Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others

Stile writes:How to rationalize goodness existing in the world as an atheist:Goodness exists in the world because some people want it to (including myself.)There. That didn't seem so hard.But, like Tangle said, it's off-topic here.
If you'd like to press it, you can take it here:

ringo writes:What makes an "ultimate good" good?

ringo writes:That's circular. Good is good because it's what God wants - and God must be good because what He wants is good.

Theodoric writes:One problem with your argument is that you are equivocating the word good. The goodness of which Stile is referring is not the same use of the word(though they are spelled the same) as the good you are using about Hitler.

Theodoric writes:You are also making a strawman argument. What you are arguing against here has nothing to do with what Stile actually stated. By equivocating you argued against something that isn't even part of the discussion.

ringo writes:But good isn't just what Stile wants. In a social species, good is a matter of consensus. And consensus involves compromize - i.e. good is inherently relative.

Theodoric writes:We don't give a flying fuck what certain societies have done. If you cannot understand the concept of goodness than you have more problems than I thought. I suppose you have trouble defining evil too.

Tanypteryx writes:What makes it good to me is the warm feeling I get and the knowledge that I am not harming others.

Tan------- writes:We are here because of a long progression of chemical processes. Obviously chemicals do not have minds.

Tan----- writes:I don't know what you mean by "ultimate" good and evil. We do decide whether something causes harm or not.

Tan---- writes:Humans are the only ones who can say they were wrong because they obviously intentionally caused harm. As an atheist I can see they caused harm and that they are insane fanatics and I can and do say so. What surprises me is that question that.

Tan---- writes:We also can easily recognize good behavior such as that by the first responders at the twin towers on 9/11 because they sacrificed their lives to help others.

Tan--- writes:You seem to be implying that no one would make sacrifices for others if it wasn't for religion. Atheists don't need some "ultimate good" as a reason to do good things, we do good because it feels right and because we hope others would do the same for us.

Stile writes:I would agree that would be circular.But I'm not saying that.
I'm saying that something is good when you help someone in the way they want to be helped.

Stile writes:What is good?
Good is increasing the positive inner-feelings of another being.I would phrase this now as "Good is helping others in the way they want to be helped."And the reason I want it is still the same as before as well:Why do people do good?
This is why I do good:1. I interact with others.
2. Interacting with others will cause me to affect them.
3. This can leave a Good, Bad, or Meh effect.
4. I am capable of empathy.
5. If I had a choice, I would like Good things to happen to me.
6. Since I do have a choice on how I affect others, I will attempt to leave Good effects rather then Bad or Meh effects.
7. When I interact with others, I'm going to do my best to cause Good effects.

Stile writes:That may also be true. But it's not why I do good things. I do good things because of the reasoning above.Like eating pizza.
I need to eat to survive. But I could eat vegetables and other healthy things and it would help me survive much better.
I choose to eat pizza because I like the taste - it just also happens to be true that it helps (somewhat) me to survive.I choose to do good things for the reasons stated above. Any other side-effects from me doing good things are irrelevant to why I choose to do them.

GDR writes:If we are simply here as a result of an endless progression of mindless processes; a collection of mindless particles that have mindlessly come together to form intelligent creatures then there is no ultimate good or evil.

Stile writes:Why not?
As soon as the intelligence exists (regardless of how,) why can't we use it to define ultimate good or evil?

Stile writes:I'm a man with a definition of good and bad.
Would you like to see if it applies?Hitler killed many people against their will -> bad.
9/11 terrorists killed many people against their will -> bad.Huh - seems to pass this test. Want to try another?

Stile writes:Now - an old lady wants help to cross the street.1. You can believe in the "ultimate good" and help the lady cross the street.
2. You can help the lady cross the street because you would rather help the lady instead of doing nothing or (say) throwing rocks at the lady.If you can explain why #1 is better than #2... I'm all ears.
Otherwise... can we please drop the use of the term "ultimate?"

Stile writes:Sort of.I like to call it the Platinum Rule, actually.Golden Rule
-Treat others as you want to be treatedPlatinum Rule
-Treat others as they want to be treatedIn spirit, they're really the same thing.
But, in practice... there's less wiggle-room for taking advantage of others with the Platinum Rule.

GDR writes:Why? Stile has stated that his position on what constitutes goodness conforms to some presumably universal standard. Stile has in his mind decided what he believes is good and obviously believes he is correct in his thinking. What makes him more right than Hitler?

Stile writes:Absolutely nothing.But, really, I'd guess that a lot more people agree (and function) with my morality that they do with Hitler's.
As well, I predict a much "nicer" world if everyone followed my morality than if they followed Hitlers. Especially for the Jews.You (and everyone else) is allowed to decide which they prefer for themselves.

Theodoric writes: The caveat to do no and allow no harm is implied. Surprised that that would need to be pointed out. I always find it odd how the radical Christian mind works.

Stile writes:I've been thinking about this, and I have another attempt to frame my answer from another angle - perhaps it will add some clarity.
Also, if you haven't noticed, this is one of my favourite topics so I'll take any excuse to ramble along about it
For review, this is from my opening post:Why do people do good?
This is why I do good:1. I interact with others.
2. Interacting with others will cause me to affect them.
3. This can leave a Good, Bad, or Meh effect.
4. I am capable of empathy.
5. If I had a choice, I would like Good things to happen to me.
6. Since I do have a choice on how I affect others, I will attempt to leave Good effects rather then Bad or Meh effects.
7. When I interact with others, I'm going to do my best to cause Good effects.Now... I still think this is a valid position.
However - perhaps it does not explain all the assumptions it rests upon, so this is an attempt to clarify those assumptions in order to provide more context:One of the basic definitions for "morality" is "a particular system of values and principles of conduct."
Or, more simply put - morality is the governing guidelines we use when interacting with other people.
Now, when you interact with other people you can care about their reaction, or not.My definition of "good" revolves around caring about the reaction of those you interact with and attempting to make that reaction positive (as defined by the person being affected - not by anyone else.)As I touched on in one of my previous replies to you - we all have different priorities we can follow for doing things. Whether that priority is "caring for others" or "self pride" or anything else.What I'm getting at is, another way to word my description is:Why is it right to do good to others?
-If you agree that "caring about other people" is a priority when dealing with other people - then my definitions are "the best" to accurately and usefully describe morality - and it is then right to do good to others based upon my 7 points above
-If you do not "care about other people" - then obviously it won't be "right" for you to use my definitions. As well - I won't respect your opinion as a person and you are the reason our society has police and puts people in jail.Therefore, the foundation for "why we should be good to others" stands on holding "caring about other people" as a priority.Of course, I agree this is not independent or absolute.
Others can have their own reasons for why they interact with other people the way they do.However, I think "caring about other people" is exactly what is generally meant by "being a moral person" as used in day-to-day speak.
As well, I think that my definitions and reasoning on what is good, and how to do good all reflect "caring about other people" in the best way possible.
(Or, if you don't think they do - I'm open to suggestions.)I am unable to fathom an idea on how "dealing with other people" can not hold "caring about other people" as the highest priority and still be called "good" by any form in how the word is generally used.
But, again, I am open to suggestions.

Tangle writes:Just on a basic point, it can't be correct to say
Because there's good in the world, God existsWhich seems to be GDR's argument.

Tangle writes:there is also evil in the world, so then what?

Tangle writes:The ancients pushed that one onto a different supernatural entity(s) so as not to taint the benevolent god and more latterly onto man himself. But of course that can't work because the Abrahamic god rightly takes credit for both good and evil. To do otherwise would be to admit that he's not all powerful.

Tangle writes:It's all a very simplistic storytelling trick to fool the uneducated masses but it doesn't hold any water these days.

Tangle writes:And in any case we now know where 'good' comes from, it's routed in the emotion of empathy - a brain function like many others.