Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-20-2019 8:22 PM
30 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, dwise1, GDR, Tanypteryx (5 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,663 Year: 6,700/19,786 Month: 1,241/1,581 Week: 63/393 Day: 46/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others
pelican
Member (Idle past 3121 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 151 of 304 (406681)
06-21-2007 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by ikabod
06-21-2007 11:37 AM


Re: motivation is everything
thanks for hearing me.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by ikabod, posted 06-21-2007 11:37 AM ikabod has not yet responded

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 3121 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 152 of 304 (406688)
06-21-2007 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Stile
06-21-2007 3:02 PM


Re: Motivation is rather a secondary thought.
cont... have I tried to do good and ended up doing bad? Oh yes! I have experienced the folly of 'being good' most of my life, and ended up pissing people off. I thought I was helping but I was inferring inequality. On the other hand, when one is 'good', others can turn into animals and try to pull you down. You may have heard the 'Jesus' stories? If you fight back, you become an animal, if you don't they will kill you.
I have put it in strong terms only to make a point. The point is being good to others can be a dangerous activity and the outcome has only a fifty fifty chance of being positive.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Stile, posted 06-21-2007 3:02 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Stile, posted 06-22-2007 3:43 PM pelican has not yet responded

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4089 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 153 of 304 (406698)
06-21-2007 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Stile
06-20-2007 3:32 PM


Re: Let's stick to the topic
Stile writes:

Wait... when did we start talking about legalities? I've been talking about morality and what IS good.

Legalities?

Doesn't a person driving a car affect other people? Good, bad, or indifferent?

The rest of the posters here are doing a good job of covering my points, and I suppose I am through for now...I really wanted to see you at least recognize what we are all saying about morality being personal, and not dependant on the outcome.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Stile, posted 06-20-2007 3:32 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Stile, posted 06-22-2007 3:54 PM anastasia has not yet responded

    
ikabod
Member (Idle past 2629 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 154 of 304 (406757)
06-22-2007 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Stile
06-21-2007 4:00 PM


Re: Where's your system?
i refere you to a earlier post re my "system"

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 .

i do not claim to KNOW what IS good , but i HOPE that my judgements are correct and what i do is the best i can , and that it is a good act . My motivation is to try my best do the right thing and be able to live with the consequenceis .

I do not belive you me or anyone other human being can truly know is the act they did is ultimaly good , because we can not know all the affects , outcomes , results of what we do , the morally good thing to do is to do ones best and hope , and to do it with out any considerartion of reward ... which does inculde how other view me .

and yes i freely admit i fail live up to all of that .. im only human after all .

you claim your system tells you if a act is good ,but it does this because you have told your system what to use to define a act as good .. thus you have desided what is good ... it all you personal subjective view ..

The system works just fine in the real world.
Killing the engine crew guys is bad.
Saving the rest of the crew is good.
Killing the rest of the crew is bad.
Saving the engine crew guys is good.

Do you disagree with any of those statements? That's all the system says.

yes in the case of the dilemma i do disagre , ordering the engine crew to stay and die IS the morally good thing to do .. you as the captain have a responcabilty , you can not do nothing .. you must act .. you must take the burden of the deaths of those men and live with it , because by doing so you save many many more lives , that is what the world NEEDS , and has a right to expect you to do .

morallity is a double edge sword it cuts both ways , and so is doing good .. you and some one else many have to suffer to be able to do the morally good act .. thats why its hard to do good all the time .

in your world there are bright shiny good things , with out any of lifes excrement , but im sorry to say it isnt so in the real world.

if you want to know if a act is good ask god/gods , otherwise learn to hope .

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.


this quote if from you reply to another poster , but it makes the point ..

morally good DOES =trying to do whatever we think is good

the important words are TRYING .. we make a positive effort , we do not avoid acting , and we acknowlegde that we may fail , but we stand up and do ...THINK we consider the whole situation and use our best judgement to deliver the best act and outcome we can ...

and no it does not lead to that conclusion .. because we admitt our own failings .. that we are unable to live up to the moral standards we set ourselves .. some time we do not TRY .. we make up reasons not to i.e. im tired , or , sorry cant stop in a rush , or well didnt like to interfer , or well he/it is not my child / father / dog / car / rubbish /country et al and some times what we THINK is the morally good thing to do is revealed by the passsage of time to have been poor judgment on our part .. then ,hopefully , we feel regret for failing .

There are no moral certainies , unless you go ask god/gods .. then you will be told that eating fruit on sunday is morally bad but eating fruit on tuesday is morally good . WHY ? cos they say so and have the power to make it so .

no act stands allow .. there is the person carrying out the act , who , as others have said will have a MOTIVE , then there is those who the act directly affects , who will feel what ever they feel reguardless of the acts good or bad label YOU give it ., then there are all those who are indirectly affected by the act , and then dont forget the act will also affect the person performing the act , and this will have knock on effects on all others they are in contact with ... and thus the whole world is acted upon ... and then you must allow the passage of time to allow all those affects to evole into a final form .. then , if you can measure and collect all the data , you might just KNOW if the act IS good .

or you can just use best judgement , HOPE you do the right thing and get on with your life , and TRY to be a morally good productive person .

Edited by ikabod, : rewriting a section


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Stile, posted 06-21-2007 4:00 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by anastasia, posted 06-22-2007 2:44 PM ikabod has responded
 Message 160 by Stile, posted 06-22-2007 4:36 PM ikabod has responded

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4089 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 155 of 304 (406815)
06-22-2007 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by ikabod
06-22-2007 8:14 AM


Re: Where's your system?
ikabod writes:

There are no moral certainies , unless you go ask god/gods .. then you will be told that eating fruit on sunday is morally bad but eating fruit on tuesday is morally good . WHY ? cos they say so and have the power to make it so .

I disagree with this idea.

While it may be true that people 'invent' gratuitous and pointless rules from time to time, the majority of religious Cans and Can Nots either ARE or WERE based on sensible goals. I say sensible. I mean this literally. As humans, the result of our following one behaviour or another can be really and truly noticed. If we can no longer see the result of our behaviour, it becomes superfluous baggage. I have examonied for example, all the rules for my religion of which I am aware. I have found them to have 'real' purpose in every case.

To have purpose, you must go back to motive.

What do you want to accomplish?

How can you best do that?

Things which help you to accomplish your goal are purposeful.

It may not always be obvious at a glance to discern the purpose of some rules without finding motive.

One generic example is GOAL= obey God

Millions of discrepencies pop up concerning what God wants.

Outside of customary worship, we usually try to live a good life. We do this by using whatever tools and information we have as a society.

'A good life' is a different thing for us now than it was for the ancient Greeks, or the Hebrews, or the middle ages peasant, or the rulers of a kingdom.

At one time a good person could wash their hands or avoid certain foods to prevent contamination, and this could lead to a moral overtone to the action. In future times and with advanced technology, obsolete actions may be discounted from a moral structure. Some stay on as tradition, but they are usually distinct from obligation. What is obligatory is what is known or BELIEVED without proof to the contrary, to serve a purpose. I personally can not find rules which are completely perfunctory or which exist just because 'God said so' or some cardinal or other person in high places.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by ikabod, posted 06-22-2007 8:14 AM ikabod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by ikabod, posted 06-25-2007 3:27 AM anastasia has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3465
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 156 of 304 (406827)
06-22-2007 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by New Cat's Eye
06-21-2007 4:45 PM


Re: Hell is paved with good intentions.
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.

Catholic Scientist writes:

If you're trying to do something good (help an old lady cross the street) and you end up accidently doing something bad (she gets hit by a car), then you weren't being morally bad even though a bad thing happened.

You aren't morally responsible for her being hit if you were just trying to help her.

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.

But I do think that you have to understand that what you are doing is wrong in order to be morally responsible for it.

I don't know. What about this:

Person A calls little-person B a "midget".
Person B corrects person A of a proper-term and Person A corrects themselves in the future.

You're saying that just because person A didn't know "midget" is derogatory that they weren't doing morally bad? 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? :)

Catholic Scientist writes:

Stile writes:

Bad Motive, Good Action = Good
Good Motive, Bad Action = Bad

But that isn't true, as applied to my old lady examples above.


I think, again, we're just differing on what we're talking about. I'm saying the action is bad, you're saying the motivation is good. We both agree on those specific points though. You just call the overall scenario "morally good" where I call it "morally bad". 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.

You increase their inner feelings of embarassement and sadness and humiliation, but their inner feelings are being increased none-the-less.

Agreed, yes. That's exactly what the "positive" was in there for. I suppose I should put it back in.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-21-2007 4:45 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-22-2007 4:32 PM Stile has responded
 Message 161 by Neutralmind, posted 06-22-2007 5:51 PM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3465
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 157 of 304 (406828)
06-22-2007 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by pelican
06-21-2007 8:27 PM


Re: Motivation is rather a secondary thought.
dameeva writes:

The point is being good to others can be a dangerous activity and the outcome has only a fifty fifty chance of being positive.


Fully agreed.

I'd also point out that this doesn't change what "being good" is at all :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by pelican, posted 06-21-2007 8:27 PM pelican has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3465
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 158 of 304 (406830)
06-22-2007 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by anastasia
06-21-2007 9:28 PM


Re: Let's stick to the topic
anastasia writes:

I really wanted to see you at least recognize what we are all saying about morality being personal, and not dependant on the outcome.

:)

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 upon

or this one:

Morally Good = anything anyone thinks is good


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by anastasia, posted 06-21-2007 9:28 PM anastasia has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


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


Re: Hell is paved with good intentions.
Catholic Scientist writes:

If you're trying to do something good (help an old lady cross the street) and you end up accidently doing something bad (she gets hit by a car), then you weren't being morally bad even though a bad thing happened.
You aren't morally responsible for her being hit if you were just trying to help her.

I would say the action of her getting hit was bad, and even morally bad. Who's to say anyone's "responsible" though? I'm sure there are situations of things that "just happen" without someone being responsible.

I don’t see how an action can be morally bad without someone to blame it on. You have to have a person to have the morality.

Break-down:
Action->helping lady across street->Morally Good->responsibility = you
Action->lady getting hit/killed/hurt accidentally->Morally Bad->responsibility = ? (but definitely "not you")

How can an action be morally bad independent of a person on which to place to morality? The action, itself, does not have any morality to it.

wikipedia on morality writes:

Morality (from Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behaviour") refers to the concept of human action which pertains to matters of right and wrong

Without the human action there is no right and wrong. Shit happens but it ain't morally bad.

I think we agree on the results... maybe just differ in how we're getting there?

We disagree on the results. I can’t call an action morally bad without some to blame it on :D

I don't know, I'm starting to get confused on if we're talking my definition of "good", anastasia's definition, ikabod's definition, a general definition...

I’ve only and will only be talking about your definition.

My head's hurting. I think I may be just about done posting in this thread for now.

It not that exciting of a topic ;) no offense. But don’t stop yet. I’d like to read a response to this post. I think we’ve about figured it all out.

But I do think that you have to understand that what you are doing is wrong in order to be morally responsible for it.

I don't know. What about this:
Person A calls little-person B a "midget".
Person B corrects person A of a proper-term and Person A corrects themselves in the future.
You're saying that just because person A didn't know "midget" is derogatory that they weren't doing morally bad?

Correct. If it was an honest mistake.

That they were "morally good" in doing a bad thing?

No, definitely not morally good. What happened to morally neutral, or amoral? That’s what I would call it.

In the end, I think we're equal on the scenario. I think we both understand the person was trying to be good, incidentally made a mistake, and the proper action is to correct that mistake for future situations...
We just seem to differ on what we call the person at different stages?

And that we can call them anything at all. If he didn’t know midget was derogatory, then he wasn’t morally wrong for it. Even thought the result of the action was a bad one. I would say that it was morally neutral, we can’t say that it was good or bad.

Think about it the opposite way.

A guy uses the proper terminology but his motive is one of ridicule. I would still call him morally bad – because of his motive – even if the action had no negative result on the little person. If he’s trying to be a dick, then he’s morally wrong if he succeeds or not.

Catholic Scientist writes:

Stile writes:

Bad Motive, Good Action = Good
Good Motive, Bad Action = Bad


But that isn't true, as applied to my old lady examples above.

I think, again, we're just differing on what we're talking about. I'm saying the action is bad, you're saying the motivation is good. We both agree on those specific points though. You just call the overall scenario "morally good" where I call it "morally bad".

No, no. I’m not calling it good. I’m calling it “not bad”. Or neutral.

I guess I'm worried more about how others are affected than about a person's motivations?

That and you don’t think there is anything morally wrong with an action that doesn’t affect others. Believing in god and an objective morality, I think that motivation has a lot to do with the morality of an action whether it affects other people or not.

I suppose this may have been part of my point all along. If we call things "morally good" just because someone's trying to do good...

Well, we can’t call it morally good just because of the motivation because then if someone was crazy and thought they were doing good when they were doing bad, then they couldn’t be called morally bad for the bahavior. Maybe “crazy” is a bad word to use here because if someone is mentally ill enough that they don’t know that they are doing wrong, then I don’t think we can hold them morally responsible for the action. And I think that there has to be a moral responsibility to ultimately call the action morally good or bad.

I also thought your point was addressing when religious people say that something is morally wrong and then try to tell others that they shouldn’t do it.

I dunno. I think, once again CS, we've found the heart of our difference of opinion.

I think the heart of our differences stems from me believing in god and you not. If I didn’t believe in god, then I would be more inclined to agree with your system. I don’t think you system is really incorrect, I just think that it doesn’t cover all the bases and relies too heavily on the action and there being an effect on another’s feelings from the action. I don’t think that morality is limited to those things.

I may even understand why I'm not going to convince you differently. When I believed in God, I think I was a similar way. I suppose when there's a God "sorting it all out" in the end, it's easier to understand how motivation trumps actions.

And we don’t have to rely on other’s feedback to label the morality when there is a god who can label it objectively even if we are unable to determine the morality ourselves.

I, however, am no longer convinced of a God's ability for this (or even existance). Hence I'm more concerned with results which affect us immediately

Sure, and that’s a fine way to do it. But like I said, it fails to address some things.

because, well, to me... there's a chance that's all there's going to be.

There’s that chance for me too. I’m not leaving out the other side of the chance though.

I think this is the crux of our differences. I can't even tell, though, if it's a difference of opinion or a difference of definitions of different words that equalize to the exact same thing anyway.

I don't think its the definitions so much as it is a fundemental way of defining what is moral.

You increase their inner feelings of embarassement and sadness and humiliation, but their inner feelings are being increased none-the-less.

Agreed, yes. That's exactly what the "positive" was in there for. I suppose I should put it back in.

I think so.


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

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

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3465
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 160 of 304 (406835)
06-22-2007 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by ikabod
06-22-2007 8:14 AM


Closer to the mark
ikabod writes:

i do not claim to KNOW what IS good , but i HOPE that my judgements are correct and what i do is the best i can , and that it is a good act . My motivation is to try my best do the right thing and be able to live with the consequenceis .

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?

I do not belive you me or anyone other human being can truly know is the act they did is ultimaly good , because we can not know all the affects , outcomes , results of what we do , the morally good thing to do is to do ones best and hope , and to do it with out any considerartion of reward ... which does inculde how other view me .

Agreed. And my system works 100% with this ideal.

you claim your system tells you if a act is good ,but it does this because you have told your system what to use to define a act as good .. thus you have desided what is good ... it all you personal subjective view ..

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?

yes in the case of the dilemma i do disagre , ordering the engine crew to stay and die IS the morally good thing to do .. you as the captain have a responcabilty , you can not do nothing .. you must act .. you must take the burden of the deaths of those men and live with it , because by doing so you save many many more lives , that is what the world NEEDS , and has a right to expect you to do .

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".

in your world there are bright shiny good things , with out any of lifes excrement , but im sorry to say it isnt so in the real world.

I've never described such a world. Or even implied that we live in such a one.

if you want to know if a act is good ask god/gods , otherwise learn to hope .

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.

morally good DOES =trying to do whatever we think is good

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?

the important words are TRYING .. we make a positive effort , we do not avoid acting , and we acknowlegde that we may fail , but we stand up and do ...THINK we consider the whole situation and use our best judgement to deliver the best act and outcome we can ...

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.

there is the person carrying out the act , who , as others have said will have a MOTIVE , then there is those who the act directly affects , who will feel what ever they feel reguardless of the acts good or bad label YOU give it ., then there are all those who are indirectly affected by the act , and then dont forget the act will also affect the person performing the act , and this will have knock on effects on all others they are in contact with ... and thus the whole world is acted upon ... and then you must allow the passage of time to allow all those affects to evole into a final form .. then , if you can measure and collect all the data , you might just KNOW if the act IS good .

Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying.

or you can just use best judgement , HOPE you do the right thing and get on with your life , and TRY to be a morally good productive person .

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by ikabod, posted 06-22-2007 8:14 AM ikabod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by pelican, posted 06-22-2007 11:13 PM Stile has responded
 Message 164 by ikabod, posted 06-25-2007 4:29 AM Stile has responded

    
Neutralmind
Member (Idle past 4260 days)
Posts: 183
From: Finland
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 161 of 304 (406856)
06-22-2007 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Stile
06-22-2007 3:39 PM


Re: Hell is paved with good intentions.
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.

Sorry to jump in the middle of you guys' conversation but I just got to ask this. Do you consider tornados or other natural phenomenas morally bad? Considering they sometimes kill people.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Stile, posted 06-22-2007 3:39 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by ikabod, posted 06-25-2007 4:42 AM Neutralmind has not yet responded
 Message 166 by Stile, posted 06-25-2007 2:46 PM Neutralmind has not yet responded

    
pelican
Member (Idle past 3121 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 162 of 304 (406912)
06-22-2007 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Stile
06-22-2007 4:36 PM


changing perception of good and bad
Reading between the lines (so to speak) the overall picture I get is one of 'us' and 'them'. The question of, 'is it right to do good to others'? is a devisive question.

It infers that if you do not know what good is, then you could be bad. It infers that if you are good, then someone else is judged to be not as good or bad. Some are judged to be evil, the extreme of good. How do we know if someone is evil?

Killing is considered evil BUT there are huge exceptions in everyones' mind, even yours and mine. Where do we draw the line? Is one life more valuable than another? Who decides this? Those with 'best judgement'? How can we trust them?

I do believe many people want guidelines and rules and codes of conduct but who makes them? More importantly, do they work? Do they reach their final objective? I would say NO, because we look for solutions in the same places. Who is the goody and who is the baddy? Who should die?

Until we change our attitude towards the good and bad elements then history will go right on repeating itself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Stile, posted 06-22-2007 4:36 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Stile, posted 06-25-2007 3:31 PM pelican has responded

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 2629 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 163 of 304 (407217)
06-25-2007 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by anastasia
06-22-2007 2:44 PM


Re: Where's your system?
i am sorry if i appeared to mock any religion or its practices , and i agree many "oddities" are based on historical / cultrual reasons , my point was really that if you accept a religion you have to accept ALL of its rules , even those that seem strange , and not directly related to a Moral code .
This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by anastasia, posted 06-22-2007 2:44 PM anastasia has not yet responded

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 2629 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 164 of 304 (407218)
06-25-2007 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Stile
06-22-2007 4:36 PM


Re: Closer to the mark
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?

how can you possible ask such a thing , it is clear to anyone that the lever operator is NOT trying to do good , he is following a creed given to him by one who has set them selves up as a "power" .. he is allowing others to direct his actions .. the code he is following is based on power not morality and is without referance to good or bad .. he has be come a functionary ..

this is the whole point morality really is not about .. is it good to offer to help a old lady across the road ... that is a no brainer .. morality is about the hard questions .... and avoiding all the traps .. like a rigid input output system ...

your system removes the humanity from morality and only leaves the act ...and you system shows the same act can be good and bad .. but morality is not the act , its not even doing the act , its not even chossing to do the act , its discovering why you should chosse to do the act ... if someone or some creed tells you what is moral you are acting with out thought , reason or judgement .. you are "safe" in a moral certainty .. everyone "knows" its morally good to "offer to help a old lady across the road " .. you do acts cos stiles system tell you they are the good ones ..and you losse sight of WHY you do those acts .. and you better hope the system is full proof and incorupptable ....

certainty is a very very bad road to go down , why is the most valuable word ...

morally good DOES =trying to do whatever we think is good

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".

no no and thrice no , bad is still there , how can you judge good if you cant judge bad , does that really need saying ?

Morally bad DOES = NOT trying to do whatever we think is good

NOTE i am saying not trying .. even when we have worked out what is good .. inaction is BAD , as bad as doing the bad thing ...
as well as ....

Morally bad DOES = trying to do whatever we think is bad

you miss the whole point .. generally people do what they like with in the limits of their upbringing and social limits .. it takes effort and though to do the morally good thing ..

classic example ... do multi national drug companies spend billions on R and D finding new cures because they want to carry out good acts ?? no they want to make more money , they will explote the suffering of people to make money .. so is finding a new cure a good act ?? or does it need to be for the right reason ?? is it morally right to steal the R and D from the drug company .. which you know will result in the company going broke and massive job loss .. to give the cure free to all who need it ?? remeber all acts are interconected no spliting them up just because thats how your system works .. we want real world answers ..

people offer to help the old lady across the road .. because that is the way they were educated to behave .. they do not THINK and make a JUDGEMENT to do the morally good thing , nor do they bring out their Stile good calulator and put in the factors and look up the answer ..you may say its a good act .. but what is the motive for doing it ?? can it be good if the reason for it is not based in good ..

its when you give up some of your time and offer to walk a few miles out of your way to help the old lady home , having thought and worked out she has 3 more roads to cross and 2 heavy shopping bags to carry .. then you have made a moral judgement and tried to do the good thing ...

and yes i wish i was that good .. but i freely admitt i fail to often ..

Edited by ikabod, : tidying


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Stile, posted 06-22-2007 4:36 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Stile, posted 06-25-2007 4:10 PM ikabod has responded

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 2629 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 165 of 304 (407219)
06-25-2007 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Neutralmind
06-22-2007 5:51 PM


Re: Hell is paved with good intentions.
they are neither , nor neutral .. they are not part of a moral system as they have no choice .. they simple are .. just as its not the gun making a moral choice when it fires a bullet at a person ..

morality is about people and what they chosse to do .

unless you belive that all "natural " events are controlled by god/gods, then we can talk about the morality of their actions ....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Neutralmind, posted 06-22-2007 5:51 PM Neutralmind has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
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