Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others

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

Hey Stiles, you just don't get it. You move the goalpost every time I kick the ball! You take each sentence out of context and dissect the hell out of it. It seems your inquizitive mind won't allow an objective view. I try to keep things simple and every point I make supports the point of 'judgement of good and bad is devisive and can cause wars'.
You say you would gladly embrace an alternative to bring harmony but actually perpetuate this state of division. You judge and name some humans as silver tongued evil doers, others as evil people. Is this loving thy neighbour? Is this trying to be good? Does this make you better than them?
This view of good v. bad is held by the majority of the human race but there is a growing minority who believe otherwise. There will be no global peace and harmony until we understand that we are each a product of our life experiences without exception. The truth is that given anyones life experience we would be and do exactly the same as them. You see we are all the same. There is no us and them, only us.
The alternative I am proposing is, 'judgement of good and bad needs to shift to judgement of how and why'? Too simple?

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

If you want to accuse me of things, it would at least be honest if you tried to show exactly where these things took place. Chances are you're just mistaken. And I still agree with this. But what's your solution? How do we stop this? Your plan is to get people to stop thinking about good and bad? That sounds too idealistic for me, right now (as I already explained). I think we need to take a smaller step first. If we can't even agree on what we think good and bad are in the first place... how are we possibly going to agree to stop thinking about them at all? Are you sure? How can you prove this?
Aren't you just saying "if you were them, you would have done what they would have"? That isn't even progress, it's just a simple statement of fact. Of course, it's obvious that if we're all exactly the same in every possible way, than we'ed all act exactly the same. It's equivalent to saying "if you were a stick, you'd be made of wood". But what in your life experience tells you that we're all exactly the same in every possibly way? I would say it's rather obvious that we're all rather different in very many ways.Aren't you just assuming that if two people had exactly the same learning experiences and exactly the same stimuli that they'll have the exact same reaction to any future events? How can you possibly think such a thing is practical? People do have different stimuli in their life-experiences. It's currently impossible to give two people "the exact same stimuli" for their development. How have you even tested this hypothesis? People do have control over what stimuli they are affected by. Some people moreso than others. We can choose to walk away from certain people. We can choose to close our eyes. We can choose to punch someone in the nose. We can choose to use resistive force, we can choose to use aggresive force. We can choose to use no force at all. So.. what happens when someone kills another person? We figure out the how and why and... move on? Or do we still punish the criminal in (basically) the same way we do now? If we still punish the criminal (removal from society or whatever...) how is "how and why" any different from "good and bad"? If we simply move on... how does your system prevent greed from corrupting anyone? With no reprecussions... why are we even figuring out "how and why"? If we're not going to do anything about it, doesn't the "how and why" become meaningless?

Stile, I see I am not the only one who is finding you a bit stubborn when it comes to viewing things objectively. Of course I know my morality is simply my own, because there are quite simply things which affect my life that can not be dealt with fully by any external code. Your system remains YOUR system. It is a system which can in some cases help you to act 'good' based on what YOU have defined as 'good'. It is definitely not a system that would work for me, because it does nothing to solve the problem of the innate goodness or evilness of actions themselves.You may not believe there is any real goodness associated with some actions. I do. I can give you one example for now.I don't believe that doing drugs for recreational purposes is ever good. I have an old friend who in his youth administered drugs to a friend, and this action resulted in the death of the other young man. THe act itself increased the inner feelings of the person acted upon, in more than one way I would say...plus it was desired and wished for, but there is no way I would call it 'good'. I hope you will not confuse the accidental death aspect and tell me that this was a morally bad action, when it does meet your criteria for Good. Why? You can only abhor Hitler's actions based on what you know and believe about life! I'll let that go because I am actually thinking about explaining further in a new thread, today if things go well. I propose that the concept of a Good person does not exist without religion. No. I can only tell you my opinions about which actions in themselves are good or bad. In your above examples, I don't know if any of these people were doing what they thought was best, but if they were, the action could still be bad, and the person could still be good. Stile, there are no things which are good except by our opinion. Morally Good is not an action, it's a state of mind. Actually Standford did mention that etiquette is normally about trivial things which we don't generally consider moral. I think what they are gettng at is that sometimes parts of etiquette become incoporated into morality, or are left over from a moral code.

No, I don't define it like that, more like this:1. People interact with other people.
2. An "action" is when one person does something to another person.
3a. If this action helps the affected person, it is a good action.
3b. If this action hurts the affected person, it is a bad action.
3c. If the person affected doesn't care, it is a morally neutral action.Therefore, all the other things you're doing are also all actions.Helping others while you're helping the old lady cross the street? You certainly can do two good things at once. Hurting others while helping the old lady cross the street? You certainly can do bad things while doing good things. Why would you believe otherwise? No it doesn't. It can, but it doesn't have to. If the road was deserted except for you and the old lady, you can still do good by helping her cross the street. Now you're just analyzing too much. We don't need to call it an "action" if you don't like that word. The thing we're talking about is "helping the lady cross the street". This is one person, doing one thing to one other person. We don't have to go smaller than that. Ha... ikabod, you were the one who brought up the robot and implied that it shouldn't be morally good if the robot did it. I agreed with you because of the reasoning you presented. Something about "it can't be good or bad with no one to take credit or blame for it". If you now want to imply that it now should be morally good for the robot to do it. Fine, I'll agree with you again. I don't really care.If you want to restrict our topic to people, I think that would be easiest. The topic of "can robots (or dogs or anything non-human) do morally good actions" is another topic. My personal opinion is that a "being" is any creature capable of reasoned decisions. This would include dogs, but not robots. I also don't find this topic particularly interesting so I'm not going to comment on it anymore.Regardless of who's capable of doing good, this topic is about what IS good, and why it's good. Who's capable of it is another topic. For the purpose of this thread, you can say anything about who is or who is not capable, I won't argue with you here. I'm discussing what IS good.On inner-feelings: Specifically? I'm not sure if you can. The measurement isn't needed though, only the fact that it did increase. And this can be subjectively judged through our sense of empathy, and can be objectively judged by obtaining the information from the person acted upon. Obtaining the information could be as easy as reading their body language, or even by asking them. Basically, this is the same way you know if you helped someone or not.Remember "positively increasing inner-feelings" is just a long-assed winded way to say "helped them". Any amount whatsoever. Some people are, some people aren't. In this regard, people are extremely different. Knowledge of if you did something good isn't always easy to obtain, or even availble. The same place all errors of judgement go. They get replaced with the correct knowledge. No. But measuring it isn't required. You only need to know if you're increasing it or decreasing it.Remember, we're only talking about "helping" someone. Try your questions on that:ok how do you measure the increase?
becomes:
ok how do you measure how much you've helped someone?
-the same answer, I don't know how. I don't know if it's even possible. But, it also doesn't matter. All that matters is if you helped them or not. Not "how much" you've helped them.how much of a increase is need to count the action as good?
becomes:
How much do you need to help someone in order for it to be good?
-the same answer, any amount of actual help at all is morally goodis the being acted upon a reliable subject in terms off their ability to feel and manage their inner feelings
becomes:
Is the person helped a reliable subject in terms of their ability to know if they've been helped?
-the same answer, people are different in this regard and it varies greatly. For the most part, yes, they are in fact the only reliable subject.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 ?
becomes:
if 23 seconds after "helping" someone they find out you actually hurt them, where did the help go?
-the same answer, the "helping" was obviously an error, and you accidentally hurt them. It may have been an accident, but that doesn't change the fact that you've hurt them. Why do you think an old lady taking some metal across the street should be considered morally good? Who's being helped? Who's being hurt? Why isn't this just a morally neutral action? We've already been through this one. The same action can easily be good and bad to different people.
Help an old lady across the street who wants to be helped?
-morally good
Help an old lady across the street who doesn't want to be helped?
-morally bad
Help an old lady across the street who doesn't care?
-morally neutralWhy would it be any different?Why do you think that just because you want to consider something good or bad, that this makes it actually good or bad? I only isolate because that's what we're talking about. If you want to talk about the other people, we can do that too. You're just twisting words again.
Acts certainly can affect only one person. If you take the lady across the street, and there's no one else around.. how did this affect anyone else?But, I agree that there are many scenarios where we must choose to do 1 thing that will help one person, and hurt another.How does this change the fact that it's HELPING ONE PERSON and HURTING ANOTHER? You can argue all you want that it's better or less bad to do this amount of help over that amount of hurt, but it doesn't remove the fact that you're still HELPING someone and still HURTING someone else. That's all I'm saying.The system isn't here to tell you "how much" helping or "how much" hurting you're doing.It's only a basic system which identifies if you are indeed "helping" or "hurting". That's all, it's just a foundation, not a comprehensive encyclopedia. And none of these scenarios where multiple people are helped or hurt and we must choose one over the other negates the fact that there are still people being helped and hurt. You're only equivocating my terms. No "act" is good if it lowers the IF of the person acted upon. However, you're not talking about an "act", you're talking about a "scenario" filled with many "acts" on many different people. The fact that we want to "help as many as we can" doesn't change the fact that we are helping some, and hurting others. Sure they are, only if you're willing to accept the consequences. You still haven't shown any consequences to my definition of Morally Good that shouldn't be considered Morally Good. Murder is "an action".
Do you accept that murder is morally good? Murder is "a reasoned action".
Do you accept that murder is morally good? Murder "occurs".
Do you accept that murder is morally good? Exactly... you've found an idea that is contrary to the premise. Of course people can do good in space. Therefore "an action that occurs on the planet earth" is not a rightful definition for "Morally Good".What you have not done, is come up with any idea that is contrary to my premise.
What you have not done, is show that "an action by a being that positively increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon" is not Morally Good. Until you do that, the statement stands. You have not done this yet. Do this, and explain why, and then we can start our discussion. How do you know you've helped someone? Sometime's it's very hard to know. Sometime's it may be impossible. Most of the time it's easy. Of course not, as I've already stated many times, it can sometimes be difficult to know if you've helped someone. However, this doesn't than allow you to say "good is trying to help them". It simply means that sometimes it's difficult to know if you've helped someone. "In case" you do bad? Do you know of anyone who doesn't do bad things, ever? Do you know of anyone who is absolutely perfect? The point is that we are going to do bad things. The point is that we need to learn why we did these things that were bad, and how to correct them in the future. You do not HAVE to rely on what you feel is right. If you want to help people, it's much more efficient to FIND OUT FROM THOSE PEOPLE if you're helping them or not, than it is to DECIDE FOR YOURSELF if you're helping them or not. When we make those decisions ourselves, we time and again end up hurting the very people we're trying to help. True. And that hurt you've inflicted is bad. Even though the help you've also done is good. This is simply ridiculous. I've explained the rule, the unmeasurable aspect is irrelevant, and the unreliable-subjective aspect is exactly why it's there in the first place.You can "want" to help people all day long.
This still does nothing for actually helping people.You can do things that you "think" will help people all day long.
It still does nothing for actually helping people.If you want to actually help people, you're going to have to learn FROM THOSE PEOPLE what it is that's actually going to help them. Exactly. And if I define "good" in an absolute sense, such as:Morally Good = an action by a being that positively increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon...then we most certainly can have an objective debate about it.You still have yet to show and explain why "an action by a being that positively increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon" is not Morally Good.You still have yet to show and explain why "actually helping someone" is not Morally Good.That's all I'm saying. Morally Good = "actually helping people".And how do we know if what we do is Morally Good?
How do we know if what we do is "actually helping people"?We have to learn that information from those people.

But this is untrue. You can believe this, and think this all you want, but everything in your life certainly can be dealt with fully by pretty much any external code. You just may not agree with it. But that is irrelevant with an external code "fully dealing with" things in your life.I can make one up right now:--------------
When anastasia is affected by something with her eyes open, I will call it "majestic". When anastasia is affected by something with her eyes closed, I will call it "awesome". When anastasia is affected by something with her eyes not opened or closed, I will call it "probably pretty good anyway".
--------------This "external code" fully deals with all things that have ever affected your life.
You certainly may not agree with it (I don't), but that doesn't stop it from fully dealing with anything that's ever affected you.Now, what we want to talk about are things that we agree with. And, once we agree on something, we certianly can talk about that thing objectively.You still have not shown, or explained why you disagree with calling "an action by a being that positively increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon" Morally Good.Remember, this is just a long-winded way to say "Morally Good = actually helping other people".So, why is "actually helping other people" not Morally Good?or even:Why should we consider an action that does not "actually help other people" Morally Good? What makes this action Morally Good?You haven't answered any of these questions. I understand that you do.You can believe "not doing drugs" is Morally Good.
You can believe "going to church" is Morally Good.
You can believe "collecting pretty stones" is Morally Good.
You can believe "sleeping on your back as opposed to your side" is Morally Good.Your belief just doesn't mean anything, that's all.What makes "not doing drugs" Morally Good other than the fact you were close to a personal bad experience with them?
What makes "going to church" Morally Good other than the fact you say it is?
Why is "collecting pretty stones" not considered Morally Good?
Why is "sleeping on your back as opposed to your side" not considered Morally Good?You also haven't answered any of these questions. So.. you agree that Hitler's actions and mass murders were Morally Good?This is exactly what I'm talking about. If "what I know and believe about life" is that:
Morally Good = an action by a being that positively increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon.
Then why can't I judge his actions as Morally Bad?
Why can't I objectively judge his actions as Morally Bad according to this principle?Now, the answers to those two questions are "I can" and "I can do it objectively according to that principle".The only questions are:Is the principle sound?
and
Does anyone else agree with the principle?Morally Good = an action by a being that positively increases the inner-feelings of the being acted uponOr, in layman's terms:Morally Good = actually helping other peopleSo, if you disagree, why is actually helping other people not good?Otherwise, we certainly can objectively say that his actions were bad. But we're not talking about people as a whole, judged over the course of their entire lives. We're talking about the specifics of single actions. If what you want to say is "there are people who are over-all Morally Good, who do a few bad things" than sure, I agree with you. But that's not what you were saying, you were saying "A Morally Good thing is when a person does whatever they think is good". And I don't agree with that.I think, "a morally good thing" is when someone actually helps another person, not when they try to.Hitler tried to help other people, he did not. I judge Hitler's action as Morally Bad. Do you judge it as Morally Good because he was trying to help other people?My definition doesn't even care what Hitler's motives are. That's the whole point. Hitler killed millions of people against their will. I say this is Morally Bad, regardless of why he was doing it. You... aren't sure if it's Morally Good or Bad or not? It may be Bad? It may be Good??? If his motives were just so?I thought the problem was you didn't like that my definition couldn't call some things morally good? Now it's your definition that doesn't even know what to call it when someone murder's millions of people? I agree. And the fact that almost everyone in this world agrees that what Hitler did was Morally Bad, and that helping an old lady across the street is Morally Good... leads us to beleive that there is some "state of mind", some "opinion" that we all tend to agree with. I'm proposing that this opinion is:Morally Good = actually helping other people.
and
Morally Bad = actually hurting other people.Or, explicitly:Morally Good = an action by a being that positively increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon
and
Morally Bad = an action by a being that decreases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon

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

If a code doesn't make sense and isn't useful, it's not really dealing with anything, is it? Read any of the 'Old Laws Still Valid' thread? It's fine to help other people, believe in it, but the problem with your system is it does not consider whether what you are doing to help others is wrong or right in itself. I can help someone aquire porn, or drugs, or liquor... underage at that, or escape the law, or perform sadistic acts upon themselves, or any number of things. Your system doesn't help me to figure out if those things are good or bad. Your belief that people are should have PIF doesn't mean anything either, it's just your belief.Now, let us seperate a good person from a good action.Hitler may or may not have been a good person, depending on whether he thought he was actually doing good. Most of us would say that someone who does so many things which most of us just 'know' are bad, can not possibly be a good person. Personally I believe Hitler was beyond the point of even knowing what he was doing.When I say Morally Good, I am referring to anything which a person does because they feel it is right. I am not making a determination about whether the action WAS right, only about whether the person is justified in doing it.To say an action is good in itself you must be an absolutist, you must believe that for some reason certain things were just meant to be. I was not initially looking to know what was good so much as what the basis was for the belief that some things ARE good.The only real problem I am having with you is that on the one hand you claim that some actions, like going to church, are neutral, but at the same time you can't see that ALL actions are neutral until someone gives them meaning. You have only critiqued actions thus far according to YOUR system.

Hi Stile, I was merely making an observation of you taking a sentence out of context. The proof is all through your posts but the understanding lies in the whole paragraph, not in a single sentence.
E G. You disputed my saying 'we are all the same' but the sentence preceding that says 'we are all a product of our life experiences without exception'. This didn't seem to register with you.We become that which we have experienced in total, emphasis on BECOME. If I was given exactly the same experiences as you, I would think, feel and do as you do. Then there would be no need of you, would there? Of course we are all different. We are human beings but is it a case of, 'there but for the grace of god go I'?We are all a product of our whole life experiences from mother Teresa to adolph hitler. One judged to be good and the other judged to be bad but given their life experiences we each could have been exactly as they.It isn't choice. It isn't about morals or rules. It is about how and why? How can one little man like Hitler be responsible for all the atrocities? He was not alone. If no-one had listened to him, he would have been perfectly harmless. Why did the people follow him? Why is it still happening? Do you think George Bush's motives and intentions are any different to Hitler's? The consequences are the same. Death, destruction, atrocities, despair.War is the consequence of 'judgement' of good and bad. Us and them. We cannot ignore that which we judge as bad. War is bad but we ignore the cause. The cause begins in the mass consciousness belief system of, "we are good, you are bad. I am right, you are wrong." This belief system cannot be objective. It will always be subjective.The judgement of good and bad is not a solution. The jails are full of our judgements of bad. Has that solved the problem of crime? How come these 'criminals' (who also happen to be human beings) have come to be? Why did they do what they have done? The truth will bring it's own solution.The concept of judging good and bad from a different perspective is not a difficult one, but opening ones mind to something outside of ones own experience is almost impossible (for most). This seems to be the problem, if there is indeed a problem. Maybe we are all like parts of a jigsaw puzzle and we haven't mannaged to fit the pieces together yet?

You really do like to go off, don't you?I'll leave our debate to the readers. I can't put in the effort to continually correct your manipulations. I did. You added in morality. You've already specifically agreed to the rule, twice. I'm convinced you agree with me. You either just don't know it, or you like to antagonize. Whatever it is, I don't have the time to fix all the same mistakes over and over. Exactly the same as Message 1. Funny no one's had a rebuttle to it.

In a word... yes.For the full explanation (and practically), as soon as anything bad came from it... no. It's the same trickyness that exists around what's called "white lies".Edited by Stile, : Incorrect quote assignment

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