C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
wittgenstein
One cannot get an ought from an is .
Of course one can.
I is hungry. I ought to eat.
One cannot get an ought from an is .
Of course one can.
I is hungry. I ought to eat.
- Status
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
wittgenstein
This spirituality based on self interest I find repugnant.
It is true that egotism is not a great prop for spirituality. However, the ego exists. I am, and I cannot get around the fact that I am and that I have both physical and spiritual interests to advance. There is nothing repugnant about that. What is repugnant is that every thought and act becomes submerged and soaked in egotism.
This spirituality based on self interest I find repugnant.
It is true that egotism is not a great prop for spirituality. However, the ego exists. I am, and I cannot get around the fact that I am and that I have both physical and spiritual interests to advance. There is nothing repugnant about that. What is repugnant is that every thought and act becomes submerged and soaked in egotism.
P
Portofino
Guest
Yes. If you clothe the naked, feed the hungry, heal the sick, you are serving their interests, yet ā from a Catholic standpoint ā it is not sinful for the person in need to desire to be clothed, to be fed, to be healed.
W
wittgenstein
Guest
Suppose I do not care about other people. I do not care if they starve or feel pain. However, I also believe that if I help them I will be rewarded with a very pleasant eternity. I help them. Am I righteous?
In my opinion reward and punishment has nothing to do with spirituality. One should do good without any thought of reward.
In my opinion reward and punishment has nothing to do with spirituality. One should do good without any thought of reward.
T
tonyrey
Guest
This is a famous fallacy associated with David Hume based on the false (and self-refuting) assumption that nothing is intrinsically valuable. If, for example, the truth is not valuable then all rational conclusions are worthless and insignificant!
This conclusion is based on the false assumption that the more intelligent are necessarily on average more ethical - without taking free will into account.
I agree with you but it doesnāt follow that self-interest is never justified. If we always sacrificed ourselves for others we would encourage selfishness and imply that we are worthless!
J
JamesATyler
Guest
Here is a quote from Jesus
And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed. I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses. So he called every one of his lordās debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty. Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore. And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.
He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another manās, who shall give you that which is your own? No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
ā Luke 16:1-13, King James Bible
So the answer is that one who acts for the reward can be considered wise but he does not have the true riches if that is the only motivation.
W
wittgenstein
Guest
Response to post 225
I never said that self interest is never justified.
If (on average) the more intelligent are not more (even minutely more moral ) moral, then intelligence has no relation to righteousness. I agree with that conclusion. However, my point is that those that believe in a reward/punishment understanding of morality must believe such absurd things, or their beliefs are self-contradictory.
I never said that self interest is never justified.
If (on average) the more intelligent are not more (even minutely more moral ) moral, then intelligence has no relation to righteousness. I agree with that conclusion. However, my point is that those that believe in a reward/punishment understanding of morality must believe such absurd things, or their beliefs are self-contradictory.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Donāt you believe virtue brings its own reward and vice incurs its own punishment? For example, are selfish people happier than those who are unselfish? Arenāt the deadly sins deadly? Are the Beatitudes illusions?
R
RubyT
Guest
There is a difference between reason and instinct. The animal has an instinct which is to avoid pain. Donāt confuse morality with instinct. It is like going to the bathroomā¦do you rationalize the need (make a moral decision) or is it instinctual?
The reasonable (as reason is not instinctual) human avoids causing pain to others (cats or any living thing) because they know the experience as unpleasant and MORALLY do not want to inflict pain on another. It is the Love or God within us causing this morality.
So, where does the desire to ānot want toā inflict pain on another come from? The OP seems to imply it is human intellect (correct me if am wrong). I say it is from God who is in all of us. As we are created in His image and His image is love. Thus love in us (God) keeps a reasonable person morally sound.
Pretty simple really.
Do you disagree? check this outā¦ youtube.com/watch?v=uThfBF3yvPU
W
wittgenstein
Guest
Response to post 228
Evil people are miserable. Hitler, Stalin and Manson were never happy.
However, I believe that if one does good for self interest it is obviously not altruistic and therefore not spiritual.
Sometimes I speculate that Godās existence is not obvious because then all our actions would be directed at pleasing him for only one mundane reason,to obtain rewards from him.
Suppose my wife asked me,ādo you love meā?
I answer," Yes! You benefit me in many ways! You contribute to my wealth and satisfy my carnal desires"!
What do you think my wifeās response would be?
Evil people are miserable. Hitler, Stalin and Manson were never happy.
However, I believe that if one does good for self interest it is obviously not altruistic and therefore not spiritual.
Sometimes I speculate that Godās existence is not obvious because then all our actions would be directed at pleasing him for only one mundane reason,to obtain rewards from him.
Suppose my wife asked me,ādo you love meā?
I answer," Yes! You benefit me in many ways! You contribute to my wealth and satisfy my carnal desires"!
What do you think my wifeās response would be?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
wittgenstein
**
If (on average) the more intelligent are not more (even minutely ) moral, then intelligence has no relation to righteousness. I agree with that conclusion.**
Intelligence is not necessarily related to righteousness because we have free will to use our intelligence for good or evil. This is not to say that intelligence and righteousness are not connected. I believe that in contests between good and evil men, it is generally the good men who prevail because they are more intelligent than the bad men. Criminals always think they are smarter than the police, until they land in jail anyway.
However, my point is that those that believe in a reward/punishment understanding of morality must believe such absurd things, or their beliefs are self-contradictory.
We do not always do a thing just because it is the right thing to do. We cannot separate right and wrong behavior from rewards and punishments. A virtuous wife is often rewarded with a faithful husband. An adulterous wife may end up in divorce court. That is the way of the world. It is good that actions have consequences, and those actions that are good have the consequence of reward, and those that are bad have the consequence of punishment. It is best to keep that thought in mind when we craft our own moral codes.
**
If (on average) the more intelligent are not more (even minutely ) moral, then intelligence has no relation to righteousness. I agree with that conclusion.**
Intelligence is not necessarily related to righteousness because we have free will to use our intelligence for good or evil. This is not to say that intelligence and righteousness are not connected. I believe that in contests between good and evil men, it is generally the good men who prevail because they are more intelligent than the bad men. Criminals always think they are smarter than the police, until they land in jail anyway.
However, my point is that those that believe in a reward/punishment understanding of morality must believe such absurd things, or their beliefs are self-contradictory.
We do not always do a thing just because it is the right thing to do. We cannot separate right and wrong behavior from rewards and punishments. A virtuous wife is often rewarded with a faithful husband. An adulterous wife may end up in divorce court. That is the way of the world. It is good that actions have consequences, and those actions that are good have the consequence of reward, and those that are bad have the consequence of punishment. It is best to keep that thought in mind when we craft our own moral codes.
W
wittgenstein
Guest
I suppose it is a catch 22. You will only be rewarded if you do not care about being rewarded. I have been lucky. My ethics coincides with being rewarded!
W
wittgenstein
Guest
I wish my computer did not have a viris and I could post sites. I am using my tablet. There is a video ( google,āDerrida love being youtubeā) that explains my philosophical position better then I.
W
wittgenstein
Guest
Response to post 231,
I think altrusitic armies defeat those whose only concern is plunder because an army of soldiers willing to make the ultimate sacrifice will defeat an army that fears death. No non-altruistic army will risk death because death (in their belief system) offers no reward (plunder).
I think altrusitic armies defeat those whose only concern is plunder because an army of soldiers willing to make the ultimate sacrifice will defeat an army that fears death. No non-altruistic army will risk death because death (in their belief system) offers no reward (plunder).
H
Hypnotoad
Guest
The simplest conclusion I can see from this is the existence of the conscience gives testimony and proof of not only the necessity of a Lawmaker but also this Lawmakers nature of being within us but separate from our will. Hence why this role of Lawmaker is one which neither society nor person(s) (including ourselves) can carrying out!
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
wittgenstein
**I think altrusitic armies defeat those whose only concern is plunder because an army of soldiers willing to make the ultimate sacrifice will defeat an army that fears death. No non-altruistic army will risk death because death (in their belief system) offers no reward (plunder). **
Iām puzzled by the notion that you think some armies fear death because they are not altruistic. My sense is that you donāt even go into an army if you fear death. Moreover, joining an army is by definition an altruistic act. Either you are acting on behalf of your countryās safety, or you are employed at a job that, even though it risks death, is intended to be the means by which you support your wife and children (that too is altruistic).
An army that is dedicated only to plunder is not really an army. It is a gang of murderous and thieving bandits.
But the bottom line here is that you can always be both self serving and altruistic at the same time. This seems to be a state of mind or philosophy that you are not willing to concede to anyone. With you is it one or another but not both?
**I think altrusitic armies defeat those whose only concern is plunder because an army of soldiers willing to make the ultimate sacrifice will defeat an army that fears death. No non-altruistic army will risk death because death (in their belief system) offers no reward (plunder). **
Iām puzzled by the notion that you think some armies fear death because they are not altruistic. My sense is that you donāt even go into an army if you fear death. Moreover, joining an army is by definition an altruistic act. Either you are acting on behalf of your countryās safety, or you are employed at a job that, even though it risks death, is intended to be the means by which you support your wife and children (that too is altruistic).
An army that is dedicated only to plunder is not really an army. It is a gang of murderous and thieving bandits.
But the bottom line here is that you can always be both self serving and altruistic at the same time. This seems to be a state of mind or philosophy that you are not willing to concede to anyone. With you is it one or another but not both?
T
tonyrey
Guest
On a Philosophy forum nothing should be taken for granted. Your argument wouldnāt satisfy those who donāt believe in a loving God!
T
tonyrey
Guest
This seems inconsistent with your view that morality based on self-interest is repugnant! It conflicts with the principle that we should love others as we love ourselvesā¦I suppose it is a catch 22. You will only be rewarded if you do not care about being rewarded. I have been lucky. My ethics coincides with being rewarded!
S
Sair
Guest
There is a certain aspect of ourselves which might be considered both internal and external, and one which is often critical to our moral development, and that is the awareness of others and the fear of their sanction - certainly the sense of caring what others think, how they perceive us and how our actions affect them is within us as individuals, but the particular feelings of others are beyond our immediate awareness and control.
This obviously isnāt enough for those who think that morality has to be imposed from beyond humanity to have any real weight or effect, but you only have to look at cultures such as that of historical Japan, where losing your honourable standing amongst your fellows meant committing ritual suicide, to realise the power of our social constructs and impulses. What about people who donāt have this sense of social awareness and empathy? Well, we generally consider this a disorder and call such people sociopaths and psychopaths. But again, looking at the historical record, it doesnāt seem like divinely imposed morality did anything for these people either.
W
wittgenstein
Guest
Response to 238
How is that inconsistent? I never said that an altrusitic person is not allowed to enjoy life. I do not do good for reward.
Suppose I love playing the violen. I practice everyday. I practice because I love making music. One day the symphony calls me. I did not seek a job at the symphony but if they offer one I will not reject it.
I remember a friend in high school that wanted to be a rock musician. He asked me if I thought he would make it. I asked him a question," if God told you that you would never be successful at being a musician would you quit music?" He answered, āyesā. I told him that he would never make it.
How is that inconsistent? I never said that an altrusitic person is not allowed to enjoy life. I do not do good for reward.
Suppose I love playing the violen. I practice everyday. I practice because I love making music. One day the symphony calls me. I did not seek a job at the symphony but if they offer one I will not reject it.
I remember a friend in high school that wanted to be a rock musician. He asked me if I thought he would make it. I asked him a question," if God told you that you would never be successful at being a musician would you quit music?" He answered, āyesā. I told him that he would never make it.
- Status