to agree with the soul part, but basically, we are not equal humans, we are equally human.
So, you agree that we're equally human, then? Or not? If you agree, then that's point number 1. All we have to do now is agree on whether or not "increasing the inner-feelings of another being" is morally good. If you don't agree, please clearly state why you do not think we are equally human.
You see, it is a relatively new thing for anyone to care about the feelings of those not directly in their circle or tribe.
For clarification:
Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of another person.
How are the people I have an affect on not directly in my circle or tribe?
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.
So... you're just too proud to attempt to increase the inner-feelings of the people you act upon? You're just too full-of-yourself to help other people?
There certainly is something you CAN do. You CAN stop thinking that you're "so enlightened" that you're able to know what's GOOD and BAD for everyone else. You CAN attempt to learn what makes others happy. You CAN attempt to act in a way that will not inhibit others on their own equally valid pursuit of humanity.
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?
No, I don't ask the bar thief anything.
Here, let me walk through a short scenario:
I'm sitting at the bar with the bar theif.
Bar theif: "Hey, let's just leave and not pay for our drinks".
At this point I realize that the bar theif has decided to forfeit the inner-feelings of the bar-owner.
At this point the bar theif has decided to forfeit any respect for his own inner-feelings.
Me: "No."
Or, if you prefer, Me: "I am sorry, but I can't do that".
I don't have to ask the theif anything, I've learnt through my life-experience that stealing from people against their will has 100% of the time decreased their inner-feelings. There are all indications that this scenario will do just the same to the bar-owner.
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.
I agree that morality must be learned. I do not agree that I have been indoctrinated. If I've been indoctrinated with the same moral system you have, that took thousands of years to create... why are we even having this difference of opinion?
I'm not going to talk about being "indoctrinated" (or not) anymore here. It's off-topic and will take away from what this thread is about. If you want to, start a new topic, let me know about it, and I'll join in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by anastasia, posted 06-14-2007 10:55 PM anastasia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2007 10:05 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 112 of 304 (405857)
06-15-2007 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by anastasia
06-14-2007 11:14 PM


Re: Sounds very relative
anastasia writes:
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.
You can call me whatever you want. I think you'll be hard pressed to convince someone I'm an absolutist when what I think what is good and bad changes relative to the situation.
And you're still not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying "it's moral to help strangers". I'm saying "it's morally good to increase the inner-feelings of strangers". If you think that's incorrect, please show how.
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.
From Message 97:
quote:
This is why I do good:
(This is why it IS good for me to help people)
1. I interact with others.
2. Interacting with others will cause me to affect them.
3. This can leave a Good, Bad, or Neutral effect.
4. I am capable of empathy.
5. If I had a choice, I would like Good things to happen to me.
6. Since I do have a choice on how I affect others, I will attempt to leave Good effects rather then Bad or Neutral effects.
7. When I interact with others, I'm going to do my best to cause Good effects.
You say it makes them happy, which is nice and makes me wonder why you care about people when so many generations haven't.
I don't say it makes them happy. I say what I just quoted above.
Regardless, "why I care about people" has no bearing on what "so many generations" of the past have done. This moral system does not rely on tradition.
Makes me think you must have a deep thought to explain it, but since you don't, I must assume you are relying on what other people have taught you.
I'm not relying on what other people have taught me, I'm not relying on any deep or "life-altering truths", I'm simply relying on a few simple points as structured and described in Message 97 and Message 1.
I am pretty sure that you argued against absolutes with me before.
I did, and I still would. You just seem to be confused as to what "absolute morallity" is, and how the moral system I'm describing is relative to what other people subjectively think.
I am not the one thinking good is whatever I make up.
You're not? I thought you agreed that morally good was "whatever anastasia thinks is good". How is that not whatever you make up?
I'm saying:
Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of another person
I may have "made up" those words, as much as you made up the words to describe your morality. But after that, your morality is still based on "whatever you want", where my system is based on "whatever actually increases the inner-feelings of other beings". Which certainly has no bearing whatsoever on what I want.
Why not this?
Good = whatever increases someone's inner feelings without decreasing anyone else's?
But, anastasia, that's included in my definition:
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by anastasia, posted 06-14-2007 11:14 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by anastasia, posted 06-17-2007 1:01 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 113 of 304 (405861)
06-15-2007 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by ikabod
06-15-2007 7:35 AM


Re: A Summary
ikabod writes:
we could say :
1. Beings are equal, and deserve equal rights to life and pursuit of happiness if they wear green hats evey day of the week .
2. Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of another person while they are wearing a green hat .
Now I'm say to you.... if you agree with the 2 above points, then we can objectively define what actions are good, bad, or neutral.
True, and I agree. We certainly could say that.
Of course, we'ed have to deal with the glaring contradiction that "people are equal but those with green hats are better".
We'ed have to explain why "green hats" have anything to do with the issue.
as to if i agree with your 2 statements , firstly who am i to judge good from evil , for all you know i might be a really bad person , and so you would not want to be in agreement with me ..
You are a person, and as the points state, you are as equal as I am to judge good from evil.
Sure, I may not want to be in agreement with you, but if you could support your statements, then I would be intellectually dishonest not to agree with you.
secondly if i disagree with them , will you be happy with my reasons .. and why should you be happy with my reason's .. doe me agreeing with you validate your choice ?
I don't know if I'll be happy or not, you haven't said why you disagree with them yet. If you can point out some flaw in them, I'm willing to listen. Please go right ahead.
It's easy to point out the flaw in "all people are equal but those with green hats are to be treated better".
What's the flaw in "all people are equal"?
1.beings are not equal .. im am sorry but that is that way that the world we live in is , and there are some who very clearly do not deserver equal rights and happiness ..
Does this make me bad .. or just realistic and honest ??
Yes, but they only "clearly do not deserve equal rights and happiness" because they themselves decide to forfeit the "equality" of other people.
So, if the reason some people do not deserve to be treated equally, is because they do not treat other people equally... how is this unequal?
We're back again to... people should be treated equally. Do you have another reason why they should not be?
morally good actions can require you to do some thing that you think is a bad action by you and as far as you can tell will not increases the inner-feelings of another person . This is where you get the classic moral dilemma's of life .
Can you specify one of these classic moral dilemma's of life?
If, as far as you can tell, it will not increase the inner-feelings of another person... why is it considered morally good? How are you defining "morally good"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by ikabod, posted 06-15-2007 7:35 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by ikabod, posted 06-15-2007 12:18 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 115 of 304 (405913)
06-15-2007 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by New Cat's Eye
06-15-2007 10:05 AM


I think... we've reached our agreement?
I think I'm allowing this to drag into another topic. I think, as far as this topic is concerned, we may be in agreement.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Stile, Message 1 writes:
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the validity of understanding what is right and to propose a full foundation for the existence of 'good' without the need of God or any other supernatural entity.
'Your way' relys on other's inner-feelings and does not take god into account.
Yes. This is true. And this is all I wanted to do. I'm assuming from what we've talked about that you do agree that I have:
1. A "valid understanding of what is right".
2. It is A "full foundation for the existance of 'good' without the need of God or any other supernatural entity".
That is, not necessarily the only one, but one that works, just fine.
I think we agree on this, no?
What we seem to be sneaking into discussing now, is if my system is better than your system, or not. And I agree that such judgement is not objective. I will also continue this vein of discussion, if you'd like, right here (because it's the natural following topic). But, well, I think we should be clear that we do actually agree on the initial topic before moving on.
I do happen to think my system is better than any others I've heard in this thread so far. Really, the only other one I've heard of is "morally right = what anyone thinks is morally right". Such a thing just doesn't seem "good" to me.
But I'll also admit that determining which system is "better" is rather subjective and depends totally on a person's personal goals and priorities.
'your way' doesn't account for beings whose inner-feelings cannot be express or for when the action goes un-noticed.
Again, I would re-word this to "'my way' cannot determine if an action is morally good for beings whose inner-feelings cannot be expressed in any way or for when an action goes un-noticed". But, as I pointed out, I find this to be a huge benefit rather than a flaw.
But I guess we could just say that that makes it no longer objective.
I don't agree with this either. It's still objective, it's just that the information required to make the decision isn't available. Consider this:
I take an item, and put it in a box.
Sure, what you think that item is, is subjective.
However, what that item actually is, is still objective. You just don't have the information required to figure it out.
Your subjective answer may be "it's a paper-clip", or "it's a toy boat".
Your objective answer would be "I don't know what it is".
Just because you don't know, doesn't make it subjective. It just makes it unknown.
The whole purpose of this system is to remove the ability for people to convince others that their subjective "what they think is right", is actually right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2007 10:05 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2007 2:53 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 117 of 304 (405930)
06-15-2007 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by ikabod
06-15-2007 12:18 PM


Re: A Summary
sorry but you cant back track ..your statement was.....
"1. Beings are equal, and deserve equal rights to life and pursuit of happiness."
Now what you have failed to accept is that this is a aboslute .. there is no get out clause , no exceptions . all the totality of humanity ..the kings and serfs , loyalists and rebels , the greedy and the fair , OR do you mean all those you consider to be worth being counted as equal ?
I have not failed to accept that this is an absolute. I would fully admit that this is an absolute statement. That's why I'd need you to agree with it in order for us to make any progress.
And I'm not "getting out" of it, or "making exceptions". And I certainly do not mean "those I consider to be worthy should be treated as equal". I am explaining to you what the statement means. You seem to think that anyone only gets one chance, and everything must be explicitly difined or else anything anyone thinks up at a later time just... 'wins' or something. You need to debate the idea. And if the idea isn't clear, then we will discuss it.
Now, I will clarify what "Beings are equal, and deserve equal rights to life and pursuit of happiness" means. Personally, I thought it was obvious, but I will explain it again, as I did in the previous message:
Beings are equal.
Therefore, if one being decides to ignore the "equality" that another being possesses, then the first being has in turn forfeited any respect for their own "equality".
Such a consequence is still equal, and still fits just fine with the initial idea that "beings are equal".
Now, what's your problem with this? How is this not treating people equally?
thats the whole point .. any statement you use will be a absolute , it will allow no room for grey areas
I agree that it's the whole point. No grey areas. When grey areas exist, that is where things can be corrupted. Do you not agree? Aren't all the corrupt lawyers just using loop-holes... the grey areas of the law? If we can set up a system that has no grey areas, than we have a system that is immune to corruption.
some have greater needs that other and so need a unequal amount of resorces , or do you chosse not the help the weak ? disadvantaged ?
Beings are equal. They deserve equal rights, and happiness. Some are quite capable of acquiring such on their own. Others, like those you speak of, are not capable, and therefore deserve our help.
How is that not treating people equally?
many ( if not all ) do not want to be treated eqaully .. they want higher status .. they want more for them , they want power ... sorry but this is a human trait .. the drive to , win to be better
Sure. Many people want lots of things. That's plainly obvious.
But just because someone wants to be treated unequally, why should we? I think we should treat all people equally. How is not doing whatever anyone wants treating people unequally?
treating all equal harms the elite .. those who has skills, talents , inteligence way above the norm .. they get dumb down to the equality level.
How does it dumb them down?
Treat people equally.
All people have the right to life and pursuit of happiness.
The elite all have the right to life and pursuit of happiness.
They're even better equipped to obtain this than the non-elite.
How does this dumb them down?
How is this not treating the equally?
I'm not interrupting their use of their traits to live life and pursue their happiness.
How is this unequal?
Your statement 2 . is also a absolute , it might as well read .....
"2. Morally Good = an action that is writen in the holy book as being a good act "
Sure it could. But it doesn't. It's easy to think of a scenario where "what is written in the holy book" isn't a good act. Keeping people as slaves, for instance.
Now, since my statment does say "Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon"... do you have the knowledge to show that "an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon" is not morally good?
i kill Bob the enermy of Harry, Bob was a bad man because he did not treat Harry equally , Harry's inner feeling are incressed ....therfore following your logic killing Bob was a good act
That's not following the logic at all. That's manipulating what I'm saying, jumbling some similar-sounding words together, and just splurting out whatever out-come you want.
I said: "Morally Good = an act that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon".
So, let's go through your scenario, shall we?
i kill Bob the enermy of Harry
Action = "killing Bob". Did killing Bob increase his inner-feelings? Your scenario doesn't say so. We can safely assume that they probably weren't. It most likely decreased them, removed all of them, even. Therefore, we can think this action was bad until we gain any more information.
Bob was a bad man because he did not treat Harry equally
Action = "not treating Harry equally". Did not treating Harry equally increase his inner-feelings? Your scenario doesn't say so. We can safely assume that they probably didn't, though, most people like being treated equally. Therefore, we can think this action was bad until we gain any more information.
Harry's inner feeling are incressed ....therfore following your logic killing Bob was a good act
But, this isn't my logic. The logic you've used here is:
"Morally Good = Any action that anyone does to anyone else that increases anyone's inner-feelings".
My logic was:
"Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon".
Can you see the difference?
can you spot you own words in that ..?
The words? Yes, you certainly used the same words. But not the same idea at all. You've added many other words, mangled others, and done whatever you'd like. Sure, I agree that what you're proposing isn't good at all. That still has nothing to do with what I'm proposing.
Classic moral dilemma's
Okay, let's see how we do. Remember, we're using:
Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon
would you allow the use of medical data from the Nazi death camps as a bases for a medical reserch program ... its is generalized research ..
Action = Obtaining the medical data from the Nazi death camps. Action = Bad.
Action = Use medical data.... um... for what? How can I simply "use data". What am I doing with it?
Action = Use medical data to save a life? Action = Good.
Action = Use medical data to kill another life? Action = Bad.
What do you intend?
pregnant woman in a car crash ... you can save mother OR child not both who do you save .. you know nothing about the mothers back ground ....pick now or its too late
Options:
1. Save Mother, Kill Child.
Action = Save Mother. Action = Good.
Action = Kill Child. Action = Bad.
2. Save Child, Kill Mother.
Action = Save Child. Action = Good.
Action = Kill Mother. Action = Bad.
you can clear a sereil child murderer of a child murder he did not commit .. and set him free , or you can lie and he will be locked up for life ...
1. Clear serial murderer, murderer kills again. Action = Bad.
2. Clear serial murderer, murderer lives good life. Action = Good.
3. Jail serial murderer, murderer unable to kill again even though he would have. Action = Neutral.
4. Jail serial murderer, murderer lives good life. Action = Bad.
you can end a ongoing long running conflict that has claimed 1000's of lives .. including children ..by ordering the blowing up of the home of the warlord .. however you can not tell who will be in the warlord home with him at the one time shot you have .. do you give the order.
1. Give order, warlord home alone. Action Good.
2. Give order, warlord not home alone. Not single action.
2.a)Killing warlord. Action Good.
2.b)Killing any innocent person inside. Action Bad.
2.c)Killing any other warlord-like killer inside. Action Good.
you are the captain of a sinking ship .. if you order the men from the engine room then the loss of power will mean hundreds more will die , if you do not order the men from the engine room , until the hunderds are in life boats the men will die .. who do you let die ?
1. Save engineroom guys, kill hundreds. Not single action.
1.i)Saved engine room guy. Action Good. (repeat for every engine room guy)
1.ii)Killed one guy of "hundreds". Action Bad. (repeat for every guy in "hundreds")
2. Save hundreds, kill engine room guys. Not single action.
2.i)Saved one guy of "hundreds". Action Good. (repeat for every guy in "hundreds")
2.ii)Killed engine room guy. Action Bad. (repeat for every engine room guy).
Yes these are extreme But any measure of moral good must work at the most extreme points to be of any use other wisse its a comfort blanket to cope with every day .
I certainly agree. And my measure of moral good worked at every extreme point. It told us what would be good and what would be bad. Is killing 10 guys better than killing 100 guys? Depends on if you think 10 bad things is better than 100 bad things. This system only tells you what good and bad IS not the value of good and bad. You're talking about something else again.
Let's remember what I'm doing in this thread:
Stile, Message 1 writes:
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the validity of understanding what is right and to propose a full foundation for the existence of 'good' without the need of God or any other supernatural entity.
I agree that whether or not this system is "better" or "best" is subjective. What I'm saying is that it is:
1. A valid understanding of what is right.
2. A full foundation for the existance of "good" without the need of God or any other supernatural entity.
You seem to be arguring if my system covers anything anyone considers moral or that "the foundation is subjective". I've many-times already agreed that the foundation is subjective. I just maintain that how the system determine's good from bad is objective. And we can continue to discuss anything else you don't think this system covers... I find that interesting. But we need to be clear that we're no longer talking about the original topic anymore.
Remember, this topic exists because in a previous topic it was implied that I can't know what good is without God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by ikabod, posted 06-15-2007 12:18 PM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by ikabod, posted 06-16-2007 2:03 AM Stile has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024