Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What Happens When You Remove Faith
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 166 of 180 (404216)
06-07-2007 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by anastasia
06-06-2007 11:02 PM


Re: Still Not all the time
I'm not arguing half the things you discussed in that post. I only wanted to point out that greedless goodness (like any other specific moral) will not work for ALL situations. And you prove it right here:
anastasia writes:
Stile writes:
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.
Oh stop. You can just cease performing greedless acts for their benefit, and that will be a greedless act.
You can't just say whatever you want If you cease performing greedless acts then it cannot be a greedless act. You just specifically defined it otherwise.
Do you understand what you wrote? You just said the equivalent of:
"You can just stop painting it red, and then it will be red."
It's just nonsense.
It can still be a good act. But it will not be greedless good. Which means, of course, that greedless good does not work for all situations.
Mother Theresa was very good at it. Only God knows if she was greedy. All of us would say that leaving home and living in the slums of India, caring for lepers, cradling the dying, not even preaching, and never getting rich from it, was about as close to greedless as you can get.
I agree that Mother Theresa was very good at it. And it's possible that greedless goodness worked for every situation Mother Theresa found herself in (although highly unlikely). Regardless, we've already shown that greedless goodness does not work for ALL situations. In fact, you were the one who proved it.
I think you're assuming I'm saying something like "if you're not doing greedless goodness, then you're not doing good". That's very wrong. There are plenty of ways to do good. Greedlessly is only one of those ways, and perhaps even one of the very best ways. Regardless, it won't work for ALL situations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by anastasia, posted 06-06-2007 11:02 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-07-2007 11:42 AM Stile has replied
 Message 169 by anastasia, posted 06-07-2007 10:55 PM Stile has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 180 (404217)
06-07-2007 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Stile
06-07-2007 11:28 AM


Re: Still Not all the time
I think you're assuming I'm saying something like "if you're not doing greedless goodness, then you're not doing good".
But don't you think that if you doing selfish goodness, then you're not doing good?
I mean, didn't you say that doing good for selfish reasons makes it bad? Like, the end doesn't justify the means....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Stile, posted 06-07-2007 11:28 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Stile, posted 06-07-2007 5:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 168 of 180 (404268)
06-07-2007 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by New Cat's Eye
06-07-2007 11:42 AM


Re: Still Not all the time
But don't you think that if you doing selfish goodness, then you're not doing good?
No, you're still doing good, it's just better to do good for other reasons.
I mean, didn't you say that doing good for selfish reasons makes it bad? Like, the end doesn't justify the means....
Did I say that? It may have been a mistake. I don't think doing good things for selfish reasons makes it bad. I just think doing things for unselfish reasons is better than doing things for selfish reasons. That is, if we're going to compare the two. I got caught up in trying to show that unselfish reasons even exist for a few posts there. I may have said some confusing things, hope this is clearer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-07-2007 11:42 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2007 5:06 PM Stile has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 169 of 180 (404301)
06-07-2007 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Stile
06-07-2007 11:28 AM


Re: Still Not all the time
Stile writes:
You can't just say whatever you want If you cease performing greedless acts then it cannot be a greedless act. You just specifically defined it otherwise.
Huh? If you start acting selfish just to please someone else, it's not really selfish is it?
You are just mad because acting selfish doesn't sound moral. If all you want is to make someone smile, being selfish just might be 'good'. My mom doesn't want gifts, I don't get her any, everyone is happy. No one can make me BE selfish if I don't believe in it.
Stile, defending your morality isn't greedy. Being selfless isn't doing whatever anyone asks. It's just doing what you think is right without personal gain. Are you suggesting that it's moral to be a push-over? It can be fine to cater to someone, but not if it invalidates your morality at the other end. A wrong doesn't make a right.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Stile, posted 06-07-2007 11:28 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Stile, posted 06-08-2007 10:20 AM anastasia has replied

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


Message 170 of 180 (404354)
06-08-2007 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by anastasia
06-07-2007 10:55 PM


Re: Still Not all the time
If you start acting selfish just to please someone else, it's not really selfish is it?
That's okay too, but then if it's not really selfish, then you didn't really act selfishly like they wanted and you didn't do any good to them, did you?
It's a contradiction of terms, it can't possibly be both. It's a specific thing, it's impossible for it to be it's own opposite. That's why it can't work for all situations. As soon as you state a specific, it will have an opposite. That specific cannot possibly work all the time because it cannot possibly work for it's opposite.
You are just mad because acting selfish doesn't sound moral.
I'm not mad at all. We're not even talking about me anymore, why would I be upset? I agree with this statement anyway. Selfish good is still good. But selfish good is not greedless good, it's the opposite. Greedless good cannot work for all situations. Neither can selfish good, neither can any specific type of "good".
With greedless good, there's going to be situations where you can't be greedless, or you can't be good.
With selfish good, there's going to be situations where you can't be selfish, or you can't be good.
As soon as you state a specific good, there's going to be situations where you can't be that specific, or you can't be good.
Stile, defending your morality isn't greedy. Being selfless isn't doing whatever anyone asks.
I've never attempted to argue any point remotely resembling these two statements.
We're not even talking about "being moral" right now. All we're discussing is whether or not "greedless goodness" can cover ALL situations. And it can't, because it's a specific. It cannot cover it's opposite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by anastasia, posted 06-07-2007 10:55 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by anastasia, posted 06-09-2007 8:49 PM Stile has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 180 (404406)
06-08-2007 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Stile
06-07-2007 5:24 PM


Re: Still Not all the time
you writes:
me writes:
I mean, didn't you say that doing good for selfish reasons makes it bad? Like, the end doesn't justify the means....
Did I say that?
you writes:
Message 67
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.
Maybe I misunderstood you. What did you mean?
I've thought this whole time that you thought that greedy goodness was a bad thing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Stile, posted 06-07-2007 5:24 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Stile, posted 06-11-2007 11:31 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 172 of 180 (404800)
06-09-2007 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Stile
06-08-2007 10:20 AM


Re: Still Not all the time
Stile writes:
We're not even talking about "being moral" right now. All we're discussing is whether or not "greedless goodness" can cover ALL situations. And it can't, because it's a specific. It cannot cover it's opposite.
You are saying that somehow, if another person doesn't like your unselfishness, then it's all of a sudden 'bad' to be unselfish. That's because you have already defined 'good' as doing what other people want.
Maybe you are saying that selflessness is not an absolute. So what? Everyone has to use discretion in real situations. My only issue was that you are using 'love others' as the absolute here, since that's trumping whatever else you think is moral. It the same question as 'Can I kill someone because they want me to?', I suppose Dr Kavorkian would say 'yes', but I am getting at the idea that YOU are the final authority on 'good' because it is truly not a concept encapsulated in total by the GR.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Stile, posted 06-08-2007 10:20 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Stile, posted 06-11-2007 11:40 AM anastasia has replied

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


Message 173 of 180 (405109)
06-11-2007 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by New Cat's Eye
06-08-2007 5:06 PM


Re: Still Not all the time
Catholic Scientist writes:
I've thought this whole time that you thought that greedy goodness was a bad thing.
There's a subtle difference between action and motive. The action itself affects other people. We have to go to those other people to see if that action was good or bad. The motive is internal, we only judge these ourselves if they were good or bad. Regardless of the motive, the action itself is good (greedy goodness). However, the motive for the action was bad (greedy).
Even though the motive was bad, the action itself was still good. Unless the person affected by the action gains information about the motive and their reaction to the action is altered

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2007 5:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2007 4:54 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 174 of 180 (405110)
06-11-2007 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by anastasia
06-09-2007 8:49 PM


Re: Still Not all the time
You are saying that somehow, if another person doesn't like your unselfishness, then it's all of a sudden 'bad' to be unselfish. That's because you have already defined 'good' as doing what other people want.
I didn't define it that way. That's the way it is. It's observable, factual, and basic. If that's not good, what is? Are you saying "being unselfish" is good?
But, if there's only two people in a room, and one if being unselfish, and the other is constantly crying and upset soley because the other is being unselfish. How is this possibly good?
I'm not saying it's a normal situation, or happens everyday, or that we need to tell everyone to be selfish or anything. I'm saying:
There are situations that exist where you cannot be Greedless or you cannot be Good.
That's all.
Edited by Stile, : tags

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by anastasia, posted 06-09-2007 8:49 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by anastasia, posted 06-11-2007 11:01 PM Stile has replied
 Message 176 by anastasia, posted 06-11-2007 11:10 PM Stile has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 175 of 180 (405221)
06-11-2007 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Stile
06-11-2007 11:40 AM


Re: Still Not all the time
Stile writes:
I didn't define it that way. That's the way it is. It's observable, factual, and basic. If that's not good, what is? Are you saying "being unselfish" is good?
Are you SURE you want to say this?
I didn't define it that way. That's the way it is. It's observable, factual, and basic. If that's not good, what is? Are you saying "being unselfish" is good?
I do believe that being unselfish is good. I do believe that it is better by far than doing what someone wants. Do you have any idea why Hitler is constantly brought up in morality discussions? If you and Hitler were alone in this room, and he was crying because you were unselfish, while he wanted you to selfishly protect your race and people...you get the gist. It is a situation where you can't win, because you honestly don't believe that 'good' is doing what others want. 'Good' is doing what people who agree with YOU want. That sounds kinda selfish to me, and I am not the kind of person who likes catches in what I declare to be absolute.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Stile, posted 06-11-2007 11:40 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Stile, posted 06-12-2007 10:25 AM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 176 of 180 (405226)
06-11-2007 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Stile
06-11-2007 11:40 AM


Re: Still Not all the time
Stile writes:
There are situations that exist where you cannot be Greedless or you cannot be Good.
Not for me, not in my morality. In fact, I am cautioned to never think of myself. I am asked to be last. That does not mean that a person who asks me to do something wrong, like being selfish, should be listened to. It is impossible to be evil while doing what you believe in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Stile, posted 06-11-2007 11:40 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Stile, posted 06-12-2007 10:35 AM anastasia has not replied

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


Message 177 of 180 (405335)
06-12-2007 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by anastasia
06-11-2007 11:01 PM


Let's move this to where it belongs
anastasia writes:
Stile writes:
Are you saying "being unselfish" is good?
Are you SURE you want to say this?
Of course I do. Remember our context now, anastasia. You're trying to say that "being unselfish" is always good. I certainly agree that if one constantly tries to "be unselfish" then one will most likely live a very good live. However, strictly being unselfish isn't always good.
Someone who is "stictly and always unselfish" will give their wallet to a mugger. Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it? That's because sometimes being selfish is good. That's because "being unselfish" isn't always good.
Do you have any idea why Hitler is constantly brought up in morality discussions?
anastasia, Hitler convinced his followers that it was morally good to kill all those people.
Hitler's followers didn't understand what good was. They thought it was something other people told them. They thought it was something they could read from a book.
If Hitler's followers actually understood that:
Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon
...then they'ed easily understand that "killing other people" in the situation Hitler convinced them was good, was actually bad.
If you and Hitler were alone in this room, and he was crying because you were unselfish, while he wanted you to selfishly protect your race and people...
If Hitler has chosen to ignore the inner-feelings of other people, then his inner-feelings are equally ignored. This is kinder-garten stuff.
It is a situation where you can't win, because you honestly don't believe that 'good' is doing what others want. 'Good' is doing what people who agree with YOU want.
Please stop telling me what I believe. You're notoriously terrible at it.
I do, honestly, believe that "good" is doing what others want.
"Good" certainly is not doing what people who agree with me want.
Again:
Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon
This has no bearing on what I want. This is about what other people want.
If you do not think this is what Good is, please explain what you think Good is, and why.
Also, if you plan on actually saying what you think is Good, please do it in the appropriate thread:
Message 1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by anastasia, posted 06-11-2007 11:01 PM anastasia has not replied

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


Message 178 of 180 (405337)
06-12-2007 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by anastasia
06-11-2007 11:10 PM


Please Explain
anastasia writes:
Stile writes:
There are situations that exist where you cannot be Greedless or you cannot be Good.
Not for me, not in my morality.
Then please explain what "Good" IS in your morality. As I have done. And please do it in the appropriate thread:
Message 1
That does not mean that a person who asks me to do something wrong, like being selfish, should be listened to.
So you don't do what people ask you to do. Isn't that selfish? It may very well be Good, but it's still selfish.
It is impossible to be evil while doing what you believe in.
How so?
Who doesn't do what they believe in?
So... no one ever does evil?
You brought up Hitler, remember. Hitler was doing what he believed in. Are you saying that it is impossible for Hitler to be evil? What a strange world you must live in. Then again, it would be nice if evil did not exist. Albeit simply through definition dancing.
Again, if you'd like to discuss why you think good things are good, or why evil things are evil, please do it here:
Message 1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by anastasia, posted 06-11-2007 11:10 PM anastasia has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 180 (405558)
06-13-2007 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Stile
06-11-2007 11:31 AM


Re: Still Not all the time
There's a subtle difference between action and motive.
I don't think its that subtle.
What would you call the combination of the motive and the action? Isn't that what we are discussing, whether that combination is good or bad?
The action itself affects other people. We have to go to those other people to see if that action was good or bad. The motive is internal, we only judge these ourselves if they were good or bad. Regardless of the motive, the action itself is good (greedy goodness). However, the motive for the action was bad (greedy).
So you don't think the motive affects the goodness of the combination of the action and motive?
Even though the motive was bad, the action itself was still good.
Ok. What did you mean by:
quote:
that wouldn't be moving in the positive direction of morality in the firstplace, pretty counter-productive.
What did you mean by "not moving in the positive direction of morality" and "counter-productive"? They sound like the combination of the action and motive and they sound bad to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Stile, posted 06-11-2007 11:31 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Stile, posted 06-14-2007 11:07 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 180 of 180 (405681)
06-14-2007 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by New Cat's Eye
06-13-2007 4:54 PM


We're just not talking about the same thing at the same time
What would you call the combination of the motive and the action?
I don't know. Both? Whole scenario? Is there a word I can't remember right now that already describes this?
Isn't that what we are discussing, whether that combination is good or bad?
I've probably been jumping between the two, and causing a lot of confusion. With Vacant, I was talking motive. With anastasia, I was talking action. The discussions I've been having haven't warranted the explicit seperation of them yet. But I suppose this one now does
So you don't think the motive affects the goodness of the combination of the action and motive?
Yes, I do. Internally, though, and only minorly. And, for the most part, I haven't been discussing this much.
The person the action affects gets affected in the same way regardless of the motive. Therefore, their reaction does not depend on what the motive is (unless they gain information about the motive, of course). So, whether or not "the action" was morally good or bad, does not depend on what the motive is.
Now, when we're thinking of doing an action, we obviously know what our motives are (including "unknown" or "instinctive/reflex"). There are many different motives, and different motives are going to be better or worse. These can be judged internally, or externally. Personally, I don't really care too much about motives. I have my own thoughts on which are better, but I don't see any problem with anyone thinking theirs are better. What I have a problem with is if someone trys to tell me my motives don't exist. Or if they try to tell me what my motives "actually" are.
What did you mean by "not moving in the positive direction of morality" and "counter-productive"? They sound like the combination of the action and motive and they sound bad to me.
Yes, they sound bad to me too. And I meant that the motive for the action doesn't sound good. That still has no bearing on whether or not the action was good. These are only descriptions of the motive for the action. And may (I haven't really thought about it, I don't really care) only be judged internally and subjectively.
If no one had mentioned that the motives I use "didn't exist". I wouldn't have joined the debate here.
I don't think motive makes an action good or bad. I think the action is good or bad depending on the consequences of that action. Namely, how it affects the beings acted upon.
To me, the action itself trumps the motive, like this:
Good motive, good action = best (very good, "pure" good?)
Bad motive, good action = good
Good motive, bad action = bad
Bad motive, bad action = worst (very bad, evil)
To me, a motive can't make a bad action good, or a good action bad. The action is good or bad according to it's consequences. The motive can have a minor-affect on "how good" or "how bad" the scenario is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2007 4:54 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024