Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 3:51 AM
23 online now:
caffeine, Meddle, Tangle (3 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,983 Year: 9,019/19,786 Month: 1,441/2,119 Week: 201/576 Day: 4/98 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
21Next
Author Topic:   Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others
Stile
Member
Posts: 3505
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


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 yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3505
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


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 responded

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

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3505
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


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 responded

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

    
pelican
Member (Idle past 3150 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 199 of 304 (409723)
07-10-2007 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Stile
07-10-2007 3:33 PM


Re: There but for the grace of god go I?
The understanding that we are fundamentally the same (a product of our life experiences) would surely bring equality.
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?
There are no good people or bad people. People do good things and bad things. We don't need to know how and why a person does good things but they are for exactly the same reasons as why people do bad things. They are a product of their total life experiences. We each are a product of the mentality and consciousness to which we are born and grow up in.
The sum total of who we are is not only contained in our minds but in our whole being. The truth, the fundamental truth of how and why bad things are created in our human experience will bring a solution.

There is cause, effect and consequence in every experience. The cause of bad behaviour is rarely known.

A method of investigation could be applied to humans that is applied to plane crashes. The cause is found and is made common knowledge. The cause\problem is then rectified for all future aircraft.

In the case of human beings, knowledge of the cause is also contained in a little black box that is seemingly indestructable (so to speak). The 'crash' would be the crime(effect). The cause would be a flaw or mistake in the consciousness. Once discovered it would be made common knowledge for the greater good of future generations.
This concept may be difficult to get one's head around as emotions kick out objectivity.

However, supposing the human cause was a total lack of empathy. The effect was murder. The consequence was devastation of at least two families and loss of innocent life. Pretty rough hey, just because someone lacks empathy? But do we blame them for lack of empathy or do we take responsibilty?

We are all human beings doing the best we know how and we are all responsible to make 'equality' of us ALL the number one priority.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Stile, posted 07-10-2007 3:33 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Stile, posted 07-12-2007 10:52 AM pelican has responded

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 2657 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 200 of 304 (409746)
07-11-2007 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Stile
07-10-2007 4:13 PM


Re: Have fun...
clearly we are always going to agree to differ over this , so to move the debate forward , let us deal with just my "debate" replies .

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".

can i refer you to my post 194 ,

here are the 3 versions of telling untruths

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 .

husband agrees with wife over decorating the house in greens and yellow s through out ....... here the husband tells untruth to compromise and to let the wife have her way , , he will "put yp with " the colours to avoid a argument , here it is better the truth does not come out , or comes out in a way showing the reasoning behind it was a scarifiice made by the husband ...

a conman tells untruths about how much money a deal is making to the person he is conning .... here the untruth is deception to cause / prolong harm , in all case it would be better if the untruth is never told , and when it comes out harm can be the only outcome .

in all 3 cases the untruth causes PIIF to the person who is targeted to be told the untruth ...

i would say even BEFORE the untruth is reviled , ie while the PIIF remains ,that in case 3 there is never a morally good act ...
it is debatable in case 2 if it really a good act or is it a cheap way of avoiding finding a agreemnet , of solving the real issue , its a side step ...
In case 1 everything is done condisering the best for the child and thus may be considered a good act ....

would you agree with what i have just said ?

do you think that this method ,while attempting to determine if a act is Morally good , can show if a act is Morally bad .... or do you assume all non-good acts are by default bad , and/or if a act is morally neutral ... ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Stile, posted 07-10-2007 4:13 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Stile, posted 07-12-2007 11:46 AM ikabod has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3505
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


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 responded

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

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3505
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


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 responded

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

    
pelican
Member (Idle past 3150 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 203 of 304 (410031)
07-12-2007 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Stile
07-12-2007 10:52 AM


Re: There but for the grace of god go I?
Hi Stiles, I see we have our wires crossed. It seems you are percieving from the mind\physical consciousness and I am percieving from emotional\belief consciousness. That's great. Somewhere in the middle we may find serenity.
I am advocating the cause of 'bad' goes much deeper than knowledge of right and wrong. 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.
This is just one example of where the human race needs some new creative thinking. 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?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Stile, posted 07-12-2007 10:52 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Stile, posted 07-17-2007 4:54 PM pelican has responded

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 2657 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 204 of 304 (410085)
07-13-2007 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Stile
07-12-2007 11:46 AM


Re: Now we're debating
okies so on 1 i think you are streaching a it a bit with the "different " child .. here i think the mother would simple have taken a different approuch from the start knowing the childs ways ..otherwise agreed .

on 2 i think we are on the same wavelenght could go either way ..

on 3 i would slightly disagree , where you put in your silly addition .. btw brewser's millions richard prior funny film ... my view would be that the action , the conning is still and always will be morally bad , however much accidental "good" {or can we use the word benifit to avoid confusion} comes out of it ... the cuase was to inflict harm and loss and it did , it is only by random chance that so benifit occured , to claim the moral tag i feel the intent and purpose is important ..

if i may use a equally silly example ..

case 4.a gun weilding drug crazed madman runs in to a shop and shots a random stranger dead .....{silly part} the random stranger had in fact gone to the shop to by a bottle of pills to kill him self , so he has PIIF's in his dieing breath as it has saved him the trouble and he has got what he wanted ... now just cos the victim wanted to die i do not thunk this shooting could be a Morally Good act .. even with a benifit linked to it ..

i think i disagree with your morally neutral , firstly i dont think a earthquake or a flood can be moral in any was , it is a envent in the same way sunrise is , or gravity effects us , there as in a seperate class of acts .

further i am very uncertain about anything being morally neutral ,for something to fall with in the area of morallity i feel it must effect us in some way , and yes i agree with you those effects my not be noticable for some time , years , after the event .

i do have one question about your morally bad statment ...if morally bad is lowering of inner feelings .LOIF ..
what about this , silly , case

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 ..

morality has to take into account intent , and purpose , and both the short and long term out comes of the act ...

there can be some good/benifit coming from a act even if it is moraly bad .. but this does not alter the fact the act is morally bad ..

final silly example ..

parents abandon a child at the age of 10 to live on the streets , this "education" produces a adult who is selfrelient , confident , hard working , cares about their fellow human beings and is a all round nice person ...
now dispite how the child turned out , i do not think any one would consider the parents act as morally good , even though there is clearly a benifit to the world of a good productive worthwhile human being ..

now this line of reasoning is based on what i think morality is about , and how something can have a benifit while not being morally good ie your brewsers millions example .. and yes i would go futher and say you can do a morally good act , and random chance can conspire ..( err yes i know thats a oxy ).. to result in some harm occuring ......silly example wife phones husband at work to tell him she is with child , husband rushes out of work to get home , see flower seller grabs huge bunch of mixed flowers to give to wife .. turns out one of the blooms the wife is alergic to ..... .. i still think husband did morally good act , even if wife is sneezing for a hour ..

back to you ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Stile, posted 07-12-2007 11:46 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Stile, posted 07-17-2007 5:29 PM ikabod has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3505
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


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 responded

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

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3505
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


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 responded

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

    
pelican
Member (Idle past 3150 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 207 of 304 (410914)
07-17-2007 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Stile
07-17-2007 4:54 PM


Re: What are we discussing?
O.K, the only ideal I am proposing is to 'stop judging others as good or bad'. That is all.

Your ideals are based on your ideas of an ideal world and are idealistic and not realistic. Your moralistic ideals exclude a portion of the human race. Even worse, your self-righteous ideals
DE-humanize a portion of the human race.

I know this is never the intention, however it is the consequence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Stile, posted 07-17-2007 4:54 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Stile, posted 07-18-2007 3:05 PM pelican has responded

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 2657 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 208 of 304 (410966)
07-18-2007 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Stile
07-17-2007 5:29 PM


Re: Intentions vs. Results?
ok im going to jump mto the end of your reply as that should cobver the first bits ..

my view is a morally good act is a complex multifacited thing ...

it has to start with the purpose of doing some thing that will benifit the target of the act ....( trying to be carfull on words used here )included in with that purpose is a identification of the real need of the target , not simply what the target desires ,further the purpose must be free of any hidden motives or agenda's

the act should be "good" in that is causes no harm else where .. a point you made in earlier posts ..

the target needs to really benifit from the act ...this is where i differ from your view , PIIF may not be that benifit it may take another form .

so my view comes out as

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.

**** this is the only version to give a morally good result all 3 are needed none stand on their own ..

any other version that gives a good benifit is a happy accident ..

now i totally agree with you People have killed many other people with "good intentions" BUT let us be clear the intention can be "good" , the right thing to do , but the act is rendered un good by the method and result ....OR we can have the case the the intention was not really good , the need was miss IDed , there where hidden motives , the person has views which preclude them making a "good" intention ..

this is why i think we must be vey self critical and look at why we are trying to do good , and what that good really is .. this is why i fear absolutes .. they stop doubt ... this is the real danger when we justifie our intentions with out thought ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Stile, posted 07-17-2007 5:29 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Stile, posted 07-18-2007 3:20 PM ikabod has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3505
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by pelican, posted 07-18-2007 5:52 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3505
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


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 responded

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

    
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019