What Happens When You Remove Faith

I'm just wondering what it is you're actually trying to say here. Because this part seems contradictory to me:

quote:

---

There doesn't seem to be any reason to be nice 'just because'.

---

Well, of course there's no reason to be nice "just because". That's exactly the point, that someone is being nice for no reason.

Sure it can. But if those benefits aren't the motivation for doing the good thing, how is it an expression of greed?I'll take a very simple example. Just this morning I was walking into work and a co-worker came up to the door just behind me. I opened the door for them, let them walk in, and then I walked in behind them.It is possible that perhaps they will open the door for me another day. It is possible that someone else saw this and might do something else nice for me in return. But I didn't open the door for either of those reasons.I didn't open the door in hopes of getting a smile in return.
I didn't open the door in hopes that anyone would think I was a good person.
I didn't open the door in hopes that anyone would think anything "better" or "differently" about me.
I didn't open the door in hopes of having a door opened for me one day.
I didn't open the door because it might make me feel good.
I didn't open the door for any sort of Karma-like return of anything positive.I opened the door for them because I was in front of it, and the person behind me was there, and hopefully their personal internal feelings may increase in some positive manner. Yes. Self preservation certainly is one reason someone may not do such things. And it's also a greedy reason. It's not the only reason, however. I wouldn't do those things because I don't think it's right to treat others that way. Very true (I assume you're not lying about yourself, anyway). And I agree that your reasons are very greedy. However those are not my reasons for acting in a similar manner. I obey the laws we have because I agree to live here under those laws. I agree that the majority of the laws are the right way things should be. So really I don't "obey the laws" so much as most of the laws we have agree with what I think is right. Losing my freedoms (jailtime) does not motivate me to be a moral person.
Wanting people to like me does not motivate me to be a moral person.
Not getting robbed, raped, killed or being called names does not motivate me to be a moral person.
I believe in the theory of the Golden Rule, because I think it is right.I agree that I don't want jailtime, to be raped, killed, or called names... but they have nothing to do with my moral motivations. I do not agree. I think that the most logical place to start is to choose to live in an environment that is conducive to being stress free. That is, choosing to live in North America or Europe or Australia or any other well-developed area is going to be much more stress-free than choosing to live in the middle of a 3rd world country ghetto.Not creating stress for others is a logical way to continue living stress free. But there are much better plans "for starters". But that's not the reason. At least, it's not my reason. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person in the entire world who thinks this way. The reason I do good things is because it's the right thing to do. Sometime I even do them for no reason at all. I kind of agree. I would be hard pressed to prove that most people don't act in this way. But it's simple to prove to you that all people don't, I don't.I do not try to be a moral person for greedy reasons. To me, that wouldn't be moving in the positive direction of morality in the firstplace, pretty counter-productive. I try to be a moral person because it's the right thing to do.

Perhaps most people. Definitely not all people. Mother Teresa and Ghandi come to mind. Yes.I opened the door for someone else on my way into work this morning. It did not make myself feel good. It did not make myself feel bad either. It really didn't have any affect whatsoever on how I felt about myself. I really don't get what you're trying to say here. I think you're contradicting yourself.

quote:

---

The point is to do good to others because it is the 'right' thing to do. You know that, we all know that. ... 'I do right because it is right' is lame-o answer

---

Do good because it's the right thing to do. We all know that.
Do right because it's the right thing to do. Is a lame-o answer.We all know it's a lame-o answer?
Why is it considered lame-o in the first place? Is there something wrong with it?
It just seems simple, basic and "right" to me.If I say that "doing good because we are a reflection of God and it is the will of God" is a lame-o answer how is that any different?Well, it's definitely lame-o to me, but that's just because I don't think this God you're talking about exists.If we take why I think your answer is lame back to why you think my answer is lame... does that mean you don't think "right" exists?Ahhhh... maybe if you think right=God... this whole lame-o thing actually makes sense. I just don't believe that right=God. I think right exists. I do not think the God you talk about exists. I believe that some God may exist, but it has no bearing on my finding that right actually does exist.Edited by Stile, : Final revelation.

That's good, and I see why you think that can be seen as greedy. I agree that it is slightly-greedy. That's still not the reason why I did it. I told you why I did it, and I did not do it for any sort of benefit. Or any sort of even slightly-greedy reason. The possibility that some benefit may possibly come from the act does not make it greedy. It is greedy only if you're expecting or hoping for such a return.Look at this another way:
Tom and Bob are playing nintendo together. Bob wants his turn, and break's Tom's arm in order to get the controller. The next day Tom can't go to his soccer game because of his broken arm so he stays home. Tom's soccer coach has a cold and gives it to all kids on the team. Tom didn't get sick. A good thing happened. It was a side-effect, a possibility.. just something that happened. The fact that something good happened does not make Bob breaking Tom's arm a good thing. Bob broke Tom's arm because he was selfish, it was a bad thing.Side-effects and possibilities do not change the initial motivation for an action.Because something good eventually comes from an act does not make that act greedy.
An act is greedy if and only if it is performed in the hopes of or expecation of something beneficial to the performer.
Without hope or expectation to the performer, an act is not greedy. Even if some benefit does incidentally come from the act. In this scenario, yes. It was greedy. You wanted a good working atmosphere.In my scenario, no. It was not greedy. I wanted nothing for myself. I agree, it might be. I would say that if I lived in such a place, it would be a good idea to not step on any toes - I would likely live longer. But that is not a moral-idea. Not to me, anyway. And, of course, this is not "for starters" we've already found ourselves in the situation.I'm not saying I'm never greedy, or never trying to benefit myself. I'm saying that these are not positive moral acts. And that positive moral acts are not greedy and neither do they benefit one's self. I know. What I'm saying is that it's not greedy if you're not looking for that reward at all, at any time.If you hold doors open because you're looking for positive results for yourself, be they instantaneous or in the next life, you're being greedy.
If you hold doors open because you want to try to add positively to someone else's personal feelings and you give no thought whatsoever about getting any sort of positive result for yourself (instantaneously or in the next life or ever) then you are not being greedy.

But it's not a rhetorical question, it's an incorrect and faulty idea.
Sure all things can work to benefit us. All things can work to harm us in some way too. It absolutely does not mean that they do.I don't see anything different in looking for rewards here or eternally either. My point is that there's a difference between looking for rewards and not looking for rewards. If I don't look for rewards, here or eternally or anywhere, then it wasn't greedy in any way. Sure we do. Or at least, I do. That's exactly why I held the door open for my co-worker. Look at all the reasons I gave explicitly in message 67: Message 67.I did it to hopefully increase their personal feelings in a positive manner. To put it shortly, I did it "because it was right". I did not do it for any sort of expected or hoped for benefit. No benefit here, no benefit now, no benefit 10 years from now, no benefit in the next life, no benefit in eternity, no benefit ever.No, I don't. I've told you already what my reason was. I do nice things in order to possibly increase the positive feelings in other people. Morality 101, The Easy Guide to Human InteractionIt can be very difficult to glimpse any minute specifics in morality, but the large scheme is very easily shown and discussed with any intelligent being. Of course "right" exists. "Right" is just another word for good. They are just subjective terms indicating differences in how situations affect others.There are 3 ways to affect other people:1. Have a positive effect --> "Good"
2. Have a neutral effect --> "Meh"
3. Have a negative effect --> "Bad"Of course, the only way to know if what you did was good, bad, or meh is to gain the information from the person you affected.Sometimes it may be obvious:1. Smiling --> Good
2. Shrugging --> Meh
3. Frowning --> BadOther times you may have to talk to them.That's it. That's morality.The problems begin when self-righteous people think they can tell other people what makes them feel good or bad or meh. No, it essentially describes morality. It is the easy way to say:---------------------
1. I interact with others.
2. Interacting with others will cause me to have an affect on them.
3. This can leave Good, Bad, or Meh effects.
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.
---------------------Which is: I do right because it is not wrong or neutral.
Which is: I do right because it is right.Now, lots of people confuse step 5 and 6 to read like this:
5. I want Good things to happen to me.
6. If I do good to others, hopefully good things will happen to me eventually.This is greedy. My list is not inherently greedy. Because the greedy 5/6 is visibily indifferent from the non-greedy 5/6 (in the short-term, anyway), many people slip into that greedy frame of thought.I try my best not to.

If you believe the result is inevitable.. then you are indeed expecting it, and being greedy.I do not believe any benefit back to me is inevitable in any way. ..and it makes it greedy.
That's not what I do, at all. What I do is not greedy and you're not showing how it is. I do positive actions. That's it. Nothing after that. I'm not looking for my actions to be "worth it". I'm not hoping that they may one day be "worth it". I just do them because at that instant I want to have a positive effect on whoever's there. Regardless of any resulting action.How is that greedy? Although I'm not convinced it's inevitable, it doesn't matter one way or the other.If you're nice to people and expecting inevitable positive results, then you are being greedy.
If you're nice to people because at that instant in time you want to have a positive effect on those people, then you are not being greedy. Regardless if you recieve beneficial results later. Regardless of those results being inevitable. Yes, it is greedy.
In the grand scheme of things I am a moral person in order to help any other people I may come in contact with in my lifetime.
This is not greedy.It depends on why you're doing it. If you're doing it "because it has better prospects for your interests" then you're greedy. If you're doing it "to leave positive effects on others" then you're not being greedy. Exactly. The result doesn't matter, it's the intent that matters. Yes, that conclusion is greedy. That conclusion is far from universal in my experience as well. I do see how some small things (opening doors...) may have inevitable small beneficial results. But I think it's quite a leap to say that it will "always have an overall positive result for your own self-interests". You've never heard that nice-guys finish last? It may be a cliche, but it wasn't created for no reason.But, regardless. If you're being good for the long-term benefits, then yes, you're being greedy. However, that's not the only reason to be good. You can be good for the sake of helping others, expecting no benefits or returns, and not be greedy. Sure, yet I still don't see how you've shown this to be true for anyone but yourself or possibly Phat.I'm not disagreeing that you are greedy. I think the things you've been describing fit the word "greedy" just fine. I don't see how you've made this universally apply to other people. You certainly haven't made it apply to me.When I act morally, I am not acting in a greedy manner. It is entirely possible to be a good person, and do nice things, and not be greedy.I've explicitly layed out the basics of my morality in message 106: Message 106. Show me where I'm being greedy in those steps. That's a very nice synopsis of your development. How does it possibly extend onto anyone else?Here's mine:I used to be moral because my parents told me to, I eventually had to decide for more personal reasons why I would continue to be moral. My outlook led me to see that morality does have its place in a Godless society, its best for leaving positive effects on others. I do not need God to be moral, I just need the desire to affect others in a positive way.How is that greedy?

Sorry, I'm propagating that as well, I will stop. I would assume that just because rational reasons exist does not mean that the person understands those reasons. That is, if a person has spent many adult-years thinking that God is what keeps them a moral person... they're not searching for any other reasons. Why would you if you already had The Answer? Even though they've come across other reasons, they aren't necessarily understood, respected, or even retained.As you originally theorized, the thought of The Answer being incorrect probably produces the knee-jerk reaction of "there's no reason at all!" It does take a while to understand that other reasons may be equally valid. Especially when The Answer is placed upon such a pedestal.There's just no motivation to search out alternative backing or reasoning. In fact, there's motivational pressures to not search out such alternatives. Basically, I'd guess it's just something they've never questioned or thought about.

A reply here would further take Jazzns' topic off into the murky depths.So I've requested to start a new thread, which has been approved: Message 1Edited by Stile, : Updated thread link

I was going to start a new thread for our discussion as well, but: That's the only point I wanted to get across, so I really have nothing more to defend Nice chatting with you too.

I agree.I still think my reasoning for why they think X' would be so different is probable, although I agree that it is also baffling.But now I'm just talking about why I think other people think how they think. And that's just a bit too far removed for me to continue defending my position. Yes, too bad they're the exact people we need in order to make any non-speculative progress.

Is that so? What exactly do you think my approach is?What I've been talking about so far is "How to be a Good Person". Not "How to Approach a Potentially Dangerous Tribe".However, if you'd like to discuss that, I'm sure you can start a new thread. I really don't think you meant to do that though, so next time just try to think about what you're saying before you jam your foot in your mouth

Yeah, I did go a bit overboard on that here... The point was that goodness can be greedless, and it's better to aim for that. Not that it always is, or even that I always am.And I would like to straighten that the main point to my approach should be that morality is situational. No one thing is going to work for all situations. In that case, the simple fact that I'm still alive proves that either you've misinterpretted "my approach", or you're wrong about people. Take your pick on that one But seriously, All penalties? What are we talking about... removing penalties of law? Removing the possible physical-retribution of anyone? Removing even emotional penalties (regret, empathy...)?I think I'd behave differently in each case:No Legal Penalties
This would be the most similar to how I act now. As in, I don't see how I'd change my own personal actions at all. However, without laws, if anyone did something I thought was "lowering the inner-feelings of others", it would then be up to me to be judge-jury and executioner. Penalties I'd inflict on them would range from inflicting mental stress (guilt) to physical prevention. Of course, I'd likely need a group of like-minded folks to side with me or I'd likely "not last long".
That is, if anyone wants to do things that me and my group don't approve of.. go ahead and do them.. over there. If they insist on doing them against us, then this is where the "dukes" come in, as you so put it.So yes, I'd act differently because it would then be my place to "put up or shut up" when heads collide. Would this be behaving diffferently? I don't know... perhaps I'm behaving exactly the same, except with penalties in place, it's someone elses job to take care of that and without them it's my place.If you're wondering, even right now I do not consider it immoral to punch someone. It's why that punch is thrown which makes it good or bad.No Law and no Physical Penalties
Acting as juge-jury and executioner as above, however "physical prevention" would no longer be an option. I don't really know how this would work since I'm assuming they couldn't physically harm me either? I would have to rely on mental-stress to inflict penalties on those insisting on "lowering the inner-feelings of others", with the maximum being some form of interactive banishment.No Laws or Physical or Mental Penalties
I'm having a really hard time visulizing this one. But... if no one could hurt anyone in any way... I'm wondering if morality would even exist? Certainly not mine. My morality is based on increasing the amount of good in the world. If there's no bad.. there's no good either. Sounds kinda boring.

I agree, only greedless goodness is a poor practical way to live life. Only anything (including "only dukes-up") would have one be 'taken out' fairly quickly. Hence the situational aspect.I'd never claim that greedless goodness works for all situations, only those where it's applicable. But to remain moral, as far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't ever stop trying to find where it can be applicable. I don't know about this. If we define what I've writen so far as "greedless goodness" then this includes putting up your dukes and standing up for yourself when it's required. I don't see why this couldn't have worked. I would agree that it most likely didn't go down that way though. We've had a bit more, um... "free time" (to put it lightly) to think about such things in our modern times.Oh, I'm also not saying that greedless-goodness was hard-wired. I'm not saying it wasn't either... I'm just saying that we are currently capable of it, it does exist, and it is a good thing to strive for when possible. Yes, it's very situationally dependant. I don't disagree with you here. I don't see the point of the question. Why does it matter if everything is good or bad or not? I'll try to answer anyway:I think that any action (direct or indirect) that involves one being interacting with another can be morally judged. The judgement can be good, bad, or neutral. The judgement depends on the reactions of the beings involved. Who was hurt? Who was helped? The answers to those questions (and therefore the judgement) is generally very difficult to accurately understand.

Well, I agree with RAZD... why am I vacationing there if I know this is what they do in the country? But I will assume you mean that we just happen to find ourselves in this situation and had no before-hand knowledge of their customs.I would b) Try to intervene and stop the man from killing the babies.I don't know it's their custom. All I see is a man about to kill some newborns. I'd attempt to stop him there as much as I'd attempt to stop him here.

I don't see how it works all the time.Motive: To gain salvation.
This is the opposite of greedless goodness by definition. It's not greedless if your motive is to gain salvation.Motive: Make the Christian God happy.
Lots of people attempt to "make the Christian God happy" by descriminating against others and treating them as inferior. This is not greedless goodness.And if you're going to try to tell me that the Christian God doesn't actually want them to do this, you'll have to have the Christian God come and tell me himself. Some book he may have inspired thousands of years ago doesn't count for His desires today, or even his desires from thousands of years ago. Otherwise it's simply you telling me what you think will make the Christian God happy. I think it's easy for you to see how others can reach alternative conclusions from there.Motive: Unidentified
How does greedless goodness work if someone wants to kill you? Wouldn't the ideal of greedless goodness in this situation mean you should get to them as quickly as possible and forfeit your life? How is that working?How does greedless goodness work if I learn someone doesn't like anyone performing greedless acts for their benefit?
It can't. It's impossible.Greedless goodness, because of it's specific definition, cannot work for ALL situations. It's impossible.