Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


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 184 of 304 (407932)
06-29-2007 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by pelican
06-28-2007 9:08 PM


Re: A better person? Why not?
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.
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.
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'.
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?
dameeva writes:
The truth is that given anyones life experience we would be and do exactly the same as them.
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.
The alternative I am proposing is, 'judgement of good and bad needs to shift to judgement of how and why'? Too simple?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by pelican, posted 06-28-2007 9:08 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by pelican, posted 06-30-2007 10:06 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 186 of 304 (407970)
06-29-2007 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by ikabod
06-29-2007 8:16 AM


Re: We agree... again? What are we arguing over?
ikabod writes:
you try to defiene good as "a single act" , that stands alone , but there is no such thing .....
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?
...to do a "good" involes all of these functions
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.
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 ..
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.
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 ..
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:
ok how do you measure the increase?
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".
how much of a increase is need to count the action as good?
Any amount whatsoever.
is the being acted upon a reliable subject in terms off their ability to feel and manage their inner feelings?
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.
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 ?
The same place all errors of judgement go. They get replaced with the correct knowledge.
Can you infact define PIIF clearly enough even to measure it ..
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 good
is 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.
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 ...
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?
now 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 ??
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 neutral
Why 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?
agin you isolate , its only the inner feelings of the old lady you look at , yet clearly the act also has effects bon others
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.
all the same act .. you cannot escape the interconectedness of the real world
no 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
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.
how can any act be good if it causes so much lowering of IF
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.
if yours is true so are these
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.
Morally Good = an action ... is a true statement
Murder is "an action".
Do you accept that murder is morally good?
Morally Good = a reasoned action... is a true statement
Murder is "a reasoned action".
Do you accept that murder is morally good?
Morally Good = a action that occurs , not just thought about ... is a true statement
Murder "occurs".
Do you accept that murder is morally good?
Morally Good = a action that occurs on the planet earth... is a true statement.. does it mean in space no one can do 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 we know , 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 ...
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.
.. 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 newdress for her birth day , where as in fact she wanted shoes , but is lieing so as not to hurt your feelings ??
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.
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 .. ...
"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.
..and some time you might inflict some hurt while doing good .. ...
True. And that hurt you've inflicted is bad. Even though the help you've also done is 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 ...
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.
unless good is a absolute you cant have a objective debate about it , you cannot find a set of rules to define it
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by ikabod, posted 06-29-2007 8:16 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by ikabod, posted 06-29-2007 6:28 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 187 of 304 (407978)
06-29-2007 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by anastasia
06-29-2007 12:39 PM


Re: cause effect consequence of good v. bad
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.
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.
You may not believe there is any real goodness associated with some actions. I do. I can give you one example for now.
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.
anastasia writes:
Stile writes:
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? You can only abhor Hitler's actions based on what you know and believe about life!
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 upon
Or, in layman's terms:
Morally Good = actually helping other people
So, if you disagree, why is actually helping other people not good?
Otherwise, we certainly can objectively say that his actions were bad.
the action could still be bad, and the person could still be good.
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?
Stile, there are no things which are good except by our opinion. Morally Good is not an action, it's a state of mind.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by anastasia, posted 06-29-2007 12:39 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by anastasia, posted 06-29-2007 7:25 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 192 of 304 (408598)
07-03-2007 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by ikabod
06-29-2007 6:28 PM


Have fun...
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.
ikabod writes:
if you want to debate what is good , do that , them add in morality ,
I did. You added in morality.
if i and there others posting here are so wrong , why is no one debating with you based on you rule ??
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.
what would you opening statement to the objective debate be ?
Exactly the same as Message 1. Funny no one's had a rebuttle to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by ikabod, posted 06-29-2007 6:28 PM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by ikabod, posted 07-04-2007 8:11 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 193 of 304 (408599)
07-03-2007 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by ikabod
06-29-2007 6:31 PM


Re: for debate
ikabod writes:
does telling untruths , which PIIF of the person they are told to count as a morally good act ???
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by ikabod, posted 06-29-2007 6:31 PM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by ikabod, posted 07-04-2007 6:38 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 196 of 304 (409628)
07-10-2007 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by anastasia
06-29-2007 7:25 PM


Re: cause effect consequence of good v. bad
anastasia writes:
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.
You may refuse to acknowledge it, but it certainly does.
The problem is, that any of those acts you propose can be seen as "good" or "bad" depending on what type of scenario they are involved in.
It's the situation that determines if it's good or bad or not. It's if you help or hurt someone that determines if it's good or bad or not. It's if you "positively increase their inner feelings" that determines if it's good or bad or not.
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.
Almost, but not quite.
I claim that all actions are morally neutral until they have an effect on a being. Once they do, we need to determine if that effect was positive, negative or neutral to that person in order to specify if the action itself was morally good, morally bad, or morally neutral.
You have only critiqued actions thus far according to YOUR system.
Well, yes. I keep getting asked to explain how this system would handle situations. It's only natural that I answer such questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by anastasia, posted 06-29-2007 7:25 PM anastasia has not replied

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


Message 197 of 304 (409629)
07-10-2007 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by pelican
06-30-2007 10:06 PM


Re: There but for the grace of god go I?
dameeva writes:
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.
And I totally agreed with your theory. I just pointed out that, practically, "we are all different", and the theory is basically useless since there's no way we could ever control such things. Or, at least, no way in our life-times.
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.
I don't think war is the consequence of judgement of good and bad.
I think war is the consequence of differing judgements.
If good and bad were judged the same, I don't think there'd be a war. Or, at least, we'ed all agree on "stopping the bad people". And we can do this by making the belief system objective. All this takes is the agreement of a few simple ideals. Ideals that I propose most people in the world already agree with anyway. Ideals like:
1. Beings are equal, and deserve equal rights to life and pursuit of happiness.
2. Morally Good = an action that positively increases the inner-feelings of another person.
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.
I think the judgement is a solution. Not what the pronouncement is in itself, but the understanding of why the judgement is made.
I'm not saying that this system will rid us of all human evil
I'm saying this is a fine system to identify good and bad. One that can be used by anyone who agrees with the two ideals above. That's all.
You still haven't explained how what you propose is any different from "good and bad" anyway. What do you mean by "the truth will bring it's own solution"? What solution is it bringing? Should we still jail people who kill others? Or are you somehow proposing that if we simply figure out why some people kill others.. then they'll stop?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by pelican, posted 06-30-2007 10:06 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by pelican, posted 07-10-2007 11:28 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 198 of 304 (409634)
07-10-2007 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by ikabod
07-04-2007 8:11 AM


Re: Have fun...
ikabod writes:
do you agree that some , not all , some , acts can PIIF and at the same time not be a good acts
Here, you have to define what you mean by "good act". And.. are we still talking about the person acted upon? Or just any random guy walking past? I'm only talking about the person acted upon. Obviously, by my definition, I do not agree:
Morally Good = an action by a being that PIIF of the being acted upon.
Now, instead of asking me "what if....?" or "how do you deal with..."?
You should present a scenario showing why you think an act that positively increases a being's inner-feelings, should not be considered good.
Like in your last post, you say:
does telling untruths , which PIIF of the person they are told to count as a morally good act ???
But why do you think this should not be considered a good act?
Please fully explain your thoughts. Otherwise I'm just guessing, and, well, obviously that doesn't lead us anywhere productive.
As for your 7 points of refutation, I was hoping it would be obvious why they don't touch upon the subject:
1. YOU defined it therefore it not objective
No, defining something doesn't make it subjective.
If I define:
Morally Good = an action by a being that PIIF of the being acted upon
..then it certainly is objective as to whether or not an action is Morally Good. All we have to do is figure out if the being's IF were positively increased or not. If they were, than the action is objectively Morally Good. If they were not, than the action is objectively not Morally Good.
It is objective. However, it only "matters" if anyone agrees with me. Most people tend to agree that helping people is good, though.
2. the statment contains terms which are , by your statement to be based on SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT .
This is incorrect. It is true that a person's inner-feelings are subjective. However, this does not alter the fact that once something happens to someone.. how they feel about it can be objectively obtained.
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
Of course I do. Why would I let you use your manipulated definitions to define something I'm proposing? I'm proposing it, we're discussing what I'm talking about. We're discussing what I'm describing.
4. you change the terms action , thing , help, being,person, dog , reasoning being , around to fit YOUR curreent debating posistion
Not only my "current" position, but my "only" position. And I haven't changed them one bit. I'm only trying to get you to understand what I'm trying to say. You simply seem to be refusing to want to understand what I'm trying to describe.
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 .
I never changed it. I sayed "in layman's terms" it's equivalent to "helping" in order to help you understand what I'm trying to say. And it doesn't let me avoid anything. How do you measure the increase of inner-feelings? How do you measure "help"?
Is helping an old lady more help than helping a younger lady?
Is helping an old lady more help than helping a pregnant lady?
Is helping an old lady more help than helping a limping man?
Can't you see?
It doesn't matter "how much" help you've done. Helping is helping... it's good.
It doesn't matter "how much" you increase someone's inner-feelings. Increasing their inner-feelings is increasing their inner-feeings... it's good.
I'm not trying to avoid anything, I'm trying to show you that "how much" you help someone is irrelevant to figuring out if you did help them or not.
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
I most certainly do not agree that the means to find out is subjective. How the person reacts... is subjective. Their reaction itself (whatever it is) is objective.
And I never negated an absolute, I haven't even proposed any absolutes.
7.You still have not defined which morallity yours , ontario's , canada's , the english speaking world , the planet earth , our galaxy , the universe ?
Message 1 Clearly states that I am proposing this system of morallity. And I am proposing it for everyone, universally. I still haven't been shown any reason why it shouldn't be used by everyone. Some people have shown why they want more included, but that seems extraneous to me, either selfish or simply superfluous.
Now, I suggest you simply answer the fist part of this post, or we're just going to end up back where we just were.
This would be the logical place to start to understand our differences:
do you agree that some , not all , some , acts can PIIF and at the same time not be a good acts
Here, you have to define what you mean by "good act". Here, you have to define what you mean by "good act". And.. are we still talking about the person acted upon? Or just any random guy walking past?
It would be beneficial if you described a scenario, and then described two things:
1. Why you think the action positively increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon.
2. Why you think this should not be considered "morally good".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by ikabod, posted 07-04-2007 8:11 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by ikabod, posted 07-11-2007 3:53 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 201 of 304 (409937)
07-12-2007 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by pelican
07-10-2007 11:28 PM


Re: There but for the grace of god go I?
dameeva writes:
Your number one ideal is equality but how you propose to bring it around is by "stopping the BAD people." Can't you see the contradiction here?
First, I'm not "proposing a way to bring around equality". I'm simply proposing a method for identifying good and bad.
Second, my number one ideal is not "equality". The term in and of itself is too general, and, well, it's obvious that people are not physically equal in many different ways.
My number one ideal is that "people are equal with respect to their rights for life and pursuit of happiness". But I still don't propose to use this to stop bad people, only as a means to identify good and bad.
I know you want to argue that this entire identification is preventing us from becoming a perfectly-stable world-wide society. And, well, I partially agree, as I said in my very first reply to you. But I'm simply talking about living right now, and being able to identify good and bad without needing to invlove the idea of God.
Once discovered it would be made common knowledge for the greater good of future generations.
I understand. But, with an airplane, we force it to assimilate the newly discovered greater good. I don't see how you're going to force it onto people. You seem to think people will just all want to? What if they don't? Do you have any evidence that would show how any person will always be good given knowledge of their actions and consequences?
So in answer to your final question of 'am I proposing that if we simply figure out why some people kill others..then they'll stop? With a change of heart and some creative thinking..YES
This is what I mean. If people are free to make their own choices... won't we always have people who make "good" and those who make "bad" choices? Even if the definitions of good and bad are altered somewhat, wouldn't the descrepency still be there? Or are you suggesting that we force environmental factors to ensure each and every person learns the knowledge we think will bring the most... serenity?
I still don't see how such a system could possibly be implemented, and I'm not really getting a very comfortable feeling about it. It seems dangerously close to forcing people to be a certain way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by pelican, posted 07-10-2007 11:28 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by pelican, posted 07-12-2007 9:11 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 202 of 304 (409954)
07-12-2007 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by ikabod
07-11-2007 3:53 AM


Now we're debating
Scenario 1:
ikabod writes:
mother tells untruth to child about a dead pet .....here the mother is acting to protect the child from harsh reality.. later when the child has a greater understanding the untruth can be relived and the truth explained .
...
In case 1 everything is done condisering the best for the child and thus may be considered a good act ....
I agree entirely, especially with your word-choice. It may be considered a good act. We don't really know, but we're hoping that it is a good act.
If it actually does help the child to understand, and grow, that is... if it actually does PIIF of the child, then it IS a morally good act.
However, if it actually does not help the child to understand, if it actually impedes the child somehow... let's say.. it's a very "different" child, who needs to know exactly how things are (for whatever reason, I'm just making this up). Then this child would be extremely upset upon learning the truth. Therefore, such an act would actually decrease the IF of the child, and therefore be a morally bad act.
You see what I'm saying? It doesn't matter what the act is. It matters on the results. You can have the greatest of intentions... if you hurt someone, that's bad (although it may certainly well be an accident). If you help them... that's good. That's all I'm saying.
Scenario 2:
husband agrees with wife over decorating the house in greens and yellow s through out ....... here the husband tells untruth to compromise and to let the wife have her way , , he will "put yp with " the colours to avoid a argument , here it is better the truth does not come out , or comes out in a way showing the reasoning behind it was a scarifiice made by the husband ...
...
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 ...
I agree again, with your statement that this act is debateable. It all depends on how the wife will react. If she's extremely happy that her husband likes the colours.. and doesn't care about how her husband feels... then yes, I agree that this is a morally good act towards her.
However, if she's happy he agrees, but puts more value on her husband being happy as well... then when she learns the truth she's going to be extremely upset. Like with scenario 1, here it would be a morally bad act to lie to her.
Scenario 3:
a conman tells untruths about how much money a deal is making to the person he is conning .... here the untruth is deception to cause / prolong harm , in all case it would be better if the untruth is never told , and when it comes out harm can be the only outcome .
...
in case 3 there is never a morally good act ...
I agree entirely again. However, I'm just going to propose a silly addition onto this to make a point. Let's say the person getting conned needed to lose money for some reason (ever seen that movie where the guy had to spend so much money in such a short time in order to receive a huge inheritance or something?). Anyway, let's say this person needed, and WANTED to lose as much money as possible. Then, when they learned they'ed actually lost a large amount... they would be happy. I would say that given this result, even though the conman was intending to do harm... it was actually a morally good action upon the guy who wanted to lose money.
To sum up:
Do you disagree that these same scenario's would all be deemed morally good or morally bad given how I've described them?
My system doesn't help us foresee the future in any way, it doesn't give us a guideline we can follow to say "oh, this WILL be good" or "that WILL be bad". It only allows us to identify our actions upon their results. So that we can learn from these results, and update our actions accordingly.
If you want to say that "not knowing beforehand is a flaw". I would agree that "not knowing beforehand" is a negative thing. But I wouldn't say it's a flaw. I don't think there's anyway we can know beforehand. And thinking we can know how something is going to affect others only adds to how we can think we're helping people, but actually end up hurting them.
do you think that this method ,while attempting to determine if a act is Morally good , can show if a act is Morally bad .... or do you assume all non-good acts are by default bad , and/or if a act is morally neutral ... ?
Yes. I've been explicitly stating what Morally Good is all the time. However, it is implicitly implied that:
Morally Bad = an action by a being that decreases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon.
(hurting someone)
Morally Neutral = an action by a being that has no effect on the inner-feelings of the being acted upon.
(when someone doesn't care what someone else is doing)
Morally Neutral also = an action NOT by a being, that has ANY effect on the inner-feelings of the being acted upon.
(attempting to cover natural actions such as earthquakes or floods or pretty wild flowers or whatever).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by ikabod, posted 07-11-2007 3:53 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by ikabod, posted 07-13-2007 7:05 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 205 of 304 (410884)
07-17-2007 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by pelican
07-12-2007 9:11 PM


What are we discussing?
dameeva writes:
We have laws to tell us and plenty of them but they don't work. I believe the physical problems are caused from the emotional\belief consciousness e.g lack of empathy. Empathy doesn't come from laws. Many in the judicial system lack empathy also. It is learned or not, through experience.
I see nothing wrong with what you say here. I agree completely. What makes you think I don't agree with this?
The point I am making is that your ideal of
"people are equal with respect to their rights for life and pursuit of happiness" are the same views held by those who are judged as 'bad'. It doesn't work!
Stile, I have no idea how old you are or even your gender but the mind set you hold is becoming out-dated and needs to be so. Maybe your experiences of good or (especially) bad is the reason you cling to the ideals that are clearly unequal?
But what do you mean by "it doesn't work!"? What doesn't work? Do you mean:
-The moral system I propose doesn't identify actions correctly as good or bad?
It does this very well, because that's what it's supposed to do.
Or do you mean:
-The moral system I propose doesn't instantly give us perfect social order where no one is ever hurt?
Well, no, it doesn't do this. Of course, it was never intended by any means to ever do this either.
Or do you mean:
-The moral system I propose doesn't help move society towards a "better" goal by any means?
Again, if this is what you mean, I think you're wrong. It removes the ability of con-men to convince good people that certain evil actions are actually "good".
Or do you mean something else entirely?
And why do you say that the 'idea of people being equal with respect to their rights for life and pursuit of happiness' is a "clearly unequal ideal"? Or was it some other ideal that you didn't mention that you think is "clearly unequal"?
Or are you saying that the sheer determination that some actions are "good" and other's are "bad" is "clearly unequal"? If this is what you mean... unequal to what? I still don't understand how you intend to have the pure knowledge of why a bad thing happened prevent anyone from ever doing it again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by pelican, posted 07-12-2007 9:11 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by pelican, posted 07-17-2007 10:36 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 206 of 304 (410888)
07-17-2007 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by ikabod
07-13-2007 7:05 AM


Intentions vs. Results?
ikabod writes:
on 3 i would slightly disagree , where you put in your silly addition .. btw brewser's millions richard prior funny film ... my view would be that the action , the conning is still and always will be morally bad , however much accidental "good" {or can we use the word benifit to avoid confusion} comes out of it ... the cuase was to inflict harm and loss and it did , it is only by random chance that so benifit occured , to claim the moral tag i feel the intent and purpose is important ..
This is excellent. We're making good progress. I think morality should be classified as good/bad according to the results of how people are affected. And you do not. You agree with me only as long as the intent is in-line with the results... but if they differ, than it's the intent that decides if it was moral or not? Is this true?
Like this?
Stile
Good motive, good action = morally good.
Bad motive, good action = morally good.
Good motive, bad action = morally bad.
Bad motive, bad action = morally bad.
ikabod
Good motive, good action = morally good.
Bad motive, good action = morally bad.
Good motive, bad action = morally good.
Bad motive, bad action = morally bad.
Have I described your position correctly? Or am I misunderstanding you?
case 4.a gun weilding drug crazed madman runs in to a shop and shots a random stranger dead .....{silly part} the random stranger had in fact gone to the shop to by a bottle of pills to kill him self , so he has PIIF's in his dieing breath as it has saved him the trouble and he has got what he wanted ... now just cos the victim wanted to die i do not thunk this shooting could be a Morally Good act .. even with a benifit linked to it ..
And you correctly assume that I would label this action as Morally Good.
You've said you don't consider it morally good, but the important thing is why do you think it is not morally good. I'd assume that it's because the motive was bad, but you haven't actually said, is that correct? Or is it because it involved killing? Or is it because the scenario can never be corrected (death is sort of... permanent)?
Why do you think this is not morally good? Is my description of your position correct?
think i disagree with your morally neutral , firstly i dont think a earthquake or a flood can be moral in any was , it is a envent in the same way sunrise is , or gravity effects us , there as in a seperate class of acts .
I agree. You can change my wording from "Morally Neutral" to "Morally not applicable" here if it makes you feel more comfortable. But this is exactly the idea I was attempting to describe.
old fuddyduddy professor gives a lecture to his students and bores the brains out of their ears .. clearly the students suffer LOIF , and we can say some real harm , as it is putting them off their studies and thus damaging their education..but i do not think we can say the professor was being morally bad .. just boring , and not very good at his job of lecturing ..
Why would you say "clearly the students suffer LOIF"? Why is "boring" lowering their inner-feelings? Wouldn't the people in the class still want the lecture material (in order to pass the class) even though it is boring? Wouldn't their inner-feelings still be increased because they're getting what they want?
I wouldn't say the professor is being morally bad either. He's agreed to teach the students the material. The students agreed to pay in order to learn the material. What if the material is boring? Who cares? How does that breech the teaching/learning contract? Why is anyone's inner-feelings being lowered? The students are still getting the material, that's what they are there to learn. The fact that it's boring or not is inconsequential.
parents abandon a child at the age of 10 to live on the streets , this "education" produces a adult who is selfrelient , confident , hard working , cares about their fellow human beings and is a all round nice person ...
now dispite how the child turned out , i do not think any one would consider the parents act as morally good , even though there is clearly a benifit to the world of a good productive worthwhile human being ..
I would consider it morally good. Why wouldn't it be? I would agree that the chances that such an act would turn out to be beneficial for the child are very slim. But, if it does turn out to be beneficial (as it did in this scenario) why isn't it a good thing? Why do you think this is not morally good? The parents did exactly their job... they produced a child that's a very healthy member of society.
Now, I've replied to your situations only because you took the time to put think them up and put them together and I don't want to be rude. But I think we're focusing on the point of our discussion, and I think we should try to revolve our debate around this:
Am I correct in assuming that you would describe an action as morally good or morally bad depending on the motive/intent/purpose?
That's the exact problem I've created this system to deal with. This line of thinking leads us into very deep problems.
People have killed many other people with "good intentions". Do you disagree that their intentions were actually good? Or are there certain actions where the intention no longer matters?
My system doesn't need any extra explaining. It depends on the results, period.
If your system depends on whether or not the intentions are good, how do you know when someone kills out of good intentions or bad intentions? Who decides if the intentions are good or bad? Or, if the intentions are not the deciding factor... what is? When do intentions decide if an action is good or bad, and when does the action's results decide?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by ikabod, posted 07-13-2007 7:05 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by ikabod, posted 07-18-2007 7:41 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 209 of 304 (411029)
07-18-2007 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by pelican
07-17-2007 10:36 PM


Re: What are we discussing?
dameeva writes:
O.K, the only ideal I am proposing is to 'stop judging others as good or bad'. That is all.
Yes. And you still have yet to show how this can possibly stop anyone from doing things that are harmful to others.
Your ideals are based on your ideas of an ideal world and are idealistic and not realistic.
I don't think so. My ideals are based on people being equal with respect to their rights for life and pursuit of happiness.
How is that not realistic?
Why is that a negative thing?
Your moralistic ideals exclude a portion of the human race. Even worse, your self-righteous ideals DE-humanize a portion of the human race.
Who is excluded?
Who is de-humanized?
How are they de-humanized?
If "good" and "bad" are human traits... how does using their labels de-humanize anyone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by pelican, posted 07-17-2007 10:36 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by pelican, posted 07-18-2007 5:52 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 210 of 304 (411032)
07-18-2007 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by ikabod
07-18-2007 7:41 AM


Re: Intentions vs. Results?
ikabod writes:
the target needs to really benifit from the act ...this is where i differ from your view , PIIF may not be that benifit it may take another form .
Actually, this is exactly where we agree.
When I say "positively increase the inner feelings" of someone, all I'm trying to describe is "really benefitting" someone, or "actually, truly helping them", or any other bunch of words that describes that same ideal in whatever form it takes.
Good motive + good action + good benifit = morally good.****
Bad motive + good action + good or bad benifit = morally bad.
Good motive + bad action + good or bad benifit= morally bad
Bad motive + bad action + good or bad benifit= morally bad.
Ah... I see. I actually have no problems with this system at all. I agree completely that it would be extremely beneficial if everyone could adopt such a system. I would even say I myself use a similar system.
I just find it extremely involved, complicated, and time-consuming to explain. I mean, it took us over 200 posts to understand what your system was, and we were trying to focus on it the whole time.
I find the system I've described to be... adequate, and much simpler. It does have the... aesthetic problem... of calling some accidents "morally good" and some accidents "morally bad". But I find this trade off for it's simplicity to be worth it.
I would say my system could be "Morality 101", where your system may be more of a "Morality 201" type of explanation.
this is why i think we must be vey self critical and look at why we are trying to do good , and what that good really is .. this is why i fear absolutes .. they stop doubt ... this is the real danger when we justifie our intentions with out thought ...
Exactly. And having this thought at the core of both of our systems caused great confusion when we actually disagreed. We do agree... at the base... we just have a few differences of opinion in how to identify certain non-critical aspects.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by ikabod, posted 07-18-2007 7:41 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by ikabod, posted 07-19-2007 3:37 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 213 of 304 (411234)
07-19-2007 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by ikabod
07-19-2007 3:37 AM


I agree
ikabod writes:
Yes i do agree that that for us poor dumb humans we need simplicity BUT in this case i feel yours goes to far ... in fact i even consider the system i posted to be very very mininimal and lacking detail and should be considered a starting block on which to build a system...
I totally agree. Remember... I only started this thread to provide a "starting block on which to build a system" (without the need of any supernatural being or God).
So, this system was never meant to be a comprehensive morality encyclopedia, but simply a starting block.
as i said i think the most important thing to focus on is our doubt ..only that can keep us on the right side of the good/bad equation ... i hope ..
I agree that this is the most important aspect, and I also hope it is best to think so

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by ikabod, posted 07-19-2007 3:37 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by ikabod, posted 07-20-2007 7:42 AM 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