Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others

Again, I agree that what you've explained is circular.
But - it's not why I thing something is good.Definition of Good:
-Helping someone in the way they want to be helpedWhy I think this definition is correct:
-Because it fits with every situation I come across when dealing with other people
-Everytime people agree on "what's good" - this definition can be used to define the situationExample: Helping a lady cross the street
Some people will say this is a good thing.
Especially if I say "A lady wants help crossing the street, so I helped her."
But, if I then say "A lady does not want help crossing the street - but I took her arm and helped her cross the street anyway."
Almost everyone gets a look on their face that can be described as "aghast."
That is - this notion of "helping a lady cross the street" is not always good. Sometimes it's bad.
When is it good? When is it bad?
When the lady wants help crossing the street - it's good.
When the lady does not want help crossing the street - it's bad.That is not circular.
If you do not agree, please propose another way of defining "good" and "bad" as we all use the terms everyday that makes more sense for this simple example.

I agree with the point you're making here.However - to take this point and then say that my definition "is circular" is wrong - I recommend you stop using that avenue, because it make the focus on describing whether or not my definition "is circular." Which is not the point you're attempting to make here (I think.)I think the point you're attempting to make is: My definition of "good" and "bad" has no power over anyone else - there is no reason for anyone else to accept it as "valid."And you're absolutely right - and this is a very important and good point.
The thing is - this applies to everyone's definition of "good" and "bad."
It applies to mine.
It applies to yours.
It applies to God's.
It applies to any you call "the ultimate" good.Even if those all exist - we all still personally decide to follow them or not. We all still decide if they are important to us, personally, or not. We all still use our subjective feelings to accept them - or not.So - why have a definition of good or bad?I think it's important to have in a society that uses the terms every day and judges situations/experiences by those terms every day.
I think it's important to find a definition that "best describes" things the way we all tend to think of them anyway.If you agree - then my definition becomes extremely important.
-it's a decent place to start from (if nothing else)
-I'm fully open to changing it, adapting it, or throwing it out completely if you can provide a "better" definition that "best describes" things the way we all tend to think of them anywayIf you don't agree - then you're like the vast majority of people.
Most people don't really care to get into the nitty-gritty of what's "good" or "bad" - it simply doesn't interest them.
This is a perfectly valid position. I like anchovies on my pizza every now and then - most people don't. People like (and have interest in) different things.An example (and a ramble) on how my definitions are practical:
-We all understand that a crying baby is a bad thing
-Why?
-Because we all understand that the baby is "not happy."
-Therefore - doing things that make the baby "not happy" would be equivalent to "bad things."
-But there's a catch - many times we do things that make babies (or... let's say "kids" now) not happy in order to teach them things about the world
-Punishing a kid definitely makes them unhappy, but many of us think this is a "good thing" anyway - why?
-Because we're hoping that we're doing it "for the kid's benefit" anyway - we're hoping that, one day, the kid will look back and say "huh... I did need to learn that lesson."
-Sometimes we'll be right about this - then the punishment we did to the kid was, actually, a "good thing."
-Sometimes we'll be wrong about this (we're not perfect, and parenting is hard - there's no real guide-book) - then the punishment we did to the kid was, actually, a "bad thing." Maybe we went a little overboard, a little over protective... maybe we simply got "fed up" in the moment and had a bad day and made a slightly bad decision.It's my contention that it's better to understand these things as they are:
-Identify that the bad thing actually was a bad thing - and attempt to learn from it.
-Do not attempt to "cover up" the bad thing simply because we "were trying to do what's best for the kid"... that trying is still present. Any reasonable observer will see that and understand. But if we "cover up" the bad thing - we open up a lane to avoid learning from our mistake - this is not the right way to move forward in caring about others.Every single thing we consider "good" or "bad" can be explained by considering how-the-person-that-is-affected reacts to the situation.
Sometimes that reaction is immediate. Sometimes it's delayed long into the future. Sometimes it changes as time goes on.
But it all relates back to how-the-person-that-is-affected reacts to the situation.Sometimes we just throw our hands up in the air and say things like "blech! You can't please everyone!" and leave it at that.
This is true - you can't please everyone. Why not?
Because different people react to situations differently - again: it relates back to how-the-person-that-is-affected reacts to the situation.Sometimes we say things like "Morality is so complicated!" and leave it at that.
Why is it so complicated?
It's so complicated because as multiple people get involved - each person reacts to situations differently and they don't always neatly line up with each other.
-all explained by the definitions I've given above - no more "leaving it at that" and forgetting about it - this foundation actually explains it all.Of course - my definitions don't provide answers:
What if you have to do 1 thing and it will make millions sad and other millions happy?
-My definitions don't help the making of this decision, they just clarify and frame the situation.
-millions are going to be happy with you either way - The thing you do will be good for these people.
-millions are going to be disappointed with you either way - The same thing will be bad for these people.
-this is a big part of why "morality is complicated" and "not easy." You are free to hold such a contention all you'd like.
I have no power to say you're wrong.I do, however, have the power to show you that my definition accounts for all experiences and all situations we see today - there's complete, objective evidence showing that my definition is practical, usable, and results in a loving and caring society.I also have the power to show you that there is absolutely zero evidence for you to believe in your definition. So you have no objective evidencial basis to claim that you're correct or not.
This doesn't make your definition any less valid - you're allowed to hold whatever definition you like.
It's simply a difference - one you and I and everyone else gets to decide for themselves if it's important or not. Different people have different ideas on what "good" is - you're absolutely right.My definition is based in practicality and can successfully describe any and all moral conundrums (not "solve" them - but "describe" them.)
I've never met anyone who disagrees with my definitions who also "cares about how other people feel."
I agree that if you do not "care about how other people feel" - then you likely won't find my definitions very persuading. And, really - I don't care.
I do care about how other people feel - and this definition (so far) is the best I've come across to hold that notion as a priority. I entirely agree.
I hope you see that this would apply regardless of the existence of an "ultimate good" from beyond our world.
"In their mind" they would still see their actions as good - regardless of what the "ultimate good" says.
Even if they get punished in the afterlife for breaking the "ultimate good" - In their mind they still would have done a "good thing."This doesn't make my definitions go away.
This doesn't make my definitions any less - if you agree that "we should care about other people."
The objective evidence for the practicality and application of my definitions still apply.
The objective evidence for the practicality and application of any "ultimate good" is still unavailable.
It is still a personal decision for each and every one of us if we want to use my definition of "good" or your definition of "ultimate good" or any other idea for what "good" is. Then I would suggest dropping the term "ultimate" as it doesn't add anything to your claims.
An additional word like "ultimate" that doesn't really add anything comes across as arrogance in an attempt to prop-up your personal definition above others - without any reason you can show to others to back it up. I agree that this is a distinction worthy of clarification.
However - "ultimate" doesn't bring this idea to mind - "ultimate" simply conjures an idea in the mind of "the best."
I humbly suggest you use a term that actually describes this idea you're talking about. A word like "external" or "absolute" or "independent."
I think it would remove a lot of confusion when discussing such matters. I understand you hold such feelings.
Personally - I don't really care
I'm not really interested (here) in "religious vs. atheist" discussions.
Here, I'm more interested in understanding "the best" moral system (accuracy as well as usefulness) - so that I can adjust my own accordingly. Regardless of it being religious or atheistic.

Actually, you never "really know" such a thing.
All you do is guess.
Sometimes, it's a really good guess - like slapping a kid's fingers away from the dangers of a hot stove the kid didn't notice.But it's still a guess.
You're guessing that the kid really doesn't want to burn their fingers.
And, once they understand the reality of the situation, they will highly likely agree with you.When that agreement comes - then yes, you did a good thing.
If that agreement does not come, even after fully understanding the situation - then no, you actually did a bad thing.Again, another example:When your kid is being bad, you punish them by taking away their phone for a day.
One day after a punishment - your kid gets a call from someone they like at school asking them on a date that night - but they miss it, and that "someone from school" takes someone else out on a date.Years later - your kid understands why you took away their phone when they were bad.
And, really, they thank you for doing it many, many times as it helped them understand they should be caring about others and not only themselves.
However - that one time - that one time they missed that date - they really wish you hadn't of taken the phone away that time. The punishment wasn't really required (the kid already knew and understood and accepted the lesson - they simply made a mistake) and you actually were just a touch over-protective and the punishment wasn't necessary.Your kid still loves you - they understand you did your best, tried to remain consistent, and didn't know about "the date that never happened" yourself.
-But, this doesn't remove the fact that the punishment wasn't required, and they missed that date, and they are sad about that (even though they are thankful for all your other punishments.)If you had all this knowledge and the chance to do that one day, that one punishment over again - would you do something different?I think you would. And I would also highly suspect that anyone who claims "it's best" to uphold the punishment and not adjust this situation is not holding "caring about others" as a high priority - they are holding their own pride as a higher priority.Why is this correct?Again - it all relates back to how-the-person-who-is-affected reacts to the situation.
As described by my definitions.I understand that I have no valid position to tell you to do otherwise.
I do, however, have a valid position to tell you "you don't really know what's right for others - you're just guessing."So, feel free to stick with the "Golden Rule" if you prefer.
I still understand (and can explain/show how) moving onto the "Platinum Rule" displays holding "caring for others" as a higher priority than "self pride."If you prefer - feel free to call the Platinum Rule the Golden Rule - many people do.
They simply interpret the "Golden Rule" as:
-When things affect me, I prefer if they are done the way I like as opposed to the way others like
-Therefore, when I affect others I will attempt to do it the way they like as opposed to the way I likeWhich is why I say that the Platinum Rule and the Golden Rule are the same "in spirit": Treat others as they want to be treated.

Just on a basic point, it can't be correct to sayBecause there's good in the world, God existsWhich seems to be GDR's argument. Butthere is also evil in the world, so then what?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.It's all a very simplistic storytelling trick to fool the uneducated masses but it doesn't hold any water these days.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.

In a very strained and manipulative way - you are correct.
In a practical and honest way - you are very, very wrong.It is "a moving target" in the sense that people believe different things are right or wrong - this is a fact of life and of how people work.However, to take this fact and then imply that "Good means: helping people in the way they want to be helped" is also a moving target is very, very wrong.Good means: helping people in the way they want to be helped.
-This is a static statement
-You are free to agree or disagree with the statement if you like (this is the "moving target part")
-You are not free to call this definition - in and of itself - a "moving target."Like math: 1 + 1 = 2
-This is a static statement
-You are free to agree or disagree with the statement if you like (this is the "moving target part")
-You are not free to call this definition - in and of itself - a "moving target." I don't claim any absolute good or evil.
In fact, I specifically deny that they exist.My challenge: You pick a single action and claim it to be absolutely good (or absolutely bad) - anything you'd like.
If I am unable to describe a different situation (or person) using the same action that is the opposite - bad (or good) - then I will agree that absolute good or evil can exist.
If I can, though - then you must admit that (at a minimum) we are currently unable to identify absolute good or evil. And (possibly) absolute good or evil do not exist.
You can do this as many times as you'd like - it is an open challenge. But I would appreciate it if you did it one at a time (for sake of my sanity.)I do, however, believe that objective good and bad exist.According to my definitions - we can objectively define actions as good or bad, as long as we correctly understand "the reaction" of whoever was affected.
These objective descriptions, however, will vary from person to person in the same situations - therefore they are "relative" to the person being affected.

Someone is putting serotonin in our bags of mindless chemical processes.

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.

I think it's possible it's a sort of marketing trick or possibly even just a defense mechanism.Older gods: Thor - God of Thunder or Coyote - God of Tricks
Next gods: Zeus - Father of ALL Gods (but not all powerful...)
Latest gods: God - All powerful! All loving! The best at everything!! Don't even need more than 1!It's just such an obviously man-made progression on the basic-instinctual "my-dad-can-beat-up-your-dad" idea that I think it's actually one of the greatest indications that they're all made up.
But, that's hardly objective evidence (the idea alone, anyway.) Yes, exactly.
We have the ability to deal with other people in a variety of different ways.
Because "different ways" exist - they can then be classified into different groups.
We have the ability to judge such dealings as "positive" or "negative"
We label the positive ones "good" and the negative ones "bad."It's not really a difficult concept - it's very intuitive and natural.
It is, however, difficult to form words to describe such a simple and basic concept.Kind of like describing reality: We all know kicking a rock stops our foot - and sometimes hurts.
But describing exactly why is extremely detailed and involved.

Obviously we use different words but we are on the same page as far as everything in that post.Where we differ is in the question why is all of that true. Why do we not live by the the law of the survival of the fittest?In my view it isn't what we do that is the root of goodness. For me it is all a heart issue. If we have hearts that get those warm fuzzies when we are able to bring joy to others, and particularly when we do it at some cost to ourselves, that is fundamental goodness. The actions that result from that are the symptoms or result of a good heart.Did goodness evolve from mindless processes, chemical or otherwise, or did it evolve through processes and laws that are the result of an external intelligence? It appears we differ on the answer to that.

I am simply saying that as there seems to be a fairly universal understanding of goodness, primarily as seen in the Golden Rule, which is indicative of the idea that there is something that exists outside of of human experience and understanding. Then it becomes our job to do something about it. Jesus' message is that ultimately love wins. If we are to have the freedom to choose good we have to have the freedom to reject it. Written with your often evident hubris. As you well now there are many highly educated people who have accomplished great things in their respective fields that are Christian. We know that eh. Even if that is true, it can be either by chance or design.

You're misunderstanding survival of the fittest. The "fittest" isn't the strongest or the meanest individual. Being good is part of what makes us fit for survival as a species.

Ohh, ohh, me!, me!. I know!The first one!Do I get a cookie?

Sorry, no cookie. Sheesh - and you had a 50 50 chance and blew it.

Certainly co-operation can be shown to help survival but then the question is survival of what or who. In an earlier thread someone suggested that it was about the survival of the gene pool. For those of us in the west our gene pool is pretty diverse and frankly we would be a lot better if we could just get rid of all those Africans with their different gene pools and have those resources for ourselves. Instead, whe do what we should and try and help those in trouble over there.I guess what I'm asking is how broad is your idea of what constitutes our species?

You're treading on dangerous ground there, Mr. Grand Dragon. "Our species" includes all of us. Diversity is strength.