Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 6:12 AM
18 online now:
(18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4126 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


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


Re: Sounds very relative
Stile writes:

Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon

So, if we have an action that increases the inner-feelings of one being acted upon, yet it decreases the inner-feelings of another being acted upon. We have two different scenarios, not just one.

So the action will be morally good for the being who's inner-feelings were increased. And the action will be morally bad for the being who's inner-feelings were decreased.

Are you confusing moral with morale? YOU have to decide what is moral, regardless of how any one feels about it.

It is a mistake to pit my moral system against your own. I have been speaking very generally. We all make up morality. Somehow you believe that if you put a title on a book, and then allow others to fill in their thoughts on YOUR subject, then you are not responsible for the project. You are actually being very different from most of us who aknowledge that morality is personal and a big part of who we are. I don't want someone else filling in the pages for me.


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

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

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3531
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 122 of 304 (406182)
06-17-2007 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by New Cat's Eye
06-15-2007 4:31 PM


Re: I think... we've reached our agreement?
Catholic Scientist writes:

Stile writes:

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.


That's what I'm trying to get at though. What if he wanted to run into the door? What if he's a curious-puzzle-loving blind guy who wants to run into things and figure out his own way around/through/past them? What if that's the only joy he gets in his personally perceived solitary, sightless life?

I would say, that if this blind guy was searching for closed doors to open, and you opened one, and he walked right through it. And he never knew you opened it, and you never knew he was searching for it... I'd say that's sounds like you did a bad thing. I'd say you did what you thought was right, it just so happened that in this particular situation, it was actually bad.

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.

Yes, I agree, let's move onto the next step. Perhaps another scenario is needed as well? I get the feeling we're just not making any progree on this one anymore.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2007 4:31 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3531
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 123 of 304 (406185)
06-17-2007 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by ikabod
06-16-2007 2:03 AM


Re: A Summary
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 rules.

Totally agreed. I'm also saying, though, that most people do agree already with the rules I've stated. You still haven't shown otherwise. You still haven't even shown that you don't reasonably disagree with them.

You can say "I don't agree". And fine. But why? What's wrong with them? You haven't shown why they are invalid opinions. Or even why they aren't universal.

Why, other than anyone's personal opinion, should people ever be treated unequally with respect to their pusuit of life and happiness?

Why is an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon not good?

look 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 ...

Of course the system didn't make any choices. No one ever said it could. I never said "I have a system that always picks the best answer to any question". I said "I'm proposing a system that will identify what is good and what is bad". And that's exactly what it did. Even the options which contained both good and bad in them.

I'm not "avoiding" the choice, the choice is irrelevant to the system, that's all.

Having dinner with my dad tonight (on Father's Day) will increase his inner-feelings. Having dinner with my dad tonight will be a good thing for me to do with my dad.

I can choose to do the good thing.
I can choose to not do the good thing.

The system doesn't have any force to make you do anything, it identifies what's good and bad. So that those who have motivations to do good, can do good without the fear of accidentally doing bad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by ikabod, posted 06-16-2007 2:03 AM ikabod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by anastasia, posted 06-18-2007 12:38 AM Stile has responded
 Message 129 by ikabod, posted 06-18-2007 4:17 AM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3531
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 124 of 304 (406188)
06-17-2007 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by anastasia
06-17-2007 1:01 PM


Re: Sounds very relative
anastasia writes:

Are you confusing moral with morale?


No. Not at all. Although I would say the two are very similar and very related.
However, just because someone feels, or thinks, something is good doesn't make it good.

YOU have to decide what is moral, regardless of how any one feels about it.

No, I don't. The system I've decided on that shows what is moral is clearly very involved with "how any one feels about"... it's based on how others feel about it.

It is a mistake to pit my moral system against your own.

Again, no it's not. How else would I see if my moral system is any good unless I compared it against others? It's actually very important for me to compare my moral system with yours.

Somehow you believe that if you put a title on a book, and then allow others to fill in their thoughts on YOUR subject, then you are not responsible for the project.

I don't know what you're talking about. What I'm saying is that we listen to other people, and we certainly are responsible for how our actions affect them. You're the one saying "regardless of how any one feels..." That's you who's jerking responsibility, not me.

You are actually being very different from most of us who aknowledge that morality is personal and a big part of who we are.

If I'm being very different from people who don't care how they affect others, then I'm certainly glad I'm standing over here.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by anastasia, posted 06-17-2007 1:01 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by anastasia, posted 06-18-2007 12:13 AM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3531
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 125 of 304 (406198)
06-17-2007 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by New Cat's Eye
06-14-2007 10:53 PM


I did miss it..
And I think the main point is this:

Catholic Scientist writes:

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

No, you don't "do nothing", and I don't label it neutral, either. I label it what it is... morally unknown. If we don't know if it was good or bad, then we don't know. We may learn one day. And we can use what we've previously learnt/experienced to make the best decision. But I want to stress that it is still only a hope that we did good.

As soon as we say "it was good", when we actually don't really know... we're then prescribing what is good onto people. And that's what I think is actually very bad.

So, our two ways are more... you say it's good, until you learn it's bad? While I say it's unknown, until I learn it's bad? (Specifically if we think we're doing good, when we're actually not).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-14-2007 10:53 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by anastasia, posted 06-18-2007 12:26 AM Stile has responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4126 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


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


Stile writes:

I don't know what you're talking about. What I'm saying is that we listen to other people, and we certainly are responsible for how our actions affect them. You're the one saying "regardless of how any one feels..." That's you who's jerking responsibility, not me.

So are you telling me that you would stop following your moral system if it bothered someone? Would you stop being nice to people if I asked you to, or are you going to continue regardless of how I feel?

The system I've decided on that shows what is moral is clearly very involved with "how any one feels about"... it's based on how others feel about it.

Well, I hope you are in the right place, and that this thread is showing you how others feel about your system. I have to say that a sytem in which nothing is good until its done and someone appreciates it, is screwing with the whole concept of morality. It's good to help people. Doesn't matter how you go about it. There are always variables, and you can't replicate or predict every situation in life. People don't appreciate things, but if you TRIED to help, their inner feelings don't make good turn to bad any more than black turn to blue. I really, honestly, thought that everyone knew morality was something YOU own, that you do, and that as long as you were true to yourself and your code of honour, that you could be a moral person. Haven't you ever heard someone say "I know I am a good person"? The whole world is saying, 'look, it may not seem like I care, but I really am trying'. You get the few who don't care and don't try...but really, what we are discussing is what we are trying to do. You are trying to increase people's inner feelings, I only asked why.


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

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

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4126 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


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


Re: I did miss it..
Stile writes:

So, our two ways are more... you say it's good, until you learn it's bad? While I say it's unknown, until I learn it's bad? (Specifically if we think we're doing good, when we're actually not).

Yeah, obviously I don't get this either. Feels like you are missing something, or maybe thinking too hard. No one is plugging in a happy feeling for an unknown. We are really looking at things very differently altogether, and maybe it has to do with God subconsciously. CS and I can KNOW something was good because we did it with a good heart and good intentions, and we could have chosen not to care or not to do anything. We believe that God watches our actions, that He knows what we do for others, even if it was the wrong choice or went unnoticed. I would say that without God, I myself would know what I did, and I would feel good about myself for doing it, because I was true to my beliefs and I tried to make someone happy. Being moral is simply following your own honour system, and no one but you can decide or know whether you are fulfilling that.

How 'bout this?

If you increase inner feelings by accident, is that moral, when their was no effort?

If you increase inner feelings for selfish reasons, or to get a rush, is that moral?

I already know you will say 'no' to the second one, which leads me to believe that you are very aware of the personal honour system, but it negates your definition of GOOD = anything which increases inner feelings.


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

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

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4126 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 128 of 304 (406226)
06-18-2007 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Stile
06-17-2007 2:42 PM


Re: A Summary
Stile writes:

The system doesn't have any force to make you do anything, it identifies what's good and bad. So that those who have motivations to do good, can do good without the fear of accidentally doing bad.

It identifies nothing, sorry. I already gave examples of how it can be bad to increase inner feelings.

It's bad to IIF when someone else will be affected.
It's bad to IIF when YOU will feel bad.

My mom will be happy if I go to church.

My husband may be annoyed.

I think it is good to go.

What do I do?

So is it good or bad to go, and how do someone's feelings determine if an action is good or bad? You yourself said they can't.

However, just because someone feels, or thinks, something is good doesn't make it good.

GOOD = anything which IIF.

Now you say, just because someone feels something increases inner feelings, doesn't mean it does. Correct. It is clear that inner feelings have nothing to say about GOOD. They certainly can't help me know if I should go to church or not.

Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Stile, posted 06-17-2007 2:42 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Stile, posted 06-18-2007 2:56 PM anastasia has responded

    
ikabod
Member (Idle past 2666 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 129 of 304 (406235)
06-18-2007 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Stile
06-17-2007 2:42 PM


Re: A Summary
You still haven't even shown that you don't reasonably disagree with them
You can say "I don't agree". And fine. But why? What's wrong with them? You haven't shown why they are invalid opinions. Or even why they aren't universal.

have you not been readying my posts ..?

beings are not all equal and should be treated according to their NEEDS , even if this does not bring them happyness ..

morally good does not equal incresse in inner feelings as we can clearly also IIF by doing bad acts ..

I'm not "avoiding" the choice, the choice is irrelevant to the system, that's all.
?????

morallity is all about MAKING the right choice .. that is why you have dilemma's .. because the choice is difficult to make .

Of course the system didn't make any choices. No one ever said it could. I never said "I have a system that always picks the best answer to any question". I said "I'm proposing a system that will identify what is good and what is bad". And that's exactly what it did. Even the options which contained both good and bad in them.

if your system does not pick the best how can it id good from bad .. is the best not the most good ??

and you are avoiding the "choice" by trying to breakdown the dilammes into parts , this is real life you can not do that they a single self contained events .. the boat WILL sink , you have to chosse who will die ,engine room crew or passaengers , there is no get out , pick .. who dies ...

The system doesn't have any force to make you do anything, it identifies what's good and bad. So that those who have motivations to do good, can do good without the fear of accidentally doing bad.

no it does not id good from bad .. all your rules do is validate your veiw of what is good ..AND you then limit it to where you claim you know all the condistions ..

you go OUT to dinner with your dad .. taking the last free table .. the person who cant gat a table the get into a rage ,crashs his car kill five people .. all because you wanted to IIF of your dad .. so your action was bad .. you where selfish in putting you dads inner feelings above other , you quite reasonablie could have realised the restarent would fill up on fathers day , and failing to get a table would be a major stress event , you did not think of others equal rights to happiness ...

Now the above is just silly ..you do not have godlike powers to foresee all outcomes .. thus you cas not see if a act is good or bad .. even with you set of rules .. so you rules become meaningless , except as a way or reinforcing views you already have .
which as the topic shows are not the same as others and not universal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Stile, posted 06-17-2007 2:42 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Stile, posted 06-18-2007 3:25 PM ikabod has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3531
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 130 of 304 (406269)
06-18-2007 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by anastasia
06-18-2007 12:13 AM


If you're not changing, you're not trying.
anastasia writes:

So are you telling me that you would stop following your moral system if it bothered someone?


Not at all.

But... I'd stop an action that affects someone if it bothers them. Which is the sole point of the entire system.

Even if I think opening doors for people is good... if I learn that some people don't want doors opened for them, then I won't. That's all I'm saying.

I have to say that a sytem in which nothing is good until its done and someone appreciates it, is screwing with the whole concept of morality.

I agree, sounds pretty crappy.
It's a good thing I've said nothing of the sort.

It's good to help people. Doesn't matter how you go about it.

But this is the problem. It certainly does matter how you go about it. It's people who "think they're doing good" for others, who generally cause the most evil of all. Once someone sets their mind that "this is always good to do for other people"... that's the kind of thinking that leads to hurting people.

People don't appreciate things, but if you TRIED to help, their inner feelings don't make good turn to bad any more than black turn to blue.

Sure they do.

Like Catholic Scientist's and my Blind Man example.

1. It's good to open doors for blind people.
2. Some blind people are curious-puzzle-lovers and hate it when doors are opened for them.
3. It's not good to open doors for all blind people. It's good to open doors for most blind people, but leave them closed for the curious puzzle-lovers.

We've tried to help... opening doors for blind people.
Curious-puzzle-lover's inner-feelings turned this action from good to bad. It's bad to open doors for curious-puzzle-loving blind people.

I really, honestly, thought that everyone knew morality was something YOU own, that you do, and that as long as you were true to yourself and your code of honour, that you could be a moral person.

Only the self-righteous, close-minded, stuck-up, holier-than-thou people. But yes, I agree that there's lots of people who think this.

The whole world is saying, 'look, it may not seem like I care, but I really am trying'.

If they aren't learning, and changing, and adapting. Then they're not really trying.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by anastasia, posted 06-18-2007 12:13 AM anastasia has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3531
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 131 of 304 (406270)
06-18-2007 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by anastasia
06-18-2007 12:26 AM


Motivation and Action are seperate
anastasia writes:

No one is plugging in a happy feeling for an unknown.


Actually, that's exactly what you are doing.

..because I was true to my beliefs and I tried to make someone happy.

Trying doesn't make something so. Are you saying it's impossible to try to do good, and actually do something bad?

Being moral is simply following your own honour system, and no one but you can decide or know whether you are fulfilling that.

Ridiculous. If that was being moral, than everyone who's ever lived has been "moral" an there'd be no such thing as "immoral". Obviously the word exists. What does it mean to you? If someone's going against your system? So everyone in the world is constantly being equally moral and immoral at the same time?

If you increase inner feelings by accident, is that moral, when their was no effort?

I consider it a morally good action, yes. One with no motivation, but still good.

If you increase inner feelings for selfish reasons, or to get a rush, is that moral?

It certainly is still a morally good action. The motivations could just be for better reasons. This gets into the value of good, what's better good, or worse good. I don't really want to start discussing that, but for a brief layout of my thoughts:

Good motive, good action = best (very good, "pure" good?)
Bad motive, good action = good
Good motive, bad action = bad
Bad motive, bad action = worst (very bad, evil)

..but it negates your definition of GOOD = anything which increases inner feelings.

Must I say this is every post...

I'm NOT saying Morally Good = anything that increases the inner feelings of anyone.

I'm being very specific in saying:

Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by anastasia, posted 06-18-2007 12:26 AM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by anastasia, posted 06-19-2007 8:40 PM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3531
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 132 of 304 (406271)
06-18-2007 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by anastasia
06-18-2007 12:38 AM


Re: A Summary
anastasia writes:

It identifies nothing, sorry. I already gave examples of how it can be bad to increase inner feelings.


And I already explained how you were confused or not arguing agaisn't what I was saying.

It's bad to IIF when someone else will be affected.

Are you talking about when someone ignores another's equal rights, and so we in-turn ignore their rights? Yes, we talked about it, and it's even the very reason I added the whole "beings are equal" bit to Message 97

It's bad to IIF when YOU will feel bad.

It is bad to increase someone elses inner-feelings if YOU will feel bad? Why would that possibly be?

That doesn't seem to make sense to me. So... matyr-dom is always bad and wrong? Sacrificing yourself to help another is bad? That doesn't seem to make any sense. It's certainly nothing I've said.

My mom will be happy if I go to church.

My husband may be annoyed.

I think it is good to go.

What do I do?


-----should be deleted-----
You decide.
It will be morally good towards your mom for you to go.
It will be morally bad towards your mom for you to not go.
It will be morally bad towards your husband for you to go.
It will be morally good towards your husband for you to not go.

Make your choice.

No where have I ever said this moral system makes any decisions for you. I've only ever said that it identifies what is good and what is bad. It's certainly simple for an action to be good towards some people, and bad towards others. These sorts of actions happen everyday.
-----should be deleted-----

--------added by edit--------
My apologies, please disregard the previous explanation. I got hung up on "your mom's feelings increasing" that I forgot to identify the action in the first place. Your mom and husaband can think whatever they want. The action is "going to church". No one's getting affected by it. The action is morally neutral.
If you want to go to church, go to church.
If you don't want to go to church, don't go to church. Just because someone thinks it's good or bad, doesn't make it so.

Nowhere have I ever said this moral system makes any decisions for you. I've only ever said that it identifies what IS good and what IS bad. It's certainly simple for an action to be CONSIDERED good by some people, and CONSIDERED bad by others. It is also possible for the same action (opening doors, for example) to be good for some people, and bad for others.
--------added by edit--------

Now you say, just because someone feels something increases inner feelings, doesn't mean it does. Correct. It is clear that inner feelings have nothing to say about GOOD. They certainly can't help me know if I should go to church or not.

Context anastasia... context.

If action A affects being A... and does not affect being B, it doesn't matter what being B feels, thinks, or cares about action A. The morality of action A is dependent on how being A reacts.

It just wouldn't seem right if you could actually get through a reply without forcing me to repeat:

Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon

Edited by Stile, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by anastasia, posted 06-18-2007 12:38 AM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by anastasia, posted 06-19-2007 8:09 PM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3531
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 133 of 304 (406272)
06-18-2007 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by ikabod
06-18-2007 4:17 AM


Re: A Summary
have you not been readying my posts ..?

Yes, thoroughly. But if you'd like to go through the re-buttles one more time, we'll do so.

beings are not all equal and should be treated according to their NEEDS , even if this does not bring them happyness ..

Why? Without explaining why, this is simply the same as your "green hat" example. We can say anything we want. It's the reasons and support that matter.

I've already shown that helping the needy/under-developed IS treating them equally with respect to their pursuit of life and happiness.

Why should we treat people unequally (with respect to pursuit of life and happiness) if they don't want us to? Or, "if it won't bring them happiness"? How can this be a basic principle for doing anything resembling "good"?

morally good does not equal incresse in inner feelings as we can clearly also IIF by doing bad acts ..

You're not talking about what we're supposed to be talking about again. I've already told you, I'm NOT saying Morally Good = anything that increases the inner-feelings of anyone. I'm saying:

Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon

Now, if person B happens to like it when someone else does action A to hurt being A. It doesn't matter, person B isn't being acted upon and therefore isn't considered when figuring out if the action is morally good.

morallity is all about MAKING the right choice .. that is why you have dilemma's .. because the choice is difficult to make .

Yes. It sure is. Some choices are difficult. Some choices we don't have enough information. It may very well be that there is no "morally good" choice to some situations. How does this invalidate anything?

if your system does not pick the best how can it id good from bad .. is the best not the most good ??

You're talking about most good. I've never said this system identifies any value to good things. It just shows if it's good rather than bad. Sure helping a lady across the street is good. Is it better to help an even older lady? What about a younger one who's injured?
Value is subjective. I'm not touching that topic.
What's good and bad can be objective. And I'm proposing that, to most of the world that agrees with my stated principles, this system is why.

no it does not id good from bad .. all your rules do is validate your veiw of what is good

No, it validates the principles it's based on. The principles you still have yet to show why they aren't good. Or even why any significant portion of the world doesn't consider them good.

..AND you then limit it to where you claim you know all the condistions ..

I don't limit it. That's thy way it is. If:

Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon

...then how can we possibly know if it's good or bad if we don't know how the inner-feelings of the being acted upon were affected?

the person who cant gat a table the get into a rage ,crashs his car kill five people .. all because you wanted to IIF of your dad .. so your action was bad .. you where selfish in putting you dads inner feelings above other , you quite reasonablie could have realised the restarent would fill up on fathers day , and failing to get a table would be a major stress event , you did not think of others equal rights to happiness ...

Yup.
Should have judged the poor fellow better, and I could have saved those 5 people's lives.

How is it not bad that I didn't save their lives when I could have?

Why does the fact that "shit happens" in this world make you think it resolves everyone from any form of responsibility?

Now, I'd argue that the guy who actually directly killed these 5 people had quite a bit more responsibility... but how does that reduce my responsibility to 0?

..you do not have godlike powers to foresee all outcomes .. thus you cas not see if a act is good or bad .. even with you set of rules .. so you rules become meaningless

Are you actually arguing that because we're unable to have all the information for all scenarios.. the rules themselves are meaningless? Even when the rules work extremely well for any situation where we do have enough information? :) Now that's silly.

So, tell me than. What's the moral system you use in order to solve all these scenario's perfectly? Trust me, if your system's better than mine, I'll switch today.

What is good to you?

Why do you do good?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by ikabod, posted 06-18-2007 4:17 AM ikabod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by ikabod, posted 06-19-2007 4:57 AM Stile has responded

    
ikabod
Member (Idle past 2666 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 134 of 304 (406313)
06-19-2007 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Stile
06-18-2007 3:25 PM


Re: A Summary
beings are not equal this is a clear fact .. look at any sport you pick .. treating them as equal is artificial and you have no method of doing so .. if you give charity to the poor , what do you give to the rich ? you cant give everyone the equal right to happyness as they cant all marry the same movie star ,have the same yatch and live in the same palace ..

IF you give people what they NEED you most likey will not make them happy , BUT you are targeting your efforts and resocrces where they will have the best effect .... ie give the poor good quality food and health care , not cash grants they can spend , as they please on HD TV and DVD systems , EVEN though HD TV makes them happy , where are vitiam E suppliments does not .

morally good act .. i take away you cocane( drug of you choice) ... your inner feelings are reducced ...

OK now "prove" you statements to be valid ..

I've never said this system identifies any value to good things. It just shows if it's good rather than bad.

Oh so you are saying good and bad are absolutes , something cant be quite good , just good or bad .. there can be a good , goodest and bad and badest choice , just good and bad .. in that case PICK ships engine crew or passanges .. there is only good and bad which one is the good one ?

No, it validates the principles it's based on. The principles you still have yet to show why they aren't good. Or even why any significant portion of the world doesn't consider them good.

no they are your chossen statements , not principles , and i have shown rule 1 is not based in reality .. it might sound good , but its as valid as saying .. all have the right to live forever .. that would be a nice(good) thing to allow people to do .. but you cant do it in reality .. just as you cant make or even treat then equally .. you do not spend equal time earning money to feed you family as you do to feed the starving peoples of the world ..you do not take some one elses father out for a fathers day meal , or even a man with no children , you only look after your own father .. you treat people unequally , you have little choice in this .. its how the world works .
rule 2 incresse in inner feallings simple does not define a morally good act .. see cocane above ..

...then how can we possibly know if it's good or bad if we don't know how the inner-feelings of the being acted upon were affected?

and thats the whole point you cant KNOW .... all you can do is guess and hope , reguardless of what rules you make up to justifie you views ... or you can have belief and faith in a fixed moral system , with clearly defined good and bad handed to you by some "outside ,higher power" , and here you are not asked to reason what is good or bad it is given to you as absolutes.

What's the moral system you use in order to solve all these scenario's perfectly? Trust me, if your system's better than mine, I'll switch today.

i use my best judgement and honesty ( well i try very hard to ) and i accept that i can and do make mistakes .. i do not cloak my actions in labels of good or bad .. but in labels of what i think and feel is the correct thing to do , and that i can defend that action when asked with reasons ... not with cos its the "good" thing to do, or cos its on page 123 . and yes those reasons may be contradictory for different events .

ok the dilemas

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 ..

No , i do not have the right to allow the legacy of those killed to be used in any way the could open the door for justifing such crimes .

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

save the mother she has more connections to other people in the world , and so more would be effected by her death .

lie so he is locked up , given the chance to protect other i feel its a moral duty to act even if it places myself is some degree of harm .

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.
not to it .. to do it is a clear act of agression ,agression breeds agression , you may also kill other who are not to blame ,and you have no certainy of killing the warlord

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 ?
you order the engine room crew to remain .. they are part of the ships crew and have a duty to protect the passengers evn if this endangwers themselves

NOTE these are my answers , my views , i do not claim they are good or bad .. but as correct as i can come up with .

Are there 100% correct answers i dont know .. just as i dont know if there are absolute good answers .

life does not come with look up tables .. only religions do that ...

Edited by ikabod, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Stile, posted 06-18-2007 3:25 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Stile, posted 06-19-2007 3:06 PM ikabod has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3531
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 135 of 304 (406368)
06-19-2007 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by ikabod
06-19-2007 4:57 AM


More clarification
beings are not equal this is a clear fact .. look at any sport you pick .. treating them as equal is artificial and you have no method of doing so .. if you give charity to the poor , what do you give to the rich ? you cant give everyone the equal right to happyness as they cant all marry the same movie star ,have the same yatch and live in the same palace ..

You're mixing up so many different ideals here.

First off, treating people equally with respect to their right to life and pursuit of happiness does not mean:

-providing everyone with everything they want (or even need) equally
-people aren't different

It does mean:

-not getting in anyone's way when they are simply pursuing their own life or happiness.

It's not pro-active "treating other people".
It's basically just "not getting in the way" of others just because "you don't like" what they're doing. That's it.
When I say "people are equal and deserve equal rights to the pursuit of life and happiness" I simply mean:

Don't prevent anyone's pursuit of life or happiness if it doesn't abuse anyone elses pursuit of life or happiness.

That's it.

Not "give everyone equal amounts of wealth". Although this is treating others equally in a strict-literal sense of the phrase, it's not what anyone means when they talk about it during morality conversations.

Oh so you are saying good and bad are absolutes , something cant be quite good , just good or bad .. there can be a good , goodest and bad and badest choice , just good and bad .. in that case PICK ships engine crew or passanges .. there is only good and bad which one is the good one ?

Not at all. I'm not denying the existance of values on good and bad. I'm just saying this system doesn't touch any of that. All it simply does is identify good and bad. Ships crew and passengers... each choice has good and bad aspects to it. Do you deny that observation? It seems relatively obvious. That my system correctly depicts each choice containing both good and bad seems to be in it's favour. If it didn't, than something's obviously wrong with it.

and i have shown rule 1 is not based in reality

No you haven't. You've shown that your straw-man arguement to rule 1 isn't based in reality. Of course it's ridiculous to attempt to fulfill everyone's needs/wants/desires equally. That's not what rule #1 is saying. Rule #1 is simply saying not to impede anyone elses attempts for their own needs/wants/desires equally. Why can't we do that in reality?

rule 2 incresse in inner feallings simple does not define a morally good act .. see cocane above ..

Why is removing someone's cocaine a morally good action? What if that person lives a solitary life, and all they want to do is use cocain. They obtain it on their own, without harming anyone else or breaking any laws, they use it without harming anyone else or breaking any laws, and they want to get high and be left alone.

Removing their cocaine IS a morally bad thing. Why do you think you should get to decide if someone should use cocaine or not?

Then again, what if the person wants you to remove their cocaine? That would certainly be increasing their inner-feelings. And would certainly be a good thing.

Your scenario proves nothing until you describe why you think it's morally good. I've certainly said why I think things have been morally good in each and every scenario I've proposed.

I agree that plenty of people "think" it might be good. But that proves nothing as well. My sister thinks it's morally good to get out of bed on the right side in the morning instead of the left. Does that make it so? Of course it doesn't.

and here you are not asked to reason what is good or bad it is given to you as absolutes.

You're still just hoping it was given to you correctly, and by the correct "God-like being". My system doesn't rely on hope to identify good and bad. And it identifies good and bad very well, too.

do not cloak my actions in labels of good or bad .. but in labels of what i think and feel is the correct thing to do , and that i can defend that action when asked with reasons ...

Sure, call it whatever you'd like. Names don't really make a difference. And what reasons do you use? Why is opening a door for a blind person good? Why is leaving a door shut for a curious-puzzle-loving blind person still good? I note that you haven't given your answer, only stated that you "have" an answer.

No , i do not have the right to allow the legacy of those killed to be used in any way the could open the door for justifing such crimes.

So there's a girl dying, and a book on the counter has the info to help her. All you have to do is open it up and help her live. You don't. She dies. I'm sorry, your system doesn't sound good at all to me... letting innocent girls die.

save the mother she has more connections to other people in the world , and so more would be effected by her death .

Actually, it was a single mother, no family left, no friends, and she was terminally ill (miraculously not affecting the baby) anyway. She dies the next day. The baby had a foster family waiting for it to take care of it and give it a full life where it would meet lots of friends and do many great things.
That sounds bad too. Your system fails again.

lie so he is locked up , given the chance to protect other i feel its a moral duty to act even if it places myself is some degree of harm

Actually, he did reform after his last jail-term. You locked away an innocent man, just for your own "moral duty". Doesn't sound good at all.

not to it .. to do it is a clear act of agression ,agression breeds agression , you may also kill other who are not to blame ,and you have no certainy of killing the warlord

You don't do it. The warlord goes into hiding never to allow anyone the chance to stop him again. He continues his ways, kills more than 50 million people using nuclear force and actually rapes babies in his cave. Your moral system sounds devestatingly useless. I'm happy you sleep at night, though.

you order the engine room crew to remain .. they are part of the ships crew and have a duty to protect the passengers evn if this endangwers themselves.

Huh... just so happens it turns out that one of your engine crew-guys held the papers to end the war. The ship goes down, the papers lost with the engine-crew guy. The war continues and millions more perish needlessly. Your hollow moral system fails again.

NOTE these are my answers , my views , i do not claim they are good or bad .. but as correct as i can come up with .

I agree. And I'd probably make very similar personal decisions. But... we're not talking about personal decisions. We're talking about moral systems and what IS good and bad.

I'm not saying that any of the answers you gave to any of those situations are wrong. I'm just pointing out that you're doing exactle what we're all doing... trying to do what's good.

But... how do we know if we're actually getting any closer, or even doing any "good" while we're trying? What is "good"? How are we attempting to do it if we can't even define it? Those are the questions this system answers. And so far, the answers seem to even co-incide with your own.

Especially choosing the mother over the child. You assume she'll have "more connections to other people". Other people who's inner-feelings will increase when they learn she's still alive.

Are there 100% correct answers i dont know .. just as i dont know if there are absolute good answers .

Agreed.

life does not come with look up tables .. only religions do that ...

Absolutely agreed. I'm so very glad my moral system is not a "look-up" table. It leaves so many chances for people to corrupt such systems.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by ikabod, posted 06-19-2007 4:57 AM ikabod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by ikabod, posted 06-20-2007 3:42 AM Stile has responded

    
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019