Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others

Did I say that?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.Why does everyone want a definition that allows for a person to never actually "do" bad?
Isn't that what accidents are? When we do bad, even though we didn't mean to?
It's still bad.
I see no reason to sugar-coat this.To me, good = morally good. What's the difference between "good" and "morally good" when talking about morality?I can see the difference between "a B+ on a test is good" and "trying to be nice is morally good".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. Technically, I certainly do account for this. I'm just not trying to do so here, because it's another topic completely. Remember when we talked about this:Good Motive, Good Action = Best (pure?) Good
Bad Motive, Good Action = Good
Good Motive, Bad Action = Bad
Bad Motive, Bad Action = Worst (evil?) BadThe system I'm describing here does not cover this, though. But that's because it's not supposed to. What it's supposed to do is propose a foundation for what good is.And that's what it does. Want to talk motives? We can do that somewhere else... I thought that increase and positive was becoming redundant. Perhaps it wasn't. Remember, the system doesn't monitor anyone's inner-feelings, only the inner-feelings of the person being acted upon. So... how does making fun of people increase the inner-feeilngs of the people you're making fun of?

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. Like this. I agree totally with what you're saying. I just wouldn't word it that way. I'd say "you aren't responsible for her being hit if you were just trying to help". 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.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")I mean... did someone push the piano? Then wouldn't that be their morally bad action? Or maybe it was a poor-constuction job of the building... wouldn't that be morally bad on the site-approval-guy? Or maybe the piano was 100 years old, the building was 150 years old and shit just happens...So, I wouldn't say "You aren't morally responsible for her being hit if you were just trying to help her." So much as "You aren't morally responsible for any affect you didn't cause". Sort of thing.I think we agree on the results... maybe just differ in how we're getting there? 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... : My head's hurting. I think I may be just about done posting in this thread for now. 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? That they were "morally good" in doing a bad thing? I guess I just find that terminology confusing.I would say they were morally bad, although accidentally, and now they know better, and now they can correct themselves.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? 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". I guess I'm worried more about how others are affected than about a person's motivations?I dunno... if a guy wants everyone to die, and thinks that "being nice and helping others" will actually accomplish that... and he lives his entire life "being nice and helping others", and no one ever dies (even though that's his reason for doing so... hoping for that...) ....I dunno, I'd still call that "good".But still, we both agree that "wanting everyone to die" is a bad motivation, and "being nice and helping others" is a good action... we just disagree on what to call the whole scenario?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... we all know no one says "morally good", they just say "they were good, they were trying...". Theoretically, I can understand how this makes sense. It's just that calling a bad action "morally good" can get confusing, expecially if it's shortened to just being "good" in the practical world.I dunno. I think, once again CS, we've found the heart of our difference of opinion. 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. 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 because, well, to me... there's a chance that's all there's going to be. Agreed, yes. That's exactly what the "positive" was in there for. I suppose I should put it back in.

Fully agreed.I'd also point out that this doesn't change what "being good" is at all

Recognizing what you were saying is the easy part. I recognized what you (and others) were saying as soon as you said it. I just don't think it's correct at all. And I've yet to hear any support for it, even. I'm still pretty sure the only definitions put forwards so far for "what IS good" are the one I've provided:Morally Good = an action that positively increases the inner-feelings of the being acted uponor this one:Morally Good = anything anyone thinks is good

Thank-you for the definition. It certainly is workable. But, I do not think you actually follow it. If you don't claim to KNOW what IS good, than why are you telling me that what I'm saying IS good is wrong? How do you know I'm wrong, if you claim you don't know what's right? Agreed. And my system works 100% with this ideal. Right. I think this is the 3rd time I've agreed with this now...
So, you still haven't told me what's wrong with what I've decided is good. Why is an action that positively increases the internal-feelings of the being acted upon not morally good? This is the same thing Catholic Scientist and I are talking about.
I agree with your thoughts completely. I'd just call them different things. Ordering the engine crew to die isn't "morally good", it's "the best option available" or maybe "the correct choice". For the exact reasons you listed above. But, it's still "morally bad" to order those crewmen to die against their will. Or, at least, I think it is. And you also haven't given me a reason why it's not.
Perhaps they all agree with the decision and it's actually not "morally bad", even within my system. But, practically, I'm willing to bet that at least one of those crew-men will panic and leave their post and be useless and still try to escape the sinking ship. And I think killing that person is "morally bad". I've never described such a world. Or even implied that we live in such a one. No, why should I? Why can't I just ask the people here I affect? You still haven't explained why this doesn't work. You still haven't said why an action that positively increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon is not morally good.Well, you have actually, but so far your reason is "because ikabod says so". Well, that just doesn't cut it for me. This is a problem though. Can't you see? You just erased the usefulness of the word "bad". Everyone does "what they think is good". So everyone, always, is morally good? That just doesn't seem to fit with "the real world".When the guy in WWII threw the lever on the gas chamber to kill hundreds of innocent people... he thought he was doing good. He was morally good, then? When his leader told him to do it, and told 100 other men to kill 100x more of those hundreds of innocent people... he thought he was doing good. He was morally good, then? When Hitler ordered these leaders to do it, he thought he was doing good. Hitler was morally good, then? But that's the point. What are you judging when you're using "your best judgement" what do you use in "your best judgement" to identify if you should be repeating something or not?I don't think the important words are "trying". People "try" all the time. Some of the worst people in history have "tried" to do what they think is good. I think the important words are "your best judgement" and when that is equivalent to "whatever the hell I think" than I don't think we're doing good anymore.You say:
We need to TRY to use our best judgement to deliver the best act and outcome we can.
...and that the TRY part is important. So lets read it as:We need to TRY to use "whatever the hell I think" to deliever the best act and outcome we can....no longer really sounds all that good. So, is the "TRY" part really the most important aspect? I don't think so. Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying. But this is exactly what I'm saying too. I'm just explaining that "best judgement" relys on the information that we can gather about the whole preceeding quote. When we pin down "best judgement" we take away the ability for bad people to corrupt other people who just want to do good. When we leave "best judgement" undefined and waffling in the air... we leave wide, gaping openings for evil people to take advantage of good people and to get them to rally together and do evil things the whole time they actually think they're trying to do good.

Heh... catching the loop-holes I'm creating, eh? No, I do not consider tornados or other natural phenomenas morally bad. Although I do admit that a strict reading of:Morally Good = an action that positively increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon...would have that as a strict-logical conclusion.I'm mainly talking about people's actions though, but was trying to keep it general enough so that it could include animals and other intelligent-enough creatures. I suppose that was too general, though. How to put that into words? What about this:Morally Good = an action initiated by a being that positively increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon.

I think I was getting confused with an action not having been started by a being, and an action where "we just don't know" who initiated it.I agree that, say, the lady getting killed by an earthquake isn't morally bad. And, perhaps, the piano killing her is also not morally bad (if somehow un-caused by a being). But, if it so happens that the piano is pushed by some other person, than it would be morally bad (obviously). Which is where the "responsibility = ?" came from.I suppose the piano was a bad choice here (I think I picked it? I can't remember...) because I find it hard to believe that the piano fell on it's own. Generally someone would be at fault for a piano falling out of a building, although we may not be able to know who. I agree with this too. I think the piano-scenario caused confusion because I was assuming someone was behind the piano. Change "the unknown piano death" to "natural lightning strike death" and I agree with you.So, getting back to the point:Helping an old lady across the street and having her die from a natural lightning strike (which nicely misses us, I suppose...), I still consider two actions:Helping lady cross street -> Morally Good
Lady dying from lightning -> Morally Neutral (or, even... not morally considered... Morally N/A? ) Yes. Our difference is here. Your "motivational approach" renders this Morally Neutral. Where my "reactional approach" renders this Morally Bad, but an accident.I don't really see too much of a difference.
I would say my definition is harsh on the person responsible for the action. As in, calling them "bad" instead of "neutral". Although, really, we both agree it was an accident.
I would also say that my definition will be more motivational for corrective action. As in, people are more motivated not to be "bad" rather than not being "neutral". I do too. I just put the "motivational" aspect as secondary to the "reactionary" aspect. The motivation, I find more personal. The reaction is what's actually affecting the other people... that's what I put the importance on. I'm not saying motivation doesn't exist, I'm just saying it's not the deciding factor. And, well, I suppose you're saying the same thing but vice-versa? Yeah, that's basically the kind of thinking that started me down this road a long time ago. So, if the motivation can't be used on it's own, what's used in conjuction? I kept following this line of thought and came to the conclusion that motivation is completely secondary.
Are you proposing that motivation and reaction can be used in some sort of weighted equality? One being used more sometimes, and another being used more in other situations? The idea appeals to me, but I find it too hard to nail down and get an objective sense about it. Things like going to church?
Or things like opening doors for blind folks who don't know you're opening doors for them?I don't see how going to church is morally good or not.And I still think my system works fine for the blind-guy.
I may not know I'm doing good. But, well, if there's a God sorting it all out in the end, I'm fine anyway, right?
Plus, it keeps me from falling into the trap of assuming that all blind people want doors opened for them....I know opening doors for blind-people is a rather boring concept, but I think the ideal expands for larger, more important topics rather nicely. That is, I like the idea that I'm staying away from telling other people what's "good" for them.

Now, how do you propose that we change them? With my proposal, I suggest that it removes the ability for "attempting to be good" people to sway others to do what "they think will be good", when they're actually doing nothing but bad. Situations like passionate zealotry which persuade people into believing that killing others is actually good.If good and bad can be made objective, can't we then prevent the corruption of using "good" for evil purposes?

I wouldn't call that morality. I'd simply call that motivation. Which is a part of moraltiy, but only a secondary part (or so I argue, anyway). Unless, of course, that creed tells you to use your reason or judgement to discover how moral the action was. Exactly. Why is that? If the reason is not "because it positively increases her inner-feelings", that what is the reason(s)? You don't lose your sight of why you do those acts if the system is based on figuring out why you do them.
And I'm not hoping the system is fool-proof or incoruptable. In fact, that's a big part of why I started this thread. So far, no one's been able to tell me a big problem with it yet. But can't you see the stalemate this creates?Morally Good = trying to do whatever we think is good
Person A: Morally Good = trying to do whatever person A thinks is good
Person B: Morally Good = trying to do whatever person B thinks is goodPerson A thinks it's good to help old ladies across the street.
Person B thinks it's good to let old ladies enjoy what (possibly)little independance they have left, and cross the street on their own.Who's right?
We purely followed the system, so, what are we missing?
What's the "common sense" that tells us that some old ladies are going to want help, and some are going to want to be left alone? Why is the answer not "whatever that particular old-lady wants"? How? If morally good = whatever we think is good... isn't that just easy? What's so hard about it?

I agree with what your talking about here, although I'd say it differently. But, remember, we're talking about what we do call good and what we do call bad, and why we call them that. We should change in order to live as harmoniously as we can with each other.If everyone was just "being themselves", there certainly would be a lot of confusion as to when one being can be "themself" and impose their actions onto another.I agree that no one can "be good" all the time. But what's wrong with "trying to be good" all the time? Certainly such a thing is possible? Are you saying that just because we can't be perfect, than we may as well give up and not care either way? Sounds like an extreme waste of possible talent to me. I'm saying we can't be perfect, but we can try to be as close to perfection as possible. I'm also saying that what I've proposed objectively defines a system that everyone can use to attain such a thing.So far, no one has offered any better alternative. Some have claimed they have one, but still can't define it explicitly. Which is, sort of required. ...if you want to convince anyone that you do indeed have such an alternative, anyway.Personally, I'd be happy if anyone could provide a better alternative. It would give me the opportunity to learn how to be a better person... which is something I am interested in.

More succinctly, I say:Morally Good = an action by a being that positively increases the inner-feelings of the being acted uponYou still have yet to explain any reason why that is not true. Yes, you say a lot of things, repeatedly. You still have yet to explain why it is that way. Other than "because ikabod says so". I explain it my way because it is an objective system that everyone can use to judge all situations equally. Actually, no. For the same reason why tornado's and natural events that cause decreases in inner-feelings (killing people, even) aren't Morally Bad.I've clarified the statement a few posts ago to:Morally Good = an action by a being that positively increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon Agreed. However, I would argue that a reasoning maching can. Although I do not know of any.For clarification... "being" is meant to describe any existing thing that is capable of making reasoned decisions. In order to not stray off-topic, I suggest we limit our discussion to just people. After all, you still haven't explained why a person who acts on another person and increases their inner-feelings isn't doing a morally good thing. Disregarding the robot... yes, all those acts are morally good, assuming the old lady wanted to be helped across the street, anyway.Again, you're still basically saying that a bad-motivation makes an action morally bad. And I still disagree for the same reason. What is of most importance here is the results of the action. That is, lets show 4 possibilities:1. Good motivation, Good action:
I want to help the lady cross the street.
I help the lady cross the street.
The lady is thankful and pleased.2. Bad motivation, Good action:
I get $50 for every lady I help cross the street.
I help the lady cross the street.
The lady is thankful and pleased.3. Good motivation, Bad action:
I want to help the lady cross the street.
I help the lady cross the street.
The lady didn't even want to cross the street.
The lady is pissed off.4. Bad motivation, bad action:
I want to piss of the lady.
I throw the lady across the street.
The lady didn't want to cross the street, or get thrown.
The lady is pissed off.I think we both agree that 1 is morally good, and 4 is morally bad.
So what about 2 and 3?I say 2 is morally good because the lady is pleased.
I say 3 is morally bad because the lady is pissed.You say 2 is morally bad (or neutral?) because we were being selfish?
You say 3 is morally good (or neutral?) because we were trying to be good?But we can be selfish and do a lot of good things.
What if we loved when people thanked us?
What if we craved it and only ever did good things in order to be thanked?
What if we spent our entire life making others happy, helping our community, feeding the sick, sheltering the homeless and using up every last dollar we earned to try to make life better for other people?
Would you seriously call that life "bad"?
So, when is being selfish "good"? When is it "bad"? Your thoughts need more explaining.We can also try to be good, and do lots of bad things.
Again, the easy example is Hitler. He was trying to do good. Hitler was doing what Hitler thought was best for everyone. I think we both agree that he did quite a lot of bad.
Would you seriously call that "good", just because he was trying?
So, when is trying to be good "good"? When is it "bad"? Your thoughts need more explaining.My system gets past these confusions. It makes sure "good" and "bad" are incorruptible.I admit that there are better and worse motivations, and agree that good motivations are best. But it's our difference of opinion on what to call "accidents" that's at the centre of this. Your way of thinking about accidents allows "good" and "bad" to be corrupted to the point of, well, Hitler thinking he was good. My way of thinking about accidents prevents such confusion. No, I perform acts when I think I should perform them.
The system just tells me if what I perfomed was good, or if it was bad. Which are all another way of saying:"increase the inner-feelings of the being acted upon". You're talking motivations here. I'm explicitly saying that motivations are secondary. It's what you call "the by product" of her inner-feelings being increased that matter. Exactly. "Helping the old lady" is equivalent to "increasing the inner-feelings of the old lady". I'm just saying it in more general-terms in order to encompass other scenarios as well.And we're also discussing the difference between wanting to help her, and actually helping her.You're saying wanting to help her is most important. I'm saying actually helping her is most important. Real life is tricky. Which is exactly why we can't decide when helping others is good or not. Helping others is only good if the "others" wanted to be helped. Than you agree, we can't say what is right or wrong for others from what we think.Morally Good IS NOT EQUAL TO "what we think is good".We need to ASK others in order to find out. That's all I've been saying, from the very beginning.Morally Good = an action by a being that positively increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon.Or, in layman's terms:Morally Good = asking others how to help, and doing that.Which is exactly what you just explained.

I agree, but why did you leave out the actual outcome? Just because we can't 100% predict it? But we can 100% analyze it, after it's happened. And we can learn from it, and we can adjust our motives and intentions.That's what I'm arguing is the most important factor for being Morally Good:Finding out what's actually helping/hurting other people, and correcting yourself so that you can increase your helping, and decrease your hurting.It's just that the term "helping others" can be easily corrupted to mean "what I think is (or want to be) helping others" instead of the intended "what actually does help others".Hence, I've replaced it with "positively increasing the inner-feelings of others" which quite explicitly states that it's how the other person is affected that is the important issue.
I could also change this to "actually, truely, really helping others".. but you see how implicitly it must be stated here? I agree with you. And if we were starting with a clean-slate of humanity, I'd agree that this is what we should be pushing for. But, in reality, every person does have "their notion of good" and "their notion of bad". I think it would be more productive to invest our time appealing to their reason to alter their notions slightly rather than erase them completely. I don't think many people would go for "don't be good or bad anymore, just be". I also think that evil-people would likely take advantage of such a situation. We'ed end up right where we are now.Now -> "Oh, sorry, I was trying to be good..."
After -> "Oh, sorry, I was just 'being'..."My system eliminates this excuse, and focuses on the problem (evil people taking advantage of others, under the guise of "good intentions"). And also slides in nicely with everyone's already existing notions of "good" and "bad". Or, so I hope, anyway

Yes, it's clearly understood that any given person can have their own concept of morality, what is right and what is wrong. I mean, any person could have their own concept of pretty much anything. I would never argue otherwise. Included in the definition you've provided is also that what you think is "morality" is not morality, but only your version of it. It states that everyone only has "their version" of morality. Which is exactly the problem that my system deals with. It provides an objective view of what is morally good and morally bad. Right. And Hitler felt it would be good behaviour to do what he did with what he knew and believed about life.
Therefore Hitler's actions and mass murders were Morally Good.I really don't like your definition of Morally Good. Why? The quote you just put up states that religion is not morality, only sometimes a part of it. God is not needed for morality, certainly not mine, and certainly not an objective system that everyone can use to determine whether or not they are doing good things.I would say the only problem is that you call every evil action ever committed in the history of this world "Morally Good".Hitler killing Jews? Oh, he was doing what he thought was best... Morally Good.
Christian Crusades? Oh, they were doing what they thought was best... Morally Good.
A man raping an innocent child? Oh, he's just doing what he thinks is best... Morally Good.I really, really don't respect that definition of Morally Good. With the definition you provided from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy... nothing does.With my definition, etiquette is morally good when an action of etiquette by a being positively increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon. Otherwise, it'll generally be morally neutral, or "not a moral action". Unless, of course, your etiquette is to scalp visitors (or any other action which would decrease the inner-feelings of the being acted upon), then it would be morally bad.

To me, life is about learning, and striving to be better. If I ever stop trying... I really wouldn't be doing anything, and that sounds rather boring. I do not want to become a person who just goes about the day's chores and mulls through life. I'd rather do as much as I can, and experience as much as I'm able. This includes a constant drive to try and learn, and get better. It has given my life such joy and love that I don't see any reason to possibly want to stop. Why would I want to sit still and let life fly by? I want to try to keep up, and see what I'm capable of. Because the alternative seems very boring to me indeed. I don't deem the two as seperate entities. I'm not "learning" to become a "better" person. I'm just "learning". Or just "becoming better" (by learning). It's the same thing to me. Why not? I certainly understand why one cannot actually be good all the time. But why can't we try to be good ALL the time? I fail quite often, but I still try to be good ALL the time. No, that question is now trivial based on my definition of what Morally Good is. It doesn't matter if I'm trying to be good or bad all the time or not. I'm being Morally Good when I increase the inner-feelings of the beings I act upon. And I'm being Morally Bad when I decrease the inner-feelings of the beings I act upon. And I certainly do try to be Morally Good ALL the time. You can call it whatever you'd like, it makes no difference to me. But, rationally, if I want to be a good person I don't see how trying to be a good person is a waste of energy or talent. It seems quite reasonable and straight-forward, if you ask me. No, I do not say that the motive for being good is to live in harmony. There's plenty of motive's for being good, this is only one of them. It's just that my motive for being good is to live in harmony (basically, anyway, see Message 1 for why I try to be good). But yes, I agree, if there was no distinction between good and bad, I would not have the motive I do. However, I think you'll be hard-pressed to remove that distinction. I totally agree. Which is why I've proposed my alternative method. Because the method of "Morally Good = when people are trying to do what they think is good" stinks, I agree. Hence my definition of "Morally Good = an action by a being that positively increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon". This definition stops evil people from corrupting "what they think is good" in order to get other people to follow them and do whatever they want. I'd say lots of people's. But let's just go with my judgement.
We have war today. I think it's theoretically possible for humans to live with each other and not war (practically provable for small-enough populations). Therefore, we are currently not perfect. Do you disagree? Are you saying that wars are a part of human perfection? Yes, I spoke of it already being there
And my system is not "rules laid down by society and family". It's rules laid down by me. And no one has yet been able to specify a Morally Good problem with them. Including yourself. Agreed. You havn't explained a reason why you do not agree with my rules. I'm even willing to change the rules if your explanation can show how my rules are not "morally good". But, well, my rules do allow for diversity, freedom, and growth. How do they not? My system has nothing to do with defining the value of a person. It only defines whether or not an action by a being onto another being is classified as good or bad. People can (and certainly do) choose to be good or bad everyday. This is reality. The system only points out who's being good and who's being bad in an objective manner so that those who want to do good no longer have to worry about being confused by silver-tongued evil-doers.

Well, that doesn't seem true at all.I think it's gone through plenty of changes.1. Morally Good = an action that positively increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon.
2. Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon.
3. Morally Good = an action that positively increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon.
4. Morally Good = an action by a being that positively increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon.Why would you say I havn't changed it, when it's obviously been revised multiple times?Granted, no one's provided me with any supported reasoning in order to change it's ideal. But that's just because no one's provided any supported reasoning. Not because I don't want to change it. But this doesn't "show why it's not true", it in fact shows exactly why it is true. You're just explaining how sometimes we can try to do a good thing, yet sometimes actually do a bad thing. That's exactly what this system is designed to help us see, and exactly what it does. No, again, you aren't talking about any one "act". You are talking about scenarios that involve many actions. The system works just fine defining each of those actions as good or bad. You just want a system that provides total answers for any of your questions. I haven't even offered that. And I doubt you'll find it anywhere. All I've offered is a system that answers whether or not an action by a being on another being is morally good or morally bad. And I've delivered that, just fine. If what you're saying is "you can't define the overall value of multiple-goods vs. multiple-bads with your system", then I certainly agree with you. Of course, this has nothing to do with what the system is supposed to explain. The system is a proposed foundation for what is good. Not a complete, all-encompassing encyclopedia. I've never attempted to explain how, or why, any possible situation at all is ever considered good or bad. No, I don't think I do. You, at least, have not offered to show me what "vital factors" I'm excluding. But... it certainly does matter if people agree with me. And if they do, we certainly can objectively define what is Morally Good or Bad. You still haven't explained any reasons why you do not agree with me. In fact, in your last message you actually did agree with me. You still haven't shown any action where my "fixed code" is incorrect in defining something as Morally Good or Morally Bad. Remember, all you have to is show why "an action by a being that positively increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon" is not Morally Good. Otherwise, it's a true statement. Or, at least, true for anything you and I can imagine. I totally agree. I'm not saying that this system defines what is "absolutely" good with "100% certainty". I'm saying it defines what we humans think is good. So far, you've actually agreed with me, right in your last post where you stated we have to ASK the old lady if she wants help to cross the street or not. I'm not saying this system is perfect, I'm here asking for anyone to point out the imperfections. So far, no one's been able to do so. Even you. In fact, rather than showing the imperfections of the system, you actually agreed with it. Of course it would. You're confusing knowing before an action is complete, and knowing afterward. We can't know beforehand because we don't know if the lady wants to cross the street or not until we ask her. We can know afterward, however.Whoever said there was a weekly quota on being good? Such a thing seems obviously not-good to me. You, um... just agreed with my system again "embrace your uncertainty..."That's exactly what this system is about. We can't tell people what is good and what is bad based on how we feel about it. We have to embrace that our personal desires for what IS good and what IS bad are uncertain. We can only understand if we've done good or bad in reflecting upon the action and learning if we've actually helped or hurt someone. If we helped them... it was good. If we hurt them.. it was bad. REGARDLESS of what we were trying to do in the first place.