Motivations for good works: believers vs. non-believers

[HerCrazierHalf]

So, when believer does good and avoids evil obeying Jesus, that is supposed to be “sad”, but when an atheist does good and avoids evil “obeying” oxytocin, that is supposed to be “joyfyl”?

Would you care to explain, why?

External vs interior motives. “I’m told or made to do this.” vs “I choose to do this”. It’s kinda like saying you would do bad things (or forego good) if you no for the penalty of the most horrific unending punishment possible. Or it means you believe yourself to be so broken that literal supernatural help is needed to keep you from pillaging the next village.

I know it isn’t exactly this for most, but that is how it comes across initially. Especially those who claim faith had reformed their bad habits.

 

[Sleepy2]

So, when believer does good and avoids evil obeying Jesus, that is supposed to be “sad”, but when an atheist does good and avoids evil “obeying” oxytocin, that is supposed to be “joyfyl”?

Would you care to explain, why?

Are you also going to end up claiming that emotions and instincts are good and reason is evil?

Philosophically - If the only reason to do a good deed an expectation of a reward, is the deed actually a good? If the only reason not to do a bad thing is because of fear of punishment, is the non-act a good? We could spend a ton of time without a good answer.

I don’t think “obeying” that you used above is the right word… I would use “rewarded with”. People (and critters) get feedback by doing or not doing things. We can be happy or sad based on our actions and even our inaction. I think it is helpful for people to understand their motivations and to examine them and also how their motivations make them and other feel. I guess in my view there is no true altruism but I do have a ton of empathy and love for others as motivation.

To answer your question, the statement that the primary motivation for good deeds is religious teachings seems to me sad. Jesus was a great example for how to live and love. He didn’t love because there was a rule that told him to do so, correct? He loved because that is a beautiful way to live and was perhaps closest to perfect. We should live like Jesus not because we are following rules and teachings but because we are following an example and want to live and love in the same spirit. Love, joy and happiness seem a better and more positive reason than because one must (as you to put it) obey.

The atheist in me says living a life of love will bring me and others happiness and that is my reward. What is yours?

 

[meltzerboy2]

I don’t think the two ways of living are necessarily mutually exclusive. We can follow rules and teachings, but we don’t have to follow them BLINDLY. In other words, we can also consider WHY they were established and WHY it would be to our benefit to follow them. By doing so, we can better appreciate the beauty of practicing them since we will understand that they make our lives and the lives of others more harmonious, more loving, and more holy.

 

[Larry1700]

“I’m told or made to do this.” vs “I choose to do this”.

You’re still making a choice whether or not to follow the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, etc .

Think of it like owning a car. You can choose to follow the owner’s manual or not. The outcome is better when you follow it, but we often fail to do so.

Similarly, I know my health would be better if I eat the right foods and exercise regularly. I’m good at doing the exercise, but horrible at eating the right foods. My willpower is weak regarding food, so it’s something I have to choose to work on.

Same with doing good for others. I’m naturally lazy/selfish/un-caring, so I sometimes need to “force myself” to do what’s right.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

You’re still making a choice whether or not to follow the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, etc .

Depends. You might. Most Christians probably do make a choice as well.

Just that phrased the way you first did implies something short of coercion to those of us outside.

If I neglect my car it will stop working but it’s unlikely to lock the doors and burst into flames. It’s hard to find an analogue to something explained to me as infinite bliss vs eternal pain (over simplified).

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

You were given two links earlier in the thread which would give you more than enough information about the subject matter.

That is not supporting your story (or some parts of it) with evidence. That’s just pointing to a list of mostly irrelevant propositions of dubious certainty (it’s Psychology, after all - protoscience, if not pseudoscience) and hoping some of them will fit.

I think that you have already been taken to task in regard to your suggestion that psychology is psedoscience. I need comment no further on that.

Bradskii:

People are born either generous or mean spirited or anywhere in between.

And the strongest claim of such kind in the link (which, by the way, was not provided by you) seems to be “morality has a genetic component”. That is not anywhere close to your claim.

I couldn’t have made that statement any more generic as a lead in to what I was discussing. It’s like saying ‘people are either born short or tall or anywhere in between’. How on earth you can find fault with that is beyond me. And do you not consider generosity or being miserly an aspect of morality?

Bradskii:

Yes, the more ‘civilised’ portion of our brains have evolved to enable us to form…civilisations.That’s pretty obvious or we wouldn’t be here. Forming groups enabled us to better survive. But that portion of the brain hasn’t replaced the reptillian portion. That’s still there

Now, of course, one self-contradiction is on the surface: if the evolutionary advantage of acting morally is quite as great, as you made it sound, how comes that this pesky “reptilian portion” hasn’t been “fixed”? After all, it is not as if genes responsible for it can’t have mutations any more.

But it is even more interesting to compare this with your views concerning morality itself.

If it is the “reptilian portion” that is responsible for evil, and it is the “civilised portion” that is responsible for good, how should moral decisions look like?

Now, does your view fit that? Let’s see:

Now all this happened in an instant. There is very often no time to think ‘What would Jesus want me to do’. You act (and here’s the word again) instinctively.

What we do, instinctively, is what we describe as being good.

Of course, given your praise for instinct and emotion and lack of respect for reason, it is not very surprising that it is so easy to find ways in which your position is self-contradicting.

Instinct has got us to where we are now. But it gets us only so far. Reason takes us the rest of the way. And the reptillian portion of our brains is still required. You might find it handy if a guy pulls a knife on you in a bar.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Love drives people to selfless acts, and you dont need to believe in God to believe in love.

True, but you need to believe in God in order to believe in perfect love. Our love is marred by our own selfishness and imperfections. What we think is good is tainted by our own desires. And nothing can lift us out of our own muck and self deception except a guiding light outside ourselves that is pure Truth and love itself, that has no deception in it. And that could only be the Perfect God.

The focus of this topic has largely been about the good works that we can do. But far more interesting is the good work that God has done for us and in us. And continues to do.

 

[MPat]

Instinct has got us to where we are now. But it gets us only so far. Reason takes us the rest of the way. And the reptillian portion of our brains is still required. You might find it handy if a guy pulls a knife on you in a bar.

So, you choose to, um, fail to understand my point.

Yes, it is hard to avoid facing the contradiction between your talk about “reptilian portion” as the source of evil in abstract and your talk about instinct (for which that “reptilian portion” is supposed to be responsible for) as the source of good when you are dealing with an example…

External vs interior motives. “I’m told or made to do this.” vs “I choose to do this”.

Are you sure your metaphysics can support such a distinction?

Also, can you demonstrate that “External vs interior motives” align in the way you want? Can you demonstrate that command of Jesus is more “external” than “command” of oxytocin?

Not to mention that the further points will apply here as well, for you do not explain why “internal motives” are supposed to be better.

Philosophically - If the only reason to do a good deed an expectation of a reward, is the deed actually a good?

We could spend a ton of time without a good answer.

Well, let’s see: what does your “metaethical” theory say?

Under utilitarianism (a common choice among the atheists) the answer is obviously “Results are the same (good), and only results matter, thus the action is good.”. As easy, as it gets.

So, are you going to reject utilitarianism and choose deontology or virtue ethics instead?

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Are you sure your metaphysics can support such a distinction?

I’m sure that I’m unsure of nearly every and anything.

Also, can you demonstrate that “External vs interior motives” align in the way you want? Can you demonstrate that command of Jesus is more “external” than “command” of oxytocin?

Seeing how this “command” of oxytocin would literally come from within, I’m not sure I get your point. The commands of Jesus are often interpreted or detailed by a church which is external. Do this our risk eternal punishment. (Over simplified)

you do not explain why “internal motives” are supposed to be better.

This is completely subjective on my part. How well do you complete a task you want to do versus one you are made to do?

 

[MPat]

I’m sure that I’m unsure of nearly every and anything.

Seeing how this “command” of oxytocin would literally come from within, I’m not sure I get your point. The commands of Jesus are often interpreted or detailed by a church which is external. Do this our risk eternal punishment. (Over simplified)

You wrote the second part as if you were very sure about many things.

For if you really are not sure if there is a real difference between “internal” and “external”, how can you be so sure that oxytocin is “internal” and command of Jesus is “external”?

Now, of course, all that is easy for Thomists: we believe that soul maintains unity of the human body, in which oxytocin exists virtually, thus it is a part of human body - thus it is “internal”; we believe that Jesus is separate from us and thus “external”.

But do you believe in souls? Do you believe that the commands in question are given by real Jesus who is definitely separate from us?

A common atheist metaphysics will claim that we are not as real as the fundamental particles of which we consist. That we are mostly arbitrary collections of fundamental particles that interact in a complex way.

But in that case, why is one collection of fundamental particles (oxytocin) supposed to be “internal”, and a different collection (Church) - “external”? Not to mention that someone who obeys such commands is likely to be the member of the Church, and thus fundamental particles will be “shared”.

That’s what I’m pointing out when I ask if your metaphysics can handle this.

This is completely subjective on my part. How well do you complete a task you want to do versus one you are made to do?

If that was the reason, you would be checking if believers or nonbelievers perform good works in a superior way according to some criteria.

That is much easier than the tortuous method you chose, and directly checks something you claim to be relevant.

Though, of course, the tortuous way has its advantages in the case when you fear what you will find in straightforward way…

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Instinct has got us to where we are now. But it gets us only so far. Reason takes us the rest of the way. And the reptillian portion of our brains is still required. You might find it handy if a guy pulls a knife on you in a bar.

So, you choose to, um, fail to understand my point.

Yes, it is hard to avoid facing the contradiction between your talk about “reptilian portion” as the source of evil in abstract and your talk about instinct (for which that “reptilian portion” is supposed to be responsible for) as the source of good when you are dealing with an example…

You can’t envisage two opposing instincts? Surely you can…

 

[MPat]

This is an incorrect representation of the utilitarian ethical system. The correct one would be: “ All other things being equal , one should chose the option which a) yields better results or b) causes less harm”. It is incorrect just to consider one side of question. Using simple terms, a “cost - benefit” analysis needs to be performed.

On the contrary, utilitarianism is based on the belief that only results matter. There is no “All other things being equal” about it. (What would be the point? Other things are never equal. Such an addition would make utilitarianism mostly useless.)

For example, see Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Consequentialism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Winter 2015 Edition)): “Consequentialism, as its name suggests, is the view that normative properties depend only on consequences.”, “The paradigm case of consequentialism is utilitarianism,”, “Classic utilitarianism is consequentialist as opposed to deontological because of what it denies. It denies that moral rightness depends directly on anything other than consequences, such as whether the agent promised in the past to do the act now.”.

Now, of course, it might well be that you are an inconsistent utilitarian. That would not be very surprising - atheists who are consistent are rather rare.

You can’t envisage two opposing instincts? Surely you can…

Sure. I can also imagine an atheist offering a red herring to distract me.

If your position really was that some instincts are good and some are bad, and you were consistent about it, you would not be praising an action by saying that it is “instinctive” (also implying that reasoned action is going to be evil). At the very least, you would give some contrary examples as well. Although, of course, in such case it would be much harder to claim that there is anything wrong with doing good and avoiding evil to obey a religious rule or authority.

Yes, I know: consistency would destroy all fun in being an atheist.

 

[MPat]

That is still a misunderstanding, no matter how many times it is repeated. And yes, the “all else being equal” proviso is the most important part.

An example:

Suppose, that one can develop a cure for cancer, but needs sufficient funds to do so. To acquire the funds there can be two methods; one: to rob a bank, the other is to start “GoFundMe” project. No sane person would say that “only the results” matter, regardless of the method which is used.

The point is that the “cost - benefit” analysis is the only proper way to decide which method is preferred.

Ah, it is really a misunderstanding. Just a different one.

“Results” obviously include not just intended results. If one robs a bank to fund search for cure for cancer, the results are both a robbed bank and funded search for cure for cancer (and, perhaps, cured cancers).

 

[Bradskii]

If your position really was that some instincts are good and some are bad, and you were consistent about it, you would not be praising an action by saying that it is “instinctive” (also implying that reasoned action is going to be evil). At the very least, you would give some contrary examples as well. Although, of course, in such case it would be much harder to claim that there is anything wrong with doing good and avoiding evil to obey a religious rule or authority.

If my position was that some instincts are good and some bad? What? What do you mean by ‘If’? Isn’t it obvious? (and not all religious rules or authorities were or currently are morally correct).

So you do accept that there is an internal ‘debate’ between oposing instincts. Making some headway I guess…

Now what do you think would be more beneficial to the group and which would be more beneficial to the individual? A tendency to help the group even though you lose out in the short term, or a tendency to get whatever you could to the detriment of the group but which would benefit you only in the short term.

Again, the answer is blazingly obvious. But I’d just like to know you’re following.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Some years ago; a friend of a church minister was shot and killed by a gang of youths in Jamaica. After the funeral; the minister and a few parishioners got together and prayed for these gangs living in poverty and on drugs.

They went out to meet up with them and asked, what can we do to help you? Over time they started to make a difference. From these early encounters; the idea of Street Pastors was born.

Our hope is to make our communities a kinder and more caring place to live. We have had many profound encounters, sometimes when we help someone, they offer us a donation which we decline. We say it means more to us if they help someone else and pass a kindness on.

 

[MPat]

If my position was that some instincts are good and some bad? What? What do you mean by ‘If’? Isn’t it obvious?

Well, to be precise, your position seems to be both that all instincts are good and that some are good and some are bad, depending on what is more useful at the moment.

When you want to condemn following religious rules as “not instinctive” and praise actions of atheists as “instinctive” (or when you almost define “good” as “what we evolved to do”), you take a position that all instincts are good, but reasoning (used when one tries to follow rules explicitly) is evil.

When this position is challenged, it becomes obvious that defending it is too hard and unpleasant: it is too obviously false. Then you move to position that some instincts are good and some are bad. After all, it is easier to defend. But, of course, when you take it, you can no longer do what you want.

This technique is called “Motte and bailey doctrines” (term introduced in paper https://philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2).

Now what do you think would be more beneficial to the group and which would be more beneficial to the individual? A tendency to help the group even though you lose out in the short term, or a tendency to get whatever you could to the detriment of the group but which would benefit you only in the short term.

Again, the answer is blazingly obvious. But I’d just like to know you’re following.

So, here we are going to have “Motte” claiming that both good and bad instincts can give evolutionary advantage in specific circumstances. That sometimes genes are going to make acting morally easier, and sometimes harder.

Easy to defend, but useless in supporting your sneering at the believers.

And then there is “Bailey” claiming that evolutionary advantage of good instincts is great, that genes determine the character almost completely etc.

Want to show those are not “Motte and bailey doctrines”? That’s easy: explicitly condemn the opinions that “Bailey” supports.

As soon as you include the “cost” to obtain the “positive outcome”, you are a relativist and a utilitarian. As for referring to SEP, those articles are not necessarily “precise”.

So, we have a battle of authorities: professional philosophers that wrote that encyclopedia citing several sources against a random annonymous Internet user who cites no sources…

I wonder who will win…

 

[Bradskii]

So, here we are going to have “Motte” claiming that both good and bad instincts can give evolutionary advantage in specific circumstances. That sometimes genes are going to make acting morally easier, and sometimes harder.

Easy to defend, but useless in supporting your sneering at the believers.

First up, let’s quit with the accustations that anyone is ‘sneering at the believers’ shall we? I have done nothing to justify such a comment and it is frankly insulting for you to suggest it. You seem more intent in having an argument rather than a discussion and I have better things to do with my time than spend it in worthless pursuits.

That said, you still seem to be having difficulty in accepting that instincts can be good or bad and that good ones offer beneficial results at the group level whereas bad ones often only benefit the individual but on a temporary basis. So instinctive behaviour that promotes cooperation, for want of a better term, is good. And instinctive behaviour that promotes benefits just to the individual is not good.

This is not exactly hot off the press. I’m not even sure that it would need any more than simply stating it for most people to accept as a given. It’s that obvious. And religion or a belief in ‘what God wants’ doesn’t enter the picture at this stage. That would only happen at a time when you conduct an internal dialogue as to the best course of action - as opposed to acting instinctively.

 

[MPat]

First up, let’s quit with the accustations that anyone is ‘sneering at the believers’ shall we? I have done nothing to justify such a comment and it is frankly insulting for you to suggest it.

So, how would you describe this instead?

I mean, seriously, do you only help people because Jesus told you to? If that is so, then you are not the person I would turn to for help.

In fact, the rest of what you said in this thread seems to be merely “commentary”, or a try to avoid taking that back.

If you think I am misusing the word “sneer” here, feel free to make that case, suggest other words. It is not necessarily impossible - after all, I am not a native speaker of English.

That said, you still seem to be having difficulty in accepting that instincts can be good or bad and that good ones offer beneficial results at the group level whereas bad ones often only benefit the individual but on a temporary basis.

Isn’t it interesting that that’s your response to me giving the same position as your “Motte”, that is, position that is easy to defend, but “boring”.

Sure, it is possible to look for imprecisions in it, but they are unlikely to make much of a difference at this point.

Easy. The article cites several, sometimes contradictory opinions , compared to the fact that as long as you include the “cost” and fail to separate it from the “result”, you have no leg to stand on. I wish to remind you that the “end does not justify the means”, and thus the catholic church also realizes that you cannot include the “means” into the “end”. It is ok that you are not familiar with the basic principles of accounting, but to be ignorant of the church’s teaching is rather “uncool”.

Um, the question is “What opinions are to be classified as Utilitarianism and/or Consequentialism?”. Yes, professional philosophers get to decide that and you don’t.

Still, I do not see how anything you said is supposed to be relevant for that question.

Alternatively, if you want to demonstrate that under your “metaethical theory” (whichever you choose) performing some good action because of an expectation of reward is going to be evil (which is from where we got here), feel free to try.

 

[tafan2]

I am going to jump into this discussion late and give my take. This discussion comes up from time to time on a secular forum I participate in, here, and elsewhere. Almost always, if I try to read the discussion from an objective and disinterested standpoint, the religious point of view given comes up short and mostly due to one or all of the following points

1. the religious folks are painted into a corner of seemingly only doing good works due to fear of punishment
2. there is rarely an adequate answer of why atheists who do good works
3. the difference between different religious is not stressed enough in the discussion

My answer is: the motivation for anyone doing a good work should be love of fellow man, ie charity to others. One cannot deny this love of others can be present or absent in anyone, to varying extents. And that we all, at times, fail in doing good. The goal of Christianity, in general should be to ever increasingly follow the greatest two commandments given by Jesus. This is what we are doing in our path to holiness. If we focus on that, and utilize the grace of God to help us on that path, we should all exhibit a greater love of man than non-believers. But the motivation should be love itself. There is no reason a non-believer cannot have that same motivation, there is a reason why it might be more difficult for them to achieve.

 

[MPat]

My answer is: the motivation for anyone doing a good work should be love of fellow man, ie charity to others.

It depends on what exactly is “should” supposed to mean here.

Let’s take a simple example: contrition. Leaving out some minor details, being sorry because one fears hell is imperfect contrition, being sorry because one loves God is perfect contrition.

And yes, perfect contrition is much better than imperfect contrition. But we should not forget even imperfect contrition is much better than no contrition at all.

Likewise, we should not rush to dismiss good works or evil works avoided done because of fear of hell or fear of having to talk about what one did in confession.

And we certainly should not let atheists do so. First, it lets them to assume unjustified moral superiority (“Thank, um, no one in particular, that I am not like the rest of men, for example those Catholics who do good works because they fear hell.”), which is not good for them. Second, as you can see, they can’t actually show why doing good out of fear is supposed to be wrong or suboptimal. Given the assumptions they tend to make, they should see doing good out of fear as something that is just as good as doing good for any other reason.

Don’t let the perfect to be the enemy of good (in a somewhat uncommon sense).