On Reward and Punishment

"Reason has never motivated a man to do anything."
... David HumeWhether we are Thiests, Atheists, or Agnostics all of our actions are based on the principle of maximum return. Sometimes this benefit is minimal or sometimes the benefit is less suffering rather than more but in order for us to do anything at all we must receive some type of benefical return. In the every day world reason is often the tool we use to decide which actions will produce the greatest benefit and the least amount of discomfort. Reason, however is never the motivator.This fact is implicitly acknowledged by Pascals wager. In the end the final decision to act and choose to accept the wager is not motivated by reason but by one's desire to maximize pleasure(eternal bliss)and minimizing pain(eternal damnation). We are all hedonists in the end.I often hear Christian theologians state that Christians Conduct themselves "...out of a love for God". One also hears "..Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom."Does the Love outweigh the Fear in this context? Does the emotional reward one recieves for love of God outweigh the reward one will recieve from eternal bliss?To get answers to this question I propose the following hypothetical:God appears to all believers and states the gates of Heaven have been permanently closed. When one's life expires there is neither pain nor bliss - only anihilation. From this point on regardless of how one chooses to live their lives there will be no punishment or reward in the next world. To show the Love man has for him God asks his followers to commit to keeping all his Commandments and laws as stated in the scriptures.How would one respond to this?Would one continue to conduct one's life as in the past or would one attempt to maximize the pleasurable experiences available in the life still left in the world? To put it bluntly would it be time to party or to pray? Wold one's Love for God be lessoned or greatened?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Ugh. -10 hit points for mentioning Pascal's wager as if it were a legitimate argument.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Party on, Wayne! /nod Lessoned. How can you tell? I dunno, but they can both be outweighted by the fear of hell, right?

---

All... You should rarely use this word. I'm sure that some poeple's actions are self-destructive and not based on the principle of maximum return. Are you saying that it cannot be, or that it just isn't?

While I agree with Pascal's Wager in practical terms, it completely overlooks the spiritual implications. Nobody believes in God so they can escape perdition. Or if they do, they are already entering into that decision will wrong motives. Even in the book of Timothy (I think), he says something to the effect of:"So you believe that there is but one God? Good! But even the demons believe that and shudder."Meaning, so you believe God exists...? Woopty doo. Believing that God exists for practical reasons does not constitute being born again of the Spirit. Look no further than Islam, Deism, etc. The Bible says, "Be not merely hearers of the Word, but be also doers of the Word."Furthermore, Revelation speaks of the 7 churches of Asia Minor. All of the churches believe in God, and yet, only two of the churches are accredited with any kind of merit. This is because simply believing that God exists is not sufficient. Paul says that we will have no excuse on the Day of Judgement-- that belief in God should be abundant.But God isn't looking for people to simply believe in Him in some humdrum way. You must be born again, and in being born again, belief in God is only the first step-- a critical one, to be sure, but not the only one. I'd say, read Ecclesiastes.The idea is that nothing in life can be done without the providential nature of God behind it all. A man can find much pleasure in the world, but without God, it is ultimately folly. You can find all sorts of temporal enjoyment, (which, if unsanctioned, is what sin is all about).Round and round we go until we realize that all is ultimately meaningless without God.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

I'm with Catholic Scientist on this one. You shouldn't say all. Some people would probably argue there aren't any actions we do based on this principle of maximum return. There are many different theories as to why humans behave the way they do. Yours is just one of them.But this is a small nitpick for an otherwise great OP. I'm very interested in where this thread will head.

Reason, however is never the motivator.

​

Are you saying that it cannot be, or that it just isn't?
I am saying(as did Hume) it never is. From your own personal experince think about this closely. Why do you do anything at all?Sometimes it can be difficult to aggree with this premise but if you look very closely it becomes apparent.If you(or anyone) can give me an example where reason was the direct cause for you performing an action then I will aggree with you. Reason only acts as a guiding princple - a way to pick and choose among possible actions that will lead to the greatest benefit.Reason is under the hood acting in unison with the other parts of the car to help propel it forward. Instinct and emotion are always in the drivers seat - it determines when to turn, when to stop, and when to hit the gas.Reason tells me if I get to close to the edge of a cliff I might fall off. But reason does not stop me from getting too close to the edge - my fear of falling off the edge stops me and is what pulls me back. My fear and instinct for survival is what pulls the trigger and starts the action of pulling back from the edge. Reaoning just keeps me safe by presenting the benefits and consquences of my action.

Hi Tudd,If you can give me a scenario where you think one is not motivated by this principle of maximum return we will have a starting point to debate this issue.I too am interested in the responses. Primarily it was directed at those who adhere to Christian Theology.

HI nemesis,In this thread I really am not debating the truth or falsehood of Christian Theology. I am just presenting a hypothetical. I am curious how you would respond to the hypotheticsl I presented. I am not asking if it is possible within Christian theology to be true. I am simply curious as to the answers one would give.How much does your love for God outweigh any reward? Enough to forgo eternal pleasure yet still remain obedient to the moral truth one believes is revealed by God ?

I was just using it as a metaphorical example. The theme is covertly present in much of Theology - whether Islam, Judaism, or Christian.If you disobey God and his commands the result is not pleasurable.
If you obey God and his commands the result is pleasure.I often read in Catholic theology that suffering should be embraced in this life as a gift as it brings one closer to God and thus further one's chances of eternal pleasure in the hereafter. This, like Pascal's Wager, is simply a covert admission that we are hedonists. It is simply a wager promising maximum return on one's investment in suffering.

I doubt it. Poor people vote Republican, don't they?

HI again nemesis,Thanks for the Link. Reading through this passage I hear the author lamenting the ultimate meaningless of things when viewed through the eyes of reason and acquired wisdom.This is exactly what Shakespeare was lamenting in Hamlet:"Life is but a passing shadow - a poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage until he is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."However, simply because we do not like what knowledge and wisdom reveals does not mean one should simply change the rules of the game to make it more palitable.It is we ourselves who give our lives meaning. That we are even here to share these words is a miracle in and of itself - a miracle not to be wasted by living in the past, obsessed with the future, always fearfull of what is to come. What brief time we have here will simply waste away as we wait for something better to arrive. If a God does exist and does care about our personal lives I am not sure that is what he had in mind. We live our lives in the present. That is the only placed we will ever be. Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

It's not really relevant to your philosophizing, so I hope you'll excuse the digression, but it's not really Shakespeare lamenting. Rather, he makes one of his characters lament, as he makes them express many views and sentiments. In this case, it's Macbeth, in the play "Macbeth".

My apologies. It has been a while. I don't know why but this is about the only quote I remember from British Lit - probably because I was sleeping through it all and thought it no signifigance at the time

Maybe the nit I pick here isn't relevant or has already been covered, but I shall anyway. I'd revise this to: I think this is an interesting topic, thanks.