Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 304 (404234)
06-07-2007 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Stile
06-07-2007 12:56 PM


can you provide a single example where something is morally good that does not increase the inner-feelings of another being?
1. something that nobody can notice
2. not doing something that is morally bad
3. doing something that is morally good for a person is unconscious, or severly retarded enought that they aren't really "there", or an infant.
1. Picking up a piece of trash out in the woods
2. Not stealing a pack of gum from WalMart
3. Stopping the boiling water from spilling on the baby

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 32 by Stile, posted 06-07-2007 4:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


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


Re: And so we are on to definitions...
I don't like your definition because it relys on good acts to be performed on individuals and it requires them to notice it.
I just think that you can do good in other ways as well.
That's not "good". It's just "not bad".
Well I see "not bad" as good. You said that you sitting there NOT doing an infinite number of bad things, so, you're being good, right?
The inner-feelings of the baby are still increasing.
No, they're not. The baby's brain isn't even developed enough to have 'inner feelings' like that.
I wish you would have replied to the general statements instead of the specific examples.
Me writes:
you writes:
can you provide a single example where something is morally good that does not increase the inner-feelings of another being?
1. something that nobody can notice
2. not doing something that is morally bad
3. doing something that is morally good for a person is unconscious, or severly retarded enought that they aren't really "there", or an infant.
Instead of adjusting your definition of good to include things that aren't in the definition, you labeled these things as 'not good'. Why is that? Are you very interested in 'keeping your definition'?
You definition of good requires someone to notice that you did the good act. Doesn't that kinda remove some of the greedlessness?
If you opened the door for a blind guy and he didn't even know it, then your act is no longer good because you didn't increase his PIF?
That's lame.
Your defnition also ignores the absence of bad as being good, itself. But that might just be a difference of opinion.
Your definition also does not account for good acts that are for people who are unable to have thier PIF increased.
I think your definition could be improved, no offense.

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

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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 304 (405556)
06-13-2007 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Stile
06-11-2007 1:03 PM


Re: And so we are on to definitions...
Then how do you know that you actually did any good? Certainly there are times where we think we've done good.. and then learn how hard it affected someone.. and understand that we actually did very bad.
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.
Without the feedback, how do we know it was good and not just something we thought was good, or wanted to be good?
Without any feeback we cannot now. I guess we'd have to rely on our hearts. (not the organ)
Do you agree that morally neutral actions even exist?
Yes.
But I also think there is objective morallity.
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?
If god exists.
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.
My train of thought was the refusal to do a bad action. Like, you were going to do something bad, but then you didn't. That would be a good thing.
No. I'm not interested in keeping the definition. I'm interested in finding a definition that cannot be corrupted by people who want to justify doing evil in the name of "good". People who say "this is good" and think they should force it on everyone else "because it is good" and end up doing a whole lot of evil.
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.
If you opened the door for a blind guy and he didn't even know it, then your act is no longer good because you didn't increase his PIF?
That's lame.
What if your blind fellow hates it when people do things for him because he wants to be as independant as possible? What if the biggest joy he ever receives in his sight-less life is finding obstacles and finding his own way past them? Like finding closed doors, and figuring out how to open them. You just robbed this poor man of his most desired situation. How was that good?
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.
Thinking that you are "so enlightened" that you "already know" exactly what others will like to have done for them... that is lame.
I don't think that.
Your definition also does not account for good acts that are for people who are unable to have thier PIF increased.
No. My definition does not allow for us to know if we're doing good for people who we are unable to determine if their PIF is increased. And I think this is a very positive thing that would stop a great deal of evil if more people understood it.
So you definition is only for determining a way to know that we are doing good?
I thought it was for good, in genereal, whether or not we know it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Stile, posted 06-11-2007 1:03 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Stile, posted 06-14-2007 11:50 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 304 (405804)
06-14-2007 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Stile
06-14-2007 11:50 AM


Re: The bottom line
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.
Or we can trust our hearts and "know" that is was good
And I still think, as long as it doesn't affect anyone, it's a morally neutral action.
I would agree to that too, if I didn't believe in god.
Which brings me back around to one of the first things I've said in that if I didn't believe in god, it would change my actions. Something that others, and apparently you as well from what I was reading, would label as greedy or "bad" even, because yall thought I was only doing the good to avoid the punishment from god. But its not as much about avoiding the punishment as it is about doing whats right to/for other people because that's what god wants. But still, the threat of punishment is a good deterant for the bad actions.
But why is it actually good? You may have to define "good" to answer that. We can then compare it to what I think.
I think your defintion is good for "knowing" if what we are doing is good. But I don't think it is good enough for "defining" what is good.
I don't have a definition off the top of my head right now. I'll think about, some more, and let you know when I figure it out
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.
And for the things that we don't have feedback on whether or not their action has increased the inner-feelings of the beings they're acting upon? We'll just rely on our hearts? Or shall we just define them as morally neutral and not worry about them? What about thier affect on god? He exists in my world-view.
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.
I've been thinking that your definition is defining what is good, not defining what we can know is good
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.
I’m confused by the whole ”your way’ / ”my way’ thingy .
Care to spell it out for me?
Your way is prescription of what is good based on what Catholic Scientist thinks should be good.
ok.
My way is receptive of what is good based on how "the being" acted upon reacts.
But my way is like that too, after the action.
You’ve defined my motive pre-action, and defined your motive post-action.
"Opening doors for blind people" is good.
The point of the dude being blind is that he cannot give us feedback on our action because he is unaware of the action. Without that feedback, “your way” says that the action cannot be good, er well, it says that we can’t know that the action 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?
It seems like you are trying to make “my way” look like the start of wars. Can’t you see how that starts wars just as well?
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.
But your definition relies on being able to get feedback. What about "Opening doors for blind people"? In the way the example is meant to be, where you cannot get feedback for your action.
Your way helps most blind people.
Your way hurts some blind people.
My way helps all blind people.
My way hurts no blind people.
But you’ve changed it so that you can get feedback from the blind dude. You messed up the analogy
Why is that a flaw?
What about when you can’t get feedback, then how do you determine what to do? Open the door or not?
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.
Of course it makes sense to rely on the feedback from others to determine if the action was good. But what about when you can’t get feedback? Do you do nothing? Do you label those situations as neutral and fahgettabowtit?
That’s the flaw in your definition, I think
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : hit the button too soon, not done yet, will repost here when its finished
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Stile, posted 06-14-2007 11:50 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Stile, posted 06-17-2007 4:13 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 304 (405854)
06-15-2007 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Stile
06-15-2007 9:38 AM


Re: More of the same
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.
Sure, but we could use any premises to get an objective definition. What matters is if the premises are true.
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?
I don't totally agree with this premise:
2. Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of another person.
I don't think it emcompasses all morally good actions.
Why is increasing the inner-feelings of beings you act upon not morally good?
It is morally good, but not all morally good actions increase the inner-feelings of beings you act upon, IMHO. You simply say that these actions are morally neutral. But you don't believe in god and I do so, I think our definition of good is goind to start to differ there. 'Your way' relys on other's inner-feelings and does not take god into account.
Also, like we're trying to discuss in the other post, 'your way' doesn't account for beings whose inner-feelings cannot be express or for when the action goes un-noticed. But I guess we could just say that that makes is no longer objective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Stile, posted 06-15-2007 9:38 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Stile, posted 06-15-2007 1:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 304 (405928)
06-15-2007 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Stile
06-15-2007 1:38 PM


Re: I think... we've reached our agreement?
Fuck. I lost my reply. I doubt this one will be as good
Here's the jist of what I wrote:
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?
I disagree that you have a full foundation. Your system fails to identify the goodness of some things.
It's still objective, it's just that the information required to make the decision isn't available.
I was pretty much just arguing semantics to this part. I think I was using the word 'objective' is a different way, maybe not, I dunno.
Just because you don't know, doesn't make it subjective. It just makes it unknown.
I was saying that you can 'know' that some things are good that your system can not identify as good. Like holding the door for the blind guy, if he doesn't know you did it, and he doesn't give you any feedback, then your system can't identify the action as good.
Your part about him not wanting doors held open for him is irrelevant because he is unaware that you even did it.
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.
I think that ability can be of importance and should not be totally removed. But I understand your issue with religions and wars and removing that ability.
Did you read Message 6?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Stile, posted 06-15-2007 1:38 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Stile, posted 06-15-2007 4:01 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 304 (405957)
06-15-2007 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Stile
06-15-2007 4:01 PM


Re: I think... we've reached our agreement?
Do you have an alternative definition for what "Morally Good" is?
Not really I think I know, but I haven't put in the effort to type it up or make it explicit even.
Or do you agree that "Morally Good = whatever anyone thinks is morally good"?
That's a stupid definition.
Your's is better.
But yours can? How do you know you did good?
You have to rely on your heart. It makes it subjective though.
What if it was a curious-puzzle-loving blind guy? Do you still 'know' you did good?
The blind guy is unaware that you opened the door. It doesn't matter if he wants you to or not. Yes, you "know" you did good.
Do you really need a 'thank you' from the blind guy to realize that holding the door open for him was a good thing?
I guess you could've let him run into the door instead, but now we're getting into receiving some sort of feedback
If we don't know how the person reacted, how do we know we did good?
I thought you agreed at some point that we can't know we did good unless we got the feedback?
You can't really know unless you have the feedback, but you can "know" by your heart. I guess it doesn't really identify the objective morallity of the action, but you're defining how to "know" not what is.
I just hope the ideal is getting across, and I think it is.
Oh, I catch your drift, it makes sense.
...did you typo the message number?
Shit yeah.... I meant Message 106.
Sorry for that.
Here's how the system works:
1. Identify an action.
2. Identify a being acted upon by the action.
3. Identify what is happening to that being's inner-feelings due to their reaction.
I think part of our difference of opinion comes from (well the theism/atheism stuff but) you labeling some actions that I think are good as neutral. Your system doesn't accurately describe some things that I consider good. This is limited by the neccessity of a 'being' to which action are on, and that being's capability of expressing its inner-feelings, etc. The things that fall outside your system are neutral in your opinion. I just don't think they are so I find it to be a fault of your system, but you see it as working just fine because you don't think that the things outside of your system are 'good'.
I guess the next step is me explaining to you why I think that some of the actions that you label as neutral are actually good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Stile, posted 06-15-2007 4:01 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Stile, posted 06-17-2007 2:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 304 (406621)
06-21-2007 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Stile
06-21-2007 3:02 PM


Re: Motivation is rather a secondary thought.
However, I don't think motivation dictates whether or not we're "doing good".
Have you never tried to do good, and actually ended up doing somthing bad?
The motive doesn't dictate whether the result of the action was good or bad but it does dictate whethor or not the actor was morally good or morally bad.
Like you say, if you were trying to do something good but you ended up doing something bad on accident, then you were not morally bad.
OTOH, if you were trying to do something bad but ended up doing something good regardless, then you were morally bad.
Of course, your system of morality identification does not account for this because it is based soley on the action, in error IMHO.
Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon
What happened to the inner-feelings being positive?
Making fun of people increases their inner feelings, but that isn't morally good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Stile, posted 06-21-2007 3:02 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Stile, posted 06-21-2007 4:18 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 304 (406641)
06-21-2007 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Stile
06-21-2007 4:18 PM


Re: Hell is paved with good intentions.
If someone is trying to do good, and ends up doing bad. I would say they were trying to be morally good, and ended up being morally bad.
Well then we have a difference of opinion.
If you're trying to do something good (help an old lady cross the street) and you end up accidently doing something bad (she gets hit by a car), then you weren't being morally bad even though a bad thing happened.
You aren't morally responsible for her being hit if you were just trying to help her.
OTOH, if you are trying to lead an old lady into the street so that she does get hit then you are being morally bad. If you inadvertantly prevented a piano from falling on her instead of getting her hit by a car, then your action doesn't become morally good because the result was good. You'd still be an evil fuck for trying to get the lady hit by a car.
[ABE] You might even increase her positive inner feelings, which would let you know that you were morally good according to your system, when in reality you were morally bad for trying to hurt an old lady. The result of your actions don't automatically make you morally good when your motive was morally bad.[/ABE]
Is that people's definition of "morally good"?
Morally Good = trying to do whatever we think is good?
Of course, such a definition leads us, again, to the conlusion that everyone is Morally Good all the time.
Not when they know what they are doing is not good but do it anyways.
But I do think that you have to understand that what you are doing is wrong in order to be morally responsible for it.
Bad Motive, Good Action = Good
Good Motive, Bad Action = Bad
But that isn't true, as applied to my old lady examples above.
I thought that increase and positive was becoming redundant. Perhaps it wasn't.
Well, you could increase a person's bad inner feelings (or inner bad feelings?) and still be increasing their inner feelings.
how does making fun of people increase the inner-feeilngs of the people you're making fun of?
You increase their inner feelings of embarassement and sadness and humiliation, but their inner feelings are being increased none-the-less.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Stile, posted 06-21-2007 4:18 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Stile, posted 06-22-2007 3:39 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 304 (406833)
06-22-2007 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Stile
06-22-2007 3:39 PM


Re: Hell is paved with good intentions.
Catholic Scientist writes:
If you're trying to do something good (help an old lady cross the street) and you end up accidently doing something bad (she gets hit by a car), then you weren't being morally bad even though a bad thing happened.
You aren't morally responsible for her being hit if you were just trying to help her.
.
I would say the action of her getting hit was bad, and even morally bad. Who's to say anyone's "responsible" though? I'm sure there are situations of things that "just happen" without someone being responsible.
I don’t see how an action can be morally bad without someone to blame it on. You have to have a person to have the morality.
Break-down:
Action->helping lady across street->Morally Good->responsibility = you
Action->lady getting hit/killed/hurt accidentally->Morally Bad->responsibility = ? (but definitely "not you")
How can an action be morally bad independent of a person on which to place to morality? The action, itself, does not have any morality to it.
wikipedia on morality writes:
Morality (from Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behaviour") refers to the concept of human action which pertains to matters of right and wrong
Without the human action there is no right and wrong. Shit happens but it ain't morally bad.
I think we agree on the results... maybe just differ in how we're getting there?
We disagree on the results. I can’t call an action morally bad without some to blame it on
I don't know, I'm starting to get confused on if we're talking my definition of "good", anastasia's definition, ikabod's definition, a general definition...
I’ve only and will only be talking about your definition.
My head's hurting. I think I may be just about done posting in this thread for now.
It not that exciting of a topic no offense. But don’t stop yet. I’d like to read a response to this post. I think we’ve about figured it all out.
But I do think that you have to understand that what you are doing is wrong in order to be morally responsible for it.
I don't know. What about this:
Person A calls little-person B a "midget".
Person B corrects person A of a proper-term and Person A corrects themselves in the future.
You're saying that just because person A didn't know "midget" is derogatory that they weren't doing morally bad?
Correct. If it was an honest mistake.
That they were "morally good" in doing a bad thing?
No, definitely not morally good. What happened to morally neutral, or amoral? That’s what I would call it.
In the end, I think we're equal on the scenario. I think we both understand the person was trying to be good, incidentally made a mistake, and the proper action is to correct that mistake for future situations...
We just seem to differ on what we call the person at different stages?
And that we can call them anything at all. If he didn’t know midget was derogatory, then he wasn’t morally wrong for it. Even thought the result of the action was a bad one. I would say that it was morally neutral, we can’t say that it was good or bad.
Think about it the opposite way.
A guy uses the proper terminology but his motive is one of ridicule. I would still call him morally bad - because of his motive - even if the action had no negative result on the little person. If he’s trying to be a dick, then he’s morally wrong if he succeeds or not.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Stile writes:
Bad Motive, Good Action = Good
Good Motive, Bad Action = Bad
But that isn't true, as applied to my old lady examples above.
I think, again, we're just differing on what we're talking about. I'm saying the action is bad, you're saying the motivation is good. We both agree on those specific points though. You just call the overall scenario "morally good" where I call it "morally bad".
No, no. I’m not calling it good. I’m calling it “not bad”. Or neutral.
I guess I'm worried more about how others are affected than about a person's motivations?
That and you don’t think there is anything morally wrong with an action that doesn’t affect others. Believing in god and an objective morality, I think that motivation has a lot to do with the morality of an action whether it affects other people or not.
I suppose this may have been part of my point all along. If we call things "morally good" just because someone's trying to do good...
Well, we can’t call it morally good just because of the motivation because then if someone was crazy and thought they were doing good when they were doing bad, then they couldn’t be called morally bad for the bahavior. Maybe “crazy” is a bad word to use here because if someone is mentally ill enough that they don’t know that they are doing wrong, then I don’t think we can hold them morally responsible for the action. And I think that there has to be a moral responsibility to ultimately call the action morally good or bad.
I also thought your point was addressing when religious people say that something is morally wrong and then try to tell others that they shouldn’t do it.
I dunno. I think, once again CS, we've found the heart of our difference of opinion.
I think the heart of our differences stems from me believing in god and you not. If I didn’t believe in god, then I would be more inclined to agree with your system. I don’t think you system is really incorrect, I just think that it doesn’t cover all the bases and relies too heavily on the action and there being an effect on another’s feelings from the action. I don’t think that morality is limited to those things.
I may even understand why I'm not going to convince you differently. When I believed in God, I think I was a similar way. I suppose when there's a God "sorting it all out" in the end, it's easier to understand how motivation trumps actions.
And we don’t have to rely on other’s feedback to label the morality when there is a god who can label it objectively even if we are unable to determine the morality ourselves.
I, however, am no longer convinced of a God's ability for this (or even existance). Hence I'm more concerned with results which affect us immediately
Sure, and that’s a fine way to do it. But like I said, it fails to address some things.
because, well, to me... there's a chance that's all there's going to be.
There’s that chance for me too. I’m not leaving out the other side of the chance though.
I think this is the crux of our differences. I can't even tell, though, if it's a difference of opinion or a difference of definitions of different words that equalize to the exact same thing anyway.
I don't think its the definitions so much as it is a fundemental way of defining what is moral.
You increase their inner feelings of embarassement and sadness and humiliation, but their inner feelings are being increased none-the-less.
Agreed, yes. That's exactly what the "positive" was in there for. I suppose I should put it back in.
I think so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Stile, posted 06-22-2007 3:39 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Stile, posted 06-25-2007 3:21 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024