Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others

Or we can trust our hearts and "know" that is was good 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. 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 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. I've been thinking that your definition is defining what is good, not defining what we can know is good I’m confused by the whole ”your way’ / ”my way’ thingy . Care to spell it out for me? ok. But my way is like that too, after the action.You’ve defined my motive pre-action, and defined your motive post-action. 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. 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? 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. But you’ve changed it so that you can get feedback from the blind dude. You messed up the analogy What about when you can’t get feedback, then how do you determine what to do? Open the door or not? 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 finishedEdited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

I don't have an alternative to pleasing people, because that is not my goal. It is nice when that happens, but over all my goal is to treat people fairly and with respect. I CAN do that to everyone. I am not the one who made a thread defining 'good' and then plugging in what I thought was good. Stile, I assure you , some people would be happy. If they weren't, it would be rape. Do you need names or something? Because it doesn't matter what Jimbo thinks. It matters what anastasia thinks. anastasia does not think she needs to make everyone happy, only as many as possible. It is up to her to decide who to make happy, and the rest are impossible. Because, of course, GOOD doesn't = making someone happy. That's how it works, and it's not about me. Don't tell me you haven't decided what is good. Do you just follow the crowd, or did you receive a heavenly message? What a person thinks does not make a thing good or bad. I am only saying that a person can be moral and still do bad things, because he or she thinks they are good. I must say you are the first atheist I
have met on the boards who believed in absolutes. False. I already said I must respect others. Morality is only about what I think I should do. It is inevitable that all of us will decrease some inner feelings. How do you escape the fact that you treat people the way you want to? 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. Not exactly. I just wanted you to say that you believed in equality, and that is why you treat people the way you would like to be treated. I am sorry you misunderstood the question, for some 30 posts. That's a bad answer anyway. I could think of plenty of reasons why we aren't equal. Some are healthy, strong, intelligent, and moral. Some aren't. There is nothing equal about us, there is only one common bond that puts us all on the same footing. We are all human, and we all have souls. You don't have to agree with the soul part, but basically, we are not equal humans, we are equally human. OK, I can see that. You like to be treated a certain way, so you want other people to be happy too. I guess I was getting a little philosophical here, in wondering why you would care about how other people felt. You see, it is a relatively new thing for anyone to care about the feelings of those not directly in their circle or tribe. 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 would you ask the bar thief if he was willing to forfeit his happiness in order for you to do what you felt was right? I think that might be a nice gesture. I do many times say 'I am sorry, but I can't do that'. Of course I am being sorry for them, but of course I have to do what I think is right. 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.

The constant morality could be the one I described in A Summary (Message 97).
The constant good is:Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon If you want constants, you are an absolutist, period. It has not been constantly moral to help strangers. It was at the least neutral, and sometimes bad. That is, in the eyes of the world. It may be that it was always good and we just didnt know or care, but in order for that to be true, you would still have to tell me why it IS good to help people. You say it makes them happy, which is nice and makes me wonder why you care about people when so many generations haven't. Makes me think you must have a deeo thought to explain it, but since you don't, I must assume you are relying on what other people have taught you. I am pretty sure that you argued against absolutes with me before. That is why this is funny. I am not the one thinking good is whatever I make up. YOU are the one thinking that good is whatever makes people happy. Whatever THEY make up. I would at least like to be responsible for myself, instead of projecting my beliefs onto others and claiming folk forfeit the right to happiness when they betray what YOU believe in. At the other side of your mouth youhave no problem repeating that GOOD is WHATEVER increases someone's feelings of happiness.Why not this?Good = whatever increases someone's inner feelings without decreasing anyone else's?Nah, nevermind, don't go there.

but i am say that even if i agree with those two random statements , any thing we look at can NOT be objective , because you have already defined the conditions , all we can do is agree that we can apply label based on our chossen flavours .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.....the above is as valid as your statement .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 ..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 ?if fact i disagree with 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 ??as for point 2. , again i disagree morally good dose not have to =
an action that increases the inner-feelings of another person .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 .
because there are no absolutes , unless you look to " some higher power" you have to pick your own solution and then live with it be it good , bad , right or wrong .......remember life is a four letter word .......

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? 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? 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. 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 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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.

Sure, but we could use any premises to get an objective definition. What matters is if the premises are true. I don't totally agree with this premise: I don't think it emcompasses all morally good actions. 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.

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. 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.

---

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. 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 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. 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 personI 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. But, anastasia, that's included in my definition:Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted uponSo, 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.

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. 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. 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"? 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? 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"?

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 ?as to the green hat issue .. thats the whole point .. any statement you use will be a absolute , it will allow no room for grey areas ok reasons ..
some have greater needs that other and so need a unequal amount of resorces , or do you chosse not the help the weak ? disadvantaged ?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 bettertreating all equal harms the elite .. those who has skills, talents , inteligence way above the norm .. they get dumb down to the equality level .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 "now ..
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
.Bob clearly was not covered by rule 1." because they themselves ( ie Bob) decide to forfeit the "equality" of other people.and Harry felt happier so we get a tick on rule 2.so using your rules we can kill anyone who are people that do not deserve to be treated equally, because they do not treat other people equally... how is this unequal .. as long as we increases the inner-feelings of another person .can you spot you own words in that ..?Classic moral dilemma'swould you allow the use of medical data from the Nazi death camps as a bases for a medical reserch program ... its is generalized research ..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 lateyou 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 ...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.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 ?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 think I'm allowing this to drag into another topic. I think, as far as this topic is concerned, we may be in agreement. 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. 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. 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.

Fuck. I lost my reply. I doubt this one will be as good Here's the jist of what I wrote: I disagree that you have a full foundation. Your system fails to identify the goodness of some things. 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. 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. 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?

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? 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. 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? 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? 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? 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? 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? 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. 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. 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? 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. 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 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? 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. 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. 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. 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). 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: 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.

I admit that when I've talked about my objective good and bad, I only mean the objective consequences from my subjective definitions. My arguement here is more this:Me: Subjective definition -> Objective consequences
(Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon = objective)Only Alternative So Far: Subjective definition -> Subjective consequences
(Morally Good = whatever anyone thinks is morally good = subjective)See how I think my version is superior to this alternative version?But, let's get back to the original topic: Yes. I'm not sure if we're ever going to get past this part. Probably because it relys on our subjective choices for the definitions of good and bad.
Do you have an alternative definition for what "Morally Good" is? Or do you agree that "Morally Good = whatever anyone thinks is morally good"? (I really think my definition kicks this definition's ass). I agree that "my system can't identify the action as good".
But yours can? How do you know you did good? What if it was a curious-puzzle-loving blind guy? Do you still 'know' you did good?
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? I understand your reservations. I don't think I'm wording it explicitly enough or as good as it could be. I'm not sure if I know how. I just hope the ideal is getting across, and I think it is. ...did you typo the message number? Message 6 is where I simply explained to Phat that by "meh" I meant to say "Morally Neutral".Did you mean Jon's Message "60"? The one deemed un-replyable by an Admin? Yes, I read it. And this seems similar to what you're discussing: Is that what you meant? I'll answer that here:The whole scenario is mistaking what I mean. The confused scenario thinks I mean:"Morally Good = any action that anyone does to anything that increases the internal-feelings of anyone"Which is an incorrect straw-man of what I'm actually saying:"Morally Good = an action that increases the internal-feelings of the being acted upon" I've never said "Morally Good = what everyone else likes".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.Inner-feelings increase = Action is morally good.
Inner-feelings unchanged = Action is morally neutral.
Inner-feelings decrease = Action is morally bad.So, let's see how it goes:1. Action = deforestation.
2. Being acted upon = all of us, in the entire world, apparently. And, as far as this scenario is concerned... this is all there is, no animals, nothing we don't know about, no one else.
3. Results of inner-feelings = As far as this scenario states, every being in the entire world would be happier if they proceeded with de-forestation.Inner-feelings increased = Action is good.Therefore, as far as this scenario is concerned, with absolutely no negative affects to deforestation (I assume that's what he's getting at, anyway), than it would be wrong of me to stop them from doing all the deforestation they want.Of course, this scenario is realistically ridiculous, but hey... Jon wrote it, not me.Realistically, deforestation affects a bunch of beings depending on that forest to survive. Including other humans. Therefore deforestation is bad, regardless of how many people like it, hate it, want it, or dislike it.

Not really I think I know, but I haven't put in the effort to type it up or make it explicit even. That's a stupid definition.
Your's is better. You have to rely on your heart. It makes it subjective though. 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 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. Oh, I catch your drift, it makes sense. Shit yeah.... I meant Message 106.Sorry for that. 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.

and that is what i have been trying to show you , any system you come up with , requires the operation of absolutes , but there are no absolutes in the real world , UNLESS you agree to the exsistance of "god" in waht ever size shape and form "god" really has.
What you are going is taking what you consider to be morally good and trying to put together a set of rules .. which have to be absolutes .. to validate yor view of good ..
You are starting from the wrong point you are allowing your self to KNOW what is good then shaping the rules .. the rules should come first and be independant of you , otherwise they are opinion not fact . If a act is only good if you know ALL the effects of it YOU cant know if its ever good .. unless you have godlike powers to see all .. you are just guessing and holding it up to a set of made up ruleslook at your answers to the dilemmas .. some you have no sinlge answer to .. with mother and child you have either outcome as both good and bad ... you avoid the choice by splitting the event ...
you duck the murderer question by introducing neutral . is not failing to do the good act abad thing thus how can there be neutral ??.. with the ship you seem to think you have multi choices but its a simple A or B question .. and you have no answer to it ...