Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others

Stile writes:The system doesn't have any force to make you do anything, it identifies what's good and bad. So that those who have motivations to do good, can do good without the fear of accidentally doing bad.

However, just because someone feels, or thinks, something is good doesn't make it good.

Stile writes:My apologies, please disregard the previous explanation. I got hung up on "your mom's feelings increasing" that I forgot to identify the action in the first place. Your mom and husaband can think whatever they want. The action is "going to church". No one's getting affected by it. The action is morally neutral.

Stile writes:Must I say this is every post...I'm NOT saying Morally Good = anything that increases the inner feelings of anyone.I'm being very specific in saying:Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon

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

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

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.

Stile writes:Yes, it's clearly understood that any given person can have their own concept of morality, what is right and what is wrong. I mean, any person could have their own concept of pretty much anything. I would never argue otherwise. Included in the definition you've provided is also that what you think is "morality" is not morality, but only your version of it. It states that everyone only has "their version" of morality. Which is exactly the problem that my system deals with. It provides an objective view of what is morally good and morally bad.

Right. And Hitler felt it would be good behaviour to do what he did with what he knew and believed about life.
Therefore Hitler's actions and mass murders were Morally Good.I really don't like your definition of Morally Good.

Why? The quote you just put up states that religion is not morality, only sometimes a part of it. God is not needed for morality, certainly not mine, and certainly not an objective system that everyone can use to determine whether or not they are doing good things.

I would say the only problem is that you call every evil action ever committed in the history of this world "Morally Good".

Hitler killing Jews? Oh, he was doing what he thought was best... Morally Good.
Christian Crusades? Oh, they were doing what they thought was best... Morally Good.
A man raping an innocent child? Oh, he's just doing what he thinks is best... Morally Good.I really, really don't respect that definition of Morally Good.

With 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.

Stile writes: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.

So, why is "actually helping other people" not Morally Good?

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.