Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 166 of 304 (407287)
06-25-2007 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Neutralmind
06-22-2007 5:51 PM


Natural phenomenas
Do you consider tornados or other natural phenomenas morally bad? Considering they sometimes kill people.
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.

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

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 167 of 304 (407294)
06-25-2007 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by New Cat's Eye
06-22-2007 4:32 PM


Re: Hell is paved with good intentions.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Stile writes:
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.
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.
We disagree on the results. I can’t call an action morally bad without some to blame it on.
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? )
Catholic Scientist writes:
Stile writes:
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.
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 think that motivation has a lot to do with the morality of an action whether it affects other people or not.
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?
Well, we can’t call it morally good just because of the motivation because then if someone was crazy and...
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.
But like I said, it fails to address some things.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-22-2007 4:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 168 of 304 (407295)
06-25-2007 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by pelican
06-22-2007 11:13 PM


That's just the point, isn't it?
Until we change our attitude towards the good and bad elements then history will go right on repeating itself.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by pelican, posted 06-22-2007 11:13 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by pelican, posted 06-25-2007 8:10 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 169 of 304 (407298)
06-25-2007 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by ikabod
06-25-2007 4:29 AM


Re: Closer to the mark
ikabod writes:
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 ...
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).
if someone or some creed tells you what is moral you are acting with out thought , reason or judgement ..
Unless, of course, that creed tells you to use your reason or judgement to discover how moral the action was.
everyone "knows" its morally good to "offer to help a old lady across the road "
Exactly. Why is that? If the reason is not "because it positively increases her inner-feelings", that what is the reason(s)?
.. 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 ....
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.
ikabod writes:
morally good DOES =trying to do whatever we think is good
Stile writes:
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?
no no and thrice no , bad is still there , how can you judge good if you cant judge bad , does that really need saying ?
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 good
Person 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"?
it takes effort and thought to do the morally good thing ..
How? If morally good = whatever we think is good... isn't that just easy? What's so hard about it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by ikabod, posted 06-25-2007 4:29 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by ikabod, posted 06-26-2007 10:54 AM Stile has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 170 of 304 (407347)
06-25-2007 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Stile
06-25-2007 3:31 PM


Re: That's just the point, isn't it?
An objective view of what 'is' without the judgement of good and bad would do the trick. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as is the perception of good and bad. Remove one and the other disappears.
No one truly believes themselves to be bad but many believe themselves to be good. To know oneself as good, there must be a camparison. This belief itself is a declaration of "I am better than" which is not good. So yes, Stile, being good and doing good creates bad, no matter the intention.
It's a simple concept but difficult to get ones head around in todays society of punishment and reward, but that's another subject.
No one can be good all the time so when one is not being good, is one being bad? Hopefully, one is just being oneself so why change?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Stile, posted 06-25-2007 3:31 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Stile, posted 06-27-2007 10:53 AM pelican has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 171 of 304 (407450)
06-26-2007 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Stile
06-25-2007 4:10 PM


Re: Closer to the mark
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 ...
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).
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 performed
under 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]
everyone "knows" its morally good to "offer to help a old lady across the road "
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 .
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 good
Person 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"?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Stile, posted 06-25-2007 4:10 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Stile, posted 06-27-2007 11:44 AM ikabod has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 172 of 304 (407558)
06-26-2007 7:33 PM


cause effect consequence of good v. bad
Cause, effect and consequence is a natural process of a universal law. This works throughout every action we take. When making these decisions of doing 'good' for self or others, there is always the whole picture to consider. Motive, intention and expected outcome. We can never be certain of the outcome when it involves others but for self the outcome can be fairly accurately predicted.
Moral codes interfere with our innate humaness. They bring in judgement and comparison and competetion, completely negating equality of human beings. If we need a moral code, then it should be this and nothing more. We are all equal, of equal vlaue and belong to one human race. No more are required.
The point I am making (through personal experience) is: the notion of good versus bad is a cause that has the effect of a devisive consequence.

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Stile, posted 06-27-2007 12:00 PM pelican has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 173 of 304 (407627)
06-27-2007 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by pelican
06-25-2007 8:10 PM


Re: That's just the point, isn't it?
dameeva writes:
So yes, Stile, being good and doing good creates bad, no matter the intention.
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.
No one can be good all the time so when one is not being good, is one being bad? Hopefully, one is just being oneself so why change?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by pelican, posted 06-25-2007 8:10 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by pelican, posted 06-27-2007 9:16 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 174 of 304 (407632)
06-27-2007 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by ikabod
06-26-2007 10:54 AM


Re: Closer to the mark
ikabod writes:
here is the difference , you time and again say the act is moral good by your two rules ...
More succinctly, I say:
Morally Good = an action by a being that positively increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon
You still have yet to explain any reason why that is not true.
i say its not the act but the full chain of reason as to why the act is performed
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.
under 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 .
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
however to me a unreasoning machine can not perform a moral act .....
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.
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 ?
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.
would you perform ANY act just because it fits your 2 rule system ??
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.
ikabod writes:
everyone "knows" its morally good to "offer to help a old lady across the road "
Stile writes:
Exactly. Why is that? If the reason is not "because it positively increases her inner-feelings", that what is the reason(s)?
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 are all another way of saying:
"increase the inner-feelings of the being acted upon".
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 ...
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.
i think hmm that old lady needs some help , hmm to get a cross the road to go into to that building .. ..
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.
.. 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 ..
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.
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 ..
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by ikabod, posted 06-26-2007 10:54 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by ikabod, posted 06-28-2007 8:29 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 175 of 304 (407635)
06-27-2007 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by pelican
06-26-2007 7:33 PM


Re: cause effect consequence of good v. bad
dameeva writes:
Motive, intention and expected outcome. We can never be certain of the outcome when it involves others but for self the outcome can be fairly accurately predicted.
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?
We are all equal, of equal vlaue and belong to one human race. No more are required.
The point I am making (through personal experience) is: the notion of good versus bad is a cause that has the effect of a devisive consequence.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by pelican, posted 06-26-2007 7:33 PM pelican has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by anastasia, posted 06-27-2007 2:56 PM Stile has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 176 of 304 (407671)
06-27-2007 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Stile
06-27-2007 12:00 PM


Re: cause effect consequence of good v. bad
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy writes:
1. Descriptive Definitions of “morality”
“Morality” is an unusual word. It is not used very much, at least not without some qualification. People do sometimes talk about “Christian morality,” “Nazi morality,” or about “the morality of the Greeks,” but they seldom talk simply about morality all by itself. Anthropologists used to claim that morality, like law, applied only within a society. They claimed that “morality” referred to that code of conduct that is put forward by a society. This account seems to fit best those societies that have no written language, where often no distinctions are made among morality, etiquette, law, and religion. But even for anthropologists “morality” does not often mean simply “code of conduct put forward by a society.” Often, morality is distinguished from etiquette, law, and religion, all of which provide codes of conduct put forward by a society.
Etiquette is sometimes included as a part of morality, but it applies to behavior that is considered less serious than the kinds of actions to which morality usually applies. Law is distinguished from morality by having explicit rules, penalties, and officials who interpret the laws and apply the penalties, but there is often considerable overlap in the conduct governed by morality and that governed by law. Religion differs from morality in that it includes stories, usually about supernatural beings, that are used to explain or justify the behavior that it requires. Although there is often a considerable overlap in the conduct required by religion and that required by morality, morality provides only a guide to conduct, whereas religion always contains more than this. When “morality” is used simply to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society, whether or not it is distinguished from etiquette, law, and religion, then it is being used in a completely descriptive sense.
When “morality” is used in this descriptive way, moralities can differ from each other in their content and in the foundation that members of the society claim their morality to have. A society might have a morality that is primarily concerned with practices not related to other persons, e.g., which days must be devoted to certain rituals, and might claim that their morality, which is concerned primarily with ritual, is based on the commands of God. Or a society might have a morality that is concerned primarily with sexual practices, and claim that their morality, which has this concern, is based on human nature. Or a society might regard morality as being concerned primarily with practices that minimize the harms that people suffer and claim that their morality, which has this concern, is based on reason. Many societies have moralities that are concerned with all of the above and that are claimed to have all three of the above foundations. But, in this sense of “morality,” regardless of its content, or the justification that those who accept the morality claim for it, the only universal features that all moralities have is that they are put forward by a society and they provide a guide for the behavior of the people in that society.
You have asked for us to show that there is something wrong with your moral code. I don't believe there is anything terribly wrong, but I and others were showing that your code is not morality. It is simply and only your version of it. This article or any other definition should show you that morality can and does encompass diverse elements depending on the society or individual's concerns.
I would say that Morally Good does not = an action initiated by a being which increases PIF in the being acted upon.
Morality = an individual's assessment of all aspects of their life, including convictions and beliefs, religion, law, etiquette, and obligations, and the code of conduct resulting in that individual's 'correct' behaviour all things considered.
Morally Good, therefore, is anything which one feels to be good behaviour based on what they know or believe about life.
The only problem is why we have the concept of morality as in good/evil when we have no God idea.
It is good etiquette to pass the tea pot and to hold the door, but it is not really good or evil. What seperates etiquette from morality?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Stile, posted 06-27-2007 12:00 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Stile, posted 06-28-2007 12:05 PM anastasia has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 177 of 304 (407712)
06-27-2007 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Stile
06-27-2007 10:53 AM


A better person?
Stile, are you not good enough as you are? Why do you need to 'learn' to become a 'better' person? (I like you). We do learn and maybe we become 'better' but from natural progression throughout our life experiences.
Trying to be good will remain trying to be good, the emphasis on trying. No one can try to be good ALL the time. It begs the same question of 'when you are not trying to be good, are you being bad? What a waste of energy and talent that would be.
You say the motive for being good is to live in harmony and as I have previously pointed out, the devisive nature of good and bad is actually the cause. It has not worked throughout history. Harmony maybe the objective but the method stinks.
Whose judgement is it that we are not perfect? I believe we are all perfect with the power to re-create ourselves into who we want to be, opposed to being who others think we should be. The confusion you speak of is already there but it is not from being ourselves, but from becoming who we think we should be to satisfy all the rules laid down by society and family. These rules only work for those who wish to follow them. They don't allow for diversity, freedom and growth because the value of a person is defined in terms of good or bad. The confusion is rife!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Stile, posted 06-27-2007 10:53 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Stile, posted 06-28-2007 1:17 PM pelican has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 178 of 304 (407729)
06-28-2007 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Stile
06-27-2007 11:44 AM


Re: Closer to the mark
Morally Good = an action by a being that positively increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon
ok after all these post it seems no one is going to provide you with enough reasons to change your rule
so 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 .
My system gets past these confusions. It makes sure "good" and "bad" are incorruptible.
.....
...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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Stile, posted 06-27-2007 11:44 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Stile, posted 06-28-2007 1:53 PM ikabod has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 179 of 304 (407774)
06-28-2007 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by anastasia
06-27-2007 2:56 PM


Re: cause effect consequence of good v. bad
anastasia writes:
It is simply and only your version of it. This article or any other definition should show you that morality can and does encompass diverse elements depending on the society or individual's concerns.
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.
Morally Good, therefore, is anything which one feels to be good behaviour based on what they know or believe about life.
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.
The only problem is why we have the concept of morality as in good/evil when we have no God idea.
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.
It is good etiquette to pass the tea pot and to hold the door, but it is not really good or evil. What seperates etiquette from morality?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by anastasia, posted 06-27-2007 2:56 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by anastasia, posted 06-29-2007 12:39 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 180 of 304 (407792)
06-28-2007 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by pelican
06-27-2007 9:16 PM


A better person? Why not?
Stile, are you not good enough as you are?
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.
Why do you need to 'learn' to become a 'better' person?
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.
No one can try to be good ALL the time.
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.
It begs the same question of 'when you are not trying to be good, are you being bad?
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.
What a waste of energy and talent that would be.
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.
You say the motive for being good is to live in harmony and as I have previously pointed out, the devisive nature of good and bad is actually the cause.
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.
It has not worked throughout history. Harmony maybe the objective but the method stinks.
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.
Whose judgement is it that we are not perfect?
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?
The confusion you speak of is already there but it is not from being ourselves, but from becoming who we think we should be to satisfy all the rules laid down by society and family.
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.
These rules only work for those who wish to follow them.
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".
They don't allow for diversity, freedom and growth...
But, well, my rules do allow for diversity, freedom, and growth. How do they not?
...because the value of a person is defined in terms of good or bad.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by pelican, posted 06-27-2007 9:16 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by pelican, posted 06-28-2007 9:08 PM Stile has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024