Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others

i refere you to a earlier post re my "system" 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 .. 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 . this quote if from you reply to another poster , but it makes the point ..morally good DOES =trying to do whatever we think is goodthe 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

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 .

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 ... 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 goodNOTE 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 badyou 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

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 ....

here is the difference , you time and again say the act is moral good by your two rules ...i say its not the act but the full chain of reason as to why the act is performedunder your system a robot could perform a morally good act by following the two rules , and offering to help a old lady across the road ....( note it has checked the weather forecast for thunder storms ..) its carries out the act of helping , and incresses the positive inner feeling ,...
the robot helps the old lady across the road , because a higher power " the programmer" told it to .however to me a unreasoning machine can not perform a moral act .....or i could have hired a paid servent to come over and helped the old lady ...or i do it to win a bet on the number of old ladies on the far side of the road at midday ..in all cases , me ,servent, robot, the act is helping the old lady across the road .. but where is the moral good in each case ... is it there at all ?would you perform ANY act just because it fits your 2 rule system ?? [qs]Exactly. Why is that? If the reason is not "because it positively increases her inner-feelings", that what is the reason(s)?[qs/]the reason is the acceptance of a moral duty on the strong to aid the weaker , to sacrifice ones own time for the benfit of others , to understand the needs of others , .....
which in this case is for the old lady to be on the other side of the road , any change to her inner feelings is a by product , not the intent ..
i do not think hmm that old lady is waiting to let me help her across the road so she gets a incresse in her positive inner feelings ...
i think hmm that old lady needs some help , hmm to get a cross the road to go into to that building .. .... in fact the act lowers her inner feeling cos she is going to visit a sick friend ..she is going cos she thinks that is a morally good thing to do of course .. .. gosh real life is sooo tricky ... she dosent really want to cross the road .. but her drive to do good is making her ..she is making a scarifice of her own good to help another ..where as your robot helps the old lady across the road , because a higher power " the programmer" told it to . yes but A and B are thinking what is good ,BUT , not what they want good to be cos that suits them , but what is moraly good above and beyond themselves .. and yes many of us are fail here.. thats where its hard .. to be that self questioning ... asking "do i think this is good cos thats the answer i want" ?who is right .. err me i said OFFER to help in my post .. A and B both failed to see the full issue .... the answer is ASKING the old lady what she wants ..Btw when will you give your own answers to the dilemma's , or do you agree your system does not help there .Edited by ikabod, : re write

ok after all these post it seems no one is going to provide you with enough reasons to change your ruleso as a final answer to why its not true ...
its not simple that its not true , hopefull a morally good act will increase the persons inner -feelings BUT , as has be show before there are cases where it may not AND there are so many other things involved in and around the act that together make it moraly good or not. Your rule is not enough to be true .. just as you cant define the planet earth as a ball of rock ..because it is so much more .. you cant define such a massive thing as good with so little ... there is no simple truth ...you and i agree a robot cannot perform a morally good act by helping the old lady .....but the only difference between us and the robot is how we reach the point of acting ... we think ,feel ,reason ,hope .. we do all those human things AS well as the act and as a part of the act , and only by considering the whole can we TRY to see if what we do is moral good .A morally good act includes so many things that to try to reduce it to a simple statemant is almost a insult to "morally good" you exculd to many of the other vital factors ...AND as anastasia message 176 post makes the point you are still only talking about your version of morality , that is all you and the rest of us can do , it matters not how many agree with you , it is still not a absolute moral code ..it is the product of you and everything that has and will ever affect you ...the problem it is not that you seem to WISH to know what is good , but you are trying to make your wish come true by creating a fixed code , moral certainty is very dangerous ... as history shows..as a aside ..
re your Hitler reference .. he was not trying to do good or even bad .. he was steping outside any moral code and acting how he wanted to .. he gave into his own desires and acted on them reguardless of any moral code .. , i belive he even said the german people where not bound by moral codes as the where the master race . .....
...if you real belive this please read anastasia's post 176 and dameeva's post 177 and try to see what is being said ...clearly by starting this topic you where questioning yourself and your opinion's .. please take from this , at the very least , that that self questions is a vital part of any form of moral code , and keep it up ....why i am debating with you is because it forces me to question my own view , and try to see things from anothers view , to keep my views about morality mixing with the real world , and not just in my own head .i most definatly , do not claim to know the answers , i do not belive any human being can with 100% certainty define or know what is utlimalty good ... that i would say is the remit of god/gods .. and even then i demaind the right question them on the rules ...also wouldnt KNOW what is good take all the "fun" out of trying to be good ?
wouldnt KNOWING make us lazy .. hmm must fit in 3 good acts before the end of the week ... lets see 2 old ladies and give some money to charity .. yes that shold cover it ..
...imaging political candidates standing up say look here the rules say i did 23 good acts last week ( well after his spin doctor found some act for her to do ).... vote for me ..... sorry to sound so preachy ( see i can spot when i fail to do good ) but doesnt dameeva's post 177 say it so well .embrace your uncertainty ,it will keep you honest .......and keep pointing out where i am being foolish , i will take all the help with being honest i can get .....Edited by ikabod, : No reason given.Edited by ikabod, : rewrite and adding

yes we agree on so much , its a shame we disagree about something that us so basic .i guess my abiltity to impart my thoughts and reasoning to you is poor , and for that i am sorry , but you seem to reply to the parts of my posts that fit your view . [qs] Morally Good = an action by a being that positively increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon[qs] ok lets take in in stagesAN ACTION
you try to defiene good as "a single act" , that stands alone , but there is no such thing .....
how can i help the old lady across the road with out doing the following , being aware of the people around me , spoting and understanding that they have needs , be willing to give up my time to help ,walking across to them , communicating with them , helping them , breathing , looking at the road , ...to do a "good" involes all of these functions , no ACT of walking across the road with the old lady can exsist with out all the other parts ...Further ...
if you demand a single act please show me , in the case of the old lady, which of the 15 footsteps i make crossing the good is the good one ...which of the seconds i am looking at the road traffic condistions is the good one , which word is say to the old lady is the good one ...there is no single act it is made up of millions ( or more) parts all of which are needed ..if you say its the 8th step thats the good one can i stop there and leave the old lady in the middle of the road , as i have already done the good part ??..BEING
you agreed a robot cant perform a good act it must be a "being" .. ..
but when i ask why it must be a being you do not answer .. what characteristic of a being is it that make the action good ??
what can the robot not do ?
if the act is helping a old lady across a road a robot is can do that ACTION .. the US army has exprimental robots to evac wounded from the combat area , so its a real possiblity..
so why a being .. could a dog to it ie a seeing eye dog ..PIIF (positively increases the inner-feelings )ok how do you measure the increase , how much of a increase is need to count the action as good , is the being acted upon a reliable subject in terms off their ability to feel and manage their inner feelings ...for many possible reasons , if 23 seconds after the act they change there mind about the out come of the action and it now lowers their PIIF where did the good action go ?
Can you infact define PIIF clearly enough even to measure it ..is PIIF happyness , releif , a lowering of stress, thankfullness, satisfaction of achiving ... does it have to be the same everyone for ther same action ?on what scale do you measure it and where is the threshold to have a PIIF , how many points on the scale counts as a incresaes .. what is the smallist unit of increase .. and does a one unit PIIF count as gooddo drugs count ?.. action i give the old lady a happy pill which , due to its chemical interactions PIIF , so much so she no longer wants to cross the road .. hay thats a good act .. better liveing throuh chemistrywhat if the old lady is a " mean old sod " who expects to be helped across the road as a matter of right , and infact is annoyed that i took so long to offer and help her .. she moans at me as we cross then tells me off for being a poor helper and does not havs a PIIF... did i do a good act ,?BEING again ..ok by the rule what the "thing" acted upon is must be able to have inner feelings or there can be no GOOD ,
so a lady helping a old robot across the road is not good ? .. but why all the input to the ACTION is the same .. its not the ladys fault the robot cant feel , why should she be robbed of doing a good by the robots lack of feelings ...
what if the robot is made to look just like a old lady .. the Action-er will do all their needed parts .. its only the PIIF thats missing , and would the robot not suffer PIIF if only it couldnow replace robot by , old lady on mood altering drugs such that her inner feelings dont change ..is it good .
replace robot with a sheep ...is it good now ??ACTED UPONagin you isolate , its only the inner feelings of the old lady you look at , yet clearly the act also has effects bon othersthe ACT of me helping the old lady across the road has direct and unbreakable links to others ... the traffic is slowed car drivwer suffer lowering of inner feelings(IF) ...its still the same act .. the boy scout misses out help the old lady and fail to get his badge ..lower IF .. still same act.. my girlfriend see me and waves i wave back then help the old lady , girlfriend suffer lower IF cos we now miss the bus and will miss the film just cos i did a good act ..still the same act ...all the same act .. you cannot escape the interconectedness of the real worldno act only effects a single person , for a start it must effect the person doing the act as well ,how can any act be good if it causes so much lowering of IF..........
further
as i have said its not simple a case its not true .. its just wrong , incomplete , its only partial , its a partial truth at best, and even them its a usless truth...."ikabod likes apples" .. is a true statement .... what does it tell you about the nature and properties of a apple ?? or ikabod ?if yours is true so are these...Morally Good = an action ... is a true statementMorally Good = a reasoned action... is a true statementMorally Good = a action that occurs , not just thought about ... is a true statementMorally Good = a action that occurs on the planet earth... is a true statement.. does it mean in space no one can do good ?Morally Good = is a desirable out come of my intent ... is a true statementbut can you use just one of them to define something as complex as our interactions with each other as a good act , no , and the same is true of your statment, it does not go far enough ..once again i say there is no simple answer ...So have i not show how you statement , while agreeing PIIF is a good thing in its own right, DEFINING good by it is not valid, or even possilbe . OH but with your rule we CAN ask the old lady before , then we KNOW its a good act , in fact we could just ask her what would currently PIIF and let her bring in the road crossing bit...then take it one step further .. a good act is helping a ANY old lady across the road when she wants to be helped to cross the road , we KNOW this because it will PIIF of ANY old lady .. as there is just being A the action doer , the act , and the being B who is acted on its easy , keep each constant and you can do good acts any time you please ..or lets make even easieri am a being , i perform a act on a being that PIIF , thus i do good , the being acted upon is me , as i KNOW what will PIIF , i will know before i act that i am doing good ..once you define the required outcome , here definded by you as PIIF , its very easy to reverse enginner a action to achive it .. this is how in may previous post the political candidate 's spin doctor can use your rule to find "GOOD DEEDS" to be done , thus allowing the candidate to say "look at me see how i do good "Further you as you can KNOW after the event HOW ??how do we know if PIIF went up , does the old lady fill in a customer satisfaction questionaire .. if so what score out of 20 do we need for it to be a good act , do you need to survey 100 old ladies to get statistically valid data ..... what magic power do you gain that lets you read the mind of the 2 year old you just pulled from the burning building ?? ......does the charity ring you up and say ..yes everyone her got a PIIF from you 100 donation , ..... how do you know your wife did really want a new dress for her birthday , where in fact she wanted shoes , but is lieing so as not to hurt your feelings ??you dont , so you cant KNOW if there was a true PIIF , so you staement is rendered irrelavent .. but life does not work that way ..you MUST rely on what you feel is right .. or you a cursed to do nothing in case you do bad .. and inaction is BAD ...
..and some time you might inflict some hurt while doing good .. ...
....yes we all look back on the out come of events , but your system cannot for reason writen above tell us any FACTs , it is a contrived rule , based on a unmeasurable and unreliable asspect of human nature ... unless there are absolute good's we can only use our own feelings and judgements to say what is good or bad ....unless good is a absolute you cant have a objective debate about it , you cannot find a set of rules to define itEdited by ikabod, : re draft and addition

hmmm well where to start....
ok your sinle act is now ... ...look new rules ... to try to lock down the debate ..
lets see
1. yep they do do that cant seem to stop them , and they perform a lot of ACTIONS doing it speach , eye contact , body language , even smells im told ...even totally ignoring each other... busy busy ..2. ok its person , not being now .. i will assume therefore we are only talking about the human race .. BUT isnt a action when somedoes something .. no other person is needed ..eg i blink my eyelid .. ALSO a action msy do something to more than one person ... eg i shout out the word "TREE" in a crowded room ...3a. helps .. helps .. in what way mentally , physically , spiritually , socialy, economicaly , materially , retrosectivly , politically , and can you accutally define helps . is giving 1 cent US to some one on a yearly income of $10,000 help , is it still help if income is $100,000 or $500,000 ...by Whom and how what is the most type help selected..3b under all condistions ??... action i grab someone by the arm , their arm breaks ...bad ..?? mind you i did stop them falling 900 feet..OR do you DEMAND we split that into 2 actions ?? if so where is the rule to show me where to make the split ?? and why only into two action ..again where is the rule to show that ...3c once more you return to neutral ... IF there is good neutral and bad , and they are exclusive terms then there must be a scale with flip points from good to neut and to bad ... please show me the scale , what units does it have ...... Further you are here saying that each of us has the power to make a action good or bad , by means on not careing about what others do for us ... we can turn the most loving careing act of charity ..say laying down ones life to save another.. into a morally bad thing , by going hummph whatever ...you are saving we can not perform a good act on a person in a coma .... who is sufering dementia...?? one a 3 day old baby ?? if you agree to go as far as agreeing it CAN .. then you must see your statment leaves no space for those things , it does not allow them .. and if it CAN the it MUST because the road may not be deserted and you will have to do them .....to define you must include not exclude ..
further i , me , the one helping the old lady is still interacting with other people , even if they are 3 streets away .. my girlfriend still misses the film ..... the universe does not split into 2 parts one where i help the old lady , and two everything else .. all the interaction carry on .. paron my but EEERRRRRR !
you wish to define a good act ... BUT you wish to limit the analysis , you wish to exclude data the gets in the way ..does the chemist say ..no silly boy we dont define copper in terms of atomic structure .. that would be analysing to muchdoes the genetic scientis say well we know there are some A T and G bases .. ye thats enough anaylsis lefts define DNA ..no if you wish to use the term action you must allow anyalsis of the action .. break it down find the bit that good is attached to ..OR as you now want to CHANGE the wording ...*****BREAK please reread dameeva's number 182 post .. re moving goal post .. would you like to edit your reply ******ok so its not a action , but a thing , or is it now help .. if so please see above ...btw you are using thing as a singular so please can you now show us the rule governing waht is defind a s a single thing ..Oh and WHO say we do not need to go smaller .. please can you point out that rule ..or is that just your view ?? ok
1. well no i STATED in my view a robot cant do good cos it cant resaon ..
2. NO i my post i showed that by following your rule the performed act by a robot is the same as the act performed by a person AND YET your rule provided explination why the robot was not doing good ... however i see you now want to change the rules ..
3. how can you not care .. it gives us a new rule ..
morally good = something a robot cannot do .. this is a true statemant .. OH i see the problem ....a robot can help the old lady and PIIF .. so PIIF is prehaps not a measure to be trusted ... i mean what if the sneaky robot looke human we might be fooled into thing that it was a good act just cos the PIIF occurs . ok let stick to that .. WOW ....ok so its any PIIF of any size or shape ..by means SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT using our sense of empathy ... well why bother with PIIF at all ....why not is it good answered by means SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT using our sense of empathy ...why add in PIIF ??its a complication...will you also define what a sense of empathy is , which organs and nuerons of the body run it , can we buy the equivatent of glasses is we have a less than 20/20 empathy sense ..or can we hire empathy to help us make these SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT ?so you absolute definition of morally good , which will allow objective debate on what IS GOOD is dependant on "by means SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT using our sense of empathy " OR you plan to "read their body language "..i hope they dont have a bad back that day ...OR ask them .. lets hope they are honset, accurate , reliable and objective ... OH btw how does this work with a autistic person{qsRemember "positively increasing inner-feelings" is just a long-assed winded way to say "helped them".[/qs]is .. says who ... i could PIIF of someone by selling them drugs at 80% discount ..not sure thats really helping .. i could PIIF an old lady by spending 5 mins listing to her complain that no one will hlp her acorss the road .. still not much of a help is it ... no this was no error of judgement at second 1 they had PIIF .. my empathy agreed and they told me they smiled...at seond 10 still the same PIIF its real it has exsistance in time and space they are happy about it they sing a happy tune .. second 22 still PIIF .. second 23 opss no its gone they have changed there opinon..so does this mean we cannot use you rule .. as peopel are know to change their mind quite a bit .. and thuis can not be relied upon as a true PIIF detector ? even using our emapthy ??or must we wait until a time when not further change can occur ..may be whent he person dies ?? do we need death bed statments of what their final feelings are on every possible good event ?? sorry but simple fact ..if you cant measure it how can you determine if there is a change .. given that you said even the smallest change is enought to count .. does not our "SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT using our sense of empathy" allow us to measure it .. even if only on a relative scale .. you could ask was that act/thing/help similar to the love of a child , a dog or a goldfish ?? or like droping the toast , crashing your car , or seeing your family die .. 6you said we can be subjective in our judgement .. no we are talking about what is good ... the debate is if your growing set of rules .. which use the term help/ing .. can define good . well clearly the old lady is now across the road ,she has been hleped , she also has PIIF , given human nature she may well have even thanked the robot for its help ....i mean if you want to usee term helped ,a pair of glasses might help the old lady to cross the road.. help is such a wide term .. no im not i am putting you rule to the test ..
err remember your new rule 1 from the start people interact so how can a act only effect one person .. any act is but a stage in the ongoing chain that makes up a persons life and their place in the whole of reality , the classic ripple of the act spreading out over the whole pond of humanity ..er well i was around to help the old lady .. so I am also effected , and as i was with the old lady i was not with my friends so they are effected by my absence , then all the old ladies friends are effected cos she is not there , then the whole history of the world s effected cos now the old lady is on a differet street .. as you said in rule in people interact ...but not just some of the time ALL of the time ..ok about the series of true statemants claerly you missed my point
they are all true , but as you showed they are not complete , they do not fully define morally goos .. and thesame is true of your statement .. its only true for a given value of true .. just as my true staements leave took much out so does yours .. as well as using terms which are inexact and unmeasurable .. ok sorry NO i have shown many times ,you just refuse to accept them .. sorry but it true ..ONCE more i give a 10 year old free cocane , heroin , pcp , lsd , e , hash , speed , and a bottle of 10 year old single malt wiskey , her PIIF .. is this a good act ??/?.thus we have show that you rule does not in all cases= morally good , thus your staemant is not true , it need more to definr when and where is it not correct ... no we cant cos , well simple if you define absolute good there is no room for debate .. water is wet .. debate that .. er e r well err water is wet ..the end.
but the real reason is your definistion does not work , now matter how true or partially true you want to call it ..
further..1. YOU defined it therefore it not objective
2. the statment contains terms which are , by your statement to be based on SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT .
3. YOU demand YOUR own definition of the term ACTION , and YOU impose YOUR limits on how and to what degree said action can be anayslised
4. you change the terms action , thing , help, being,person, dog , reasoning being , around to fit YOUR curreent debating posistion
5. YOU chnage PIIF to helping to avoid that fact that PIIF is , in your own words ,unmeasurable , and you fail to define help is any absolute terms .
6.You addmitt that the being acted upon is unreliable as a detector of PIIF or HELP , and agree that the means to try to find out are all subjective , and that the being may change there mind negating a absoolute ,you just used this rule to determine
7.You still have not defined which morallity yours , ontario's , canada's , the english speaking world , the planet earth , our galaxy , the universe ?, can you not see there is no objective debate because your rule does not work , each time you try to hold up a act and say ..look here the rule shows this to be a good act .. it is either a event that you have to run totally outside the real world , or you have to start adding in clauses and exclusion and extra condistion to limit the debate , which then becomes you redefine and changing terms ..if you want to debate what is good , do that , them add in morality ,if i and there others posting here are so wrong , why is no one debating with you based on you rule ??what would you opening statement to the objective debate be ?ill even give you a start...ill do it in a seperate post , so we can keep debate free from all other comments ..

OK stile
here goes ..ok reading your statement i have a question , .. does telling untruths , which PIIF of the person they are told to count as a morally good act ???Edited by ikabod, : rewrite part

by that do you mean bad can come from a good act OR do you mean good can be changed into bad OR that bad can remove good ??the reason i picked on untruths , ( yes i am avoiding the word lie ) is that it covers a ranges of actions , all of which PIIF , while at the same time have other effects ,
to explain :mother tells untruth to child about a dead pet .....here the mother is acting to protect the child .. later when the child has a greater understanding the untruth can be relived and the truth explained .husband agrees with wife over decorating the house in greens and yellow s through out ....... here the husband tells untruth to compromise and to let the wife have her way , , he scarifices his own PIIF , here it is better the truth does not come out , or comes out in a way showing the reasoning behind it was a scarifiice made by the husband ...a conman tells untruths about how much money a deal is making to the person he is conning .... here the untruth is deception to cause harm , in all case it would be better if the untruth is never told , and when it comes out harm can be the only outcome .in all 3 cases the untruth causes PIIF , but may have long term effectsi would say even before the untruth is reviled , ie while the PIIF remains ,that in case 3 there is never a morally good act ...
it is debatable in case 2 if it really a good act or is it a cheap way of avoiding finding a agreemnet , of solving the real issue , its a side step ...
In case 1 everything is done condisering the best for the child and thus may be considered a good act ....would you agree with what i have just said ?over to you ...

please just for the record detail my manipulations ....and no you are wrong .. you first used the term morally good post 24 in reply to a post from Catholic Scientist .you seem unable to tell the difference between when i am using your rule , as it is writen , to provide an example of its out come , me agreeing with you .. lets make it clear I DO NOT AGREE ...i do use examples of WHAT HAPPENS if someone agrees with it , to show the wrongness of the outcome...the problem with the debate is you refuse to discuss any of the questions i and others raise , all you do is say that nothing is relevent unless you deem it to be ..where is your reply to my questions about your use of as a method of obtaining data for a objective debate ..in my last post i laid out my points step by step , clearly ..yet you do not reply to a single one ..i gave you 7 reason why your rule is wrong .. you have not countered a single one ..of all the posts and replies i can only find one that does not , at least try to, rebute your opening statement , and that ONE is someone asking what Meh means ....please at least answer this one question .. do you agree that some , not all , some , acts can PIIF and at the same time not be a good acts ..... and if you find time answer a few of the others ..Edited by ikabod, : rewording

clearly we are always going to agree to differ over this , so to move the debate forward , let us deal with just my "debate" replies . can i refer you to my post 194 ,here are the 3 versions of telling untruthsmother tells untruth to child about a dead pet .....here the mother is acting to protect the child from harsh reality.. later when the child has a greater understanding the untruth can be relived and the truth explained .husband agrees with wife over decorating the house in greens and yellow s through out ....... here the husband tells untruth to compromise and to let the wife have her way , , he will "put yp with " the colours to avoid a argument , here it is better the truth does not come out , or comes out in a way showing the reasoning behind it was a scarifiice made by the husband ...a conman tells untruths about how much money a deal is making to the person he is conning .... here the untruth is deception to cause / prolong harm , in all case it would be better if the untruth is never told , and when it comes out harm can be the only outcome .in all 3 cases the untruth causes PIIF to the person who is targeted to be told the untruth ...i would say even BEFORE the untruth is reviled , ie while the PIIF remains ,that in case 3 there is never a morally good act ...
it is debatable in case 2 if it really a good act or is it a cheap way of avoiding finding a agreemnet , of solving the real issue , its a side step ...
In case 1 everything is done condisering the best for the child and thus may be considered a good act ....would you agree with what i have just said ?do you think that this method ,while attempting to determine if a act is Morally good , can show if a act is Morally bad .... or do you assume all non-good acts are by default bad , and/or if a act is morally neutral ... ?

okies so on 1 i think you are streaching a it a bit with the "different " child .. here i think the mother would simple have taken a different approuch from the start knowing the childs ways ..otherwise agreed .on 2 i think we are on the same wavelenght could go either way ..on 3 i would slightly disagree , where you put in your silly addition .. btw brewser's millions richard prior funny film ... my view would be that the action , the conning is still and always will be morally bad , however much accidental "good" {or can we use the word benifit to avoid confusion} comes out of it ... the cuase was to inflict harm and loss and it did , it is only by random chance that so benifit occured , to claim the moral tag i feel the intent and purpose is important ..if i may use a equally silly example ..case 4.a gun weilding drug crazed madman runs in to a shop and shots a random stranger dead .....{silly part} the random stranger had in fact gone to the shop to by a bottle of pills to kill him self , so he has PIIF's in his dieing breath as it has saved him the trouble and he has got what he wanted ... now just cos the victim wanted to die i do not thunk this shooting could be a Morally Good act .. even with a benifit linked to it ..i think i disagree with your morally neutral , firstly i dont think a earthquake or a flood can be moral in any was , it is a envent in the same way sunrise is , or gravity effects us , there as in a seperate class of acts .further i am very uncertain about anything being morally neutral ,for something to fall with in the area of morallity i feel it must effect us in some way , and yes i agree with you those effects my not be noticable for some time , years , after the event .i do have one question about your morally bad statment ...if morally bad is lowering of inner feelings .LOIF ..
what about this , silly , caseold fuddyduddy professor gives a lecture to his students and bores the brains out of their ears .. clearly the students suffer LOIF , and we can say some real harm , as it is putting them off their studies and thus damaging their education..but i do not think we can say the professor was being morally bad .. just boring , and not very good at his job of lecturing ..morality has to take into account intent , and purpose , and both the short and long term out comes of the act ...there can be some good/benifit coming from a act even if it is moraly bad .. but this does not alter the fact the act is morally bad ..final silly example ..parents abandon a child at the age of 10 to live on the streets , this "education" produces a adult who is selfrelient , confident , hard working , cares about their fellow human beings and is a all round nice person ...
now dispite how the child turned out , i do not think any one would consider the parents act as morally good , even though there is clearly a benifit to the world of a good productive worthwhile human being ..now this line of reasoning is based on what i think morality is about , and how something can have a benifit while not being morally good ie your brewsers millions example .. and yes i would go futher and say you can do a morally good act , and random chance can conspire ..( err yes i know thats a oxy ).. to result in some harm occuring ......silly example wife phones husband at work to tell him she is with child , husband rushes out of work to get home , see flower seller grabs huge bunch of mixed flowers to give to wife .. turns out one of the blooms the wife is alergic to ..... .. i still think husband did morally good act , even if wife is sneezing for a hour ..back to you ...

ok im going to jump mto the end of your reply as that should cobver the first bits ..my view is a morally good act is a complex multifacited thing ...it has to start with the purpose of doing some thing that will benifit the target of the act ....( trying to be carfull on words used here )included in with that purpose is a identification of the real need of the target , not simply what the target desires ,further the purpose must be free of any hidden motives or agenda'sthe act should be "good" in that is causes no harm else where .. a point you made in earlier posts ..the target needs to really benifit from the act ...this is where i differ from your view , PIIF may not be that benifit it may take another form .so my view comes out asGood motive + good action + good benifit = morally good.****
Bad motive + good action + good or bad benifit = morally bad.
Good motive + bad action + good or bad benifit= morally bad
Bad motive + bad action + good or bad benifit= morally bad.**** this is the only version to give a morally good result all 3 are needed none stand on their own ..any other version that gives a good benifit is a happy accident ..now i totally agree with you People have killed many other people with "good intentions" BUT let us be clear the intention can be "good" , the right thing to do , but the act is rendered un good by the method and result ....OR we can have the case the the intention was not really good , the need was miss IDed , there where hidden motives , the person has views which preclude them making a "good" intention ..this is why i think we must be vey self critical and look at why we are trying to do good , and what that good really is .. this is why i fear absolutes .. they stop doubt ... this is the real danger when we justifie our intentions with out thought ...

excellent .. however ..i disagree with the use of you system , BECAUSE it is so stripped down , it has lost what i consider some vital parts , and with out these it is no longer valid , it is too crude an approximantion.It take issue with your final comment about identifing non-critical aspects to me these are critical .Yes i do agree that that for us poor dumb humans we need simplicity BUT in this case i feel yours goes to far ... in fact i even consider the system i posted to be very very mininimal and lacking detail and should be considered a starting block on which to build a system...as i have said before it is they way in which we all try to look at acts as isolated single events that leads us into problems , the realitty of the interconectedness of human life is to complex for easy anaylsis .really i should liked to have put ...Good motive + good action + good benifit + good effect for all linked factors and events = morally goodbut i thinke we can agree that takes us beyond our humble skills and reasoning and comprehending ...i am surprised we got this far in 200 post , 2000 post would not have surprised me ..the reality is that i am unsure that there ever is a truley morally good act .. just our best attempts at such a act , with all the baggage we bring to such an act ..it is clear from human history that what the some agree to being morally good changes over time , and we are all aware of current items that stire up moral bedate to fever pitch .....as i said i think the most important thing to focus on is our doubt ..only that can keep us on the right side of the good/bad equation ... i hope ..