Motivations for good works: believers vs. non-believers

[Bradskii]

…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.

‘Why did you give your toys to the little boy next door?’

A: ‘He was sad and I wanted to make him happy’.
B: ‘My dad said he’d beat the daylights out of me if I didn’t’.

Anyone see those two answers as being equally virtuous?

 

[MPat]

‘Why did you give your toys to the little boy next door?’

A: ‘He was sad and I wanted to make him happy’.
B: ‘My dad said he’d beat the daylights out of me if I didn’t’.

Anyone see those two answers as being equally virtuous?

Let’s add C: “Oh, I didn’t. I’d rather be beaten than give anything to him.”. Are you going to say that C is just as good as B?

For that matter, yes, it is rather convenient to have such an illustration for my words.

You do “let the perfect be the enemy of the good”. And your justification for that is “stolen” from Catholics: you can’t support such claims using your own ethical theories, but hope that we will not challenge you to do so.

But I do intend to do so.

So, can you explain why A is supposed to be better than B?

We can see that and explain it. You can see it. But can you explain it?

 

[Bradskii]

So, can you explain why A is supposed to be better than B?

We can see that and explain it. You can see it. But can you explain it?

So you do accept that acting out of fear (of…I don’t know…hell?), which is effectively acting for selfish reasons (I don’t want to go to hell), isn’t as virtuous as acting for unselfish reasons (I don’t mind if there are some negative consequences for myself as long as the other person benefits).

Which is the explanation in itself.

 

[MPat]

So you do accept that acting out of fear (of…I don’t know…hell?), which is effectively acting for selfish reasons (I don’t want to go to hell), isn’t as virtuous as acting for unselfish reasons (I don’t mind if there are some negative consequences for myself as long as the other person benefits).

Which is the explanation in itself.

So, you have answered no questions.

Not very surprising, because you had no answers.

Yes, you know that doing a good work out of fear of hell is still better than not doing a good work at all. But if you would actually admit that, it would be much harder to pretend to be “obviously better” than Catholics.

And then you might have to actually do an “examination of conscience” - and you know you won’t like its results.

And you know that the “ethical theories” you follow are not able to see a moral difference between performing a good action out of fear and performing the same action out of love - although you can, and try to use it as a stick to beat Catholics with.

Consequentialism or utilitarianism? The consequences are the same. Thus they are going to give an answer you won’t like.

“Evolutionary morality”? Since the consequences are the same, both actions would give the same evolutionary advantage.

Sure, virtue ethics could sense a difference. But can you actually gather enough strength to abandon theories which you have seen to show themselves false and embrace virtue ethics? Can you actually overcome fear you condemned so strongly in this thread?

And, since you practically surrendered, is there anything else left to do in this thread?

 

[Bradskii]

And you know that the “ethical theories” you follow are not able to see a moral difference between performing a good action out of fear and performing the same action out of love - although you can, and try to use it as a stick to beat Catholics with.

I think that you have some sort of blinkers on. ‘This guy is an atheist so he can’t have any answers’. Whereas I couldn’t have made it clearer.

One is a selfish act. The other is selfless.

 

[MPat]

I think that you have some sort of blinkers on. ‘This guy is an atheist so he can’t have any answers’.

Nah, it’s more like “This guy is ‘Bradskii’ so he can’t have any answers.”.

You have a track record, after all. Even in this thread. It is not that hard to notice when you try to avoid answering a question.

Other atheists might really accept virtue ethics and have an answer. Unfortunately, we don’t get many of them in here.

Whereas I couldn’t have made it clearer.

One is a selfish act. The other is selfless.

And why exactly is “selfish” worse than “selfless”?

Because one shard from morality you inherited (with “mutations”) from of the Church without understanding it (and while rejecting the Church), says so?

No, show that “selfish is worse than selfless” can be derived from something you consider to be more basic. Or, at least, that it fits your other views.

Not to mention that there is that pesky question about “option C” (“Oh, I didn’t. I’d rather be beaten than give anything to him.”), which you have tried to miss…

 

[Bradskii]

And why exactly is “selfish” worse than “selfless”?

Honestly? Hey, you enjoy the rest of the thread. I can only waste a certain amount of my time in any given day and you’ve already taken more than your fair share.

 

[MPat]

Honestly? Hey, you enjoy the rest of the thread. I can only waste a certain amount of my time in any given day and you’ve already taken more than your fair share.

As we can see, my prediction that you were not going to give an answer has proved to be correct.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I don’t think that doing good out of fear is “just as good” as for any other reason. I would say it is better than doing nothing. However, it should be only a starting point toward one’s spiritual development, which might be eventually achieved by doing good because it is both Gd’s will and the right thing to do.

 

[MPat]

I don’t think that doing good out of fear is “just as good” as for any other reason. I would say it is better than doing nothing. However, it should be only a starting point toward one’s spiritual development, which might be eventually achieved by doing good because it is both Gd’s will and the right thing to do.

But then, you are not an atheist.

Sure, many people - Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, pagan followers of Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, even atheists who accept virtue ethics - can both see why doing good out of fear alone is suboptimal and explain why it is so.

But an atheist who claims to be doing good because of evolution has no good way to deal with such question.

And it is precisely this kind of an atheist that wants to use it as a stick to beat believers with.

Except those “professional” philosophers are unable to agree on the definition.

Um, they do agree. A theory is classified as Consequentialism, if consequences are all that matters in it. If all consequences that count are pain and pleasure (and “profit” we get subtracting total pain from total pleasure is to be maximised by each action for it to be good), the theory is classified as Utilitarianism.

And you did not offer any evidence of disagreement.

My stance is extremely simple. Make a cost-benefit analysis, and use it as the basis of your evaluation.

Yes, that’s Consequentialism. Calculate the “profit”, make a cost-benefit analysis, look at the results - all those things mean that only consequences count.

Yet when I challenge you to show how all that works in practice, and to get the answer you want - that performing a good action out of fear of hell is worse than performing precisely the same action for some other reason, you seem to be unable to do so.

And keep arguing about something else.

Oh, and, of course, you can’t take the intentions and motivations as such into account. After all, you claim that only consequences count.

There is no difference between accounting and ethics.

In that case I sense that you could benefit from some audit…

Otherwise known as “examination of conscience” (internal audit) and “confession” (external audit).

 

[QwertyGirl]

As an agnostic (and some times atheist), I don’t live my life worrying about an afterlife. I live in the moment. I think religious people believe there is a whole lot of grey between good and bad. I don’t see things that way. If someone is mostly good, then they are good. If they are mostly bad, then they are a sad case with a lot of extenuating circumstances (no doubt). Of course this begs the question, how does one define “good” and “bad”. I would say by their actions. I know many here would include their thoughts, as well. I don’t subscribe to that, though.

So back to why, as a person who doesn’t really worry about an afterlife, one does good things, works or charity, etc? First of all, it really isn’t a conscience decision for me. I don’t do anything out of guilt or hoping for better for myself down the road. I would say I am a pretty generous person, both in the physical sense and of my heart. My intention when I wake up each morning is to be a blessing to those I cross paths with today (whether in the physicial or in the spiritual sense). For me, it just feels like I am (like I believe most people to be) inherently good. It is in the DNA. Did a God make us that way? Maybe. Will we ever know for sure? Not in this life. Does it matter or do I care? Not really. Like I said, I live in the minute.

We can each contribute to making the world a better place or a worse place for us and everyone else in it. There is no grey. I would rather go to bed at night with warm fuzzies knowing I alleviated some suffering, or enhanced someone else’s happiness because doing so is, for me, being authentic. The alternative is to put your head on the pillow each night knowing you caused misery or unhappiness or suffering for those you share the world with. If one thing is clear, if we are here with a purpose, it is to be our authentic selves.

Some may say, aha, so you really are only kind so you can feel good when you go to bed at night. That isn’t correct. I am that way so I can be the authentic self I was born to be, for the greater good of those I share life with.

 

[MPat]

I am not particularly interested in the “label” placed on those little boxes, only the rationality of what is asserted.

If you are not interested in labels then, perhaps, you should not waste your time claiming that professional philosophers give wrong labels.

As Bradskii and others already pointed out (ad nauseam!) the principle of reciprocal altruism is a sufficient explanation for exhibiting helpful behavior. Spreading good will benefits everyone.

And yet, that was not what was being discussed in the part that you responded to.

In that part he was trying to avoid having to take back a claim that non-believers are good and believers are evil, because believers do good out of fear of hell, which is, in his view, selfish.

He was given a challenge to demonstrate that his “metaethical” views can show that doing good for selfish reasons is worse than doing good for selfless reasons.

He couldn’t do it and ran away instead.

So, you want to take that challenge instead of him, right?

Although, if you want to say that you do good because of “reciprocal altruism”, maybe you should rejoice at his loss instead. After all, “reciprocal altruism” (doing good to others expecting that others will do good to you too) is as “selfish”, as it gets.

And you do not want all the good you do to count as “selfish” and evil instead, right?

Those might be some “icing” on the cake, but they are secondary in the greater scheme of things. That has also been explained to you.

As a matter of fact, no, it doesn’t look like that has been explained to me in this thread. If you think otherwise, quote that post.

Anyway, you haven’t shown how your version of Consequentialism really works. So, for example, why don’t you show if performing some good action because of fear of hell is better or worse than performing the same action because of “reciprocal altruism”?

My intention when I wake up each morning is to be a blessing to those I cross paths with today (whether in the physicial or in the spiritual sense). For me, it just feels like I am (like I believe most people to be) inherently good.

So, instead of straightforward “I don’t know why I do good.”, which would also fit Agnosticism better, we get some poetry that doesn’t rhyme…

First of all, it really isn’t a conscience decision for me. I don’t do anything out of guilt or hoping for better for myself down the road.

The alternative is to put your head on the pillow each night knowing you caused misery or unhappiness or suffering for those you share the world with.

So, conscience does have a role after all.

For me, it just feels like I am (like I believe most people to be) inherently good. It is in the DNA.

So, let’s give you your Problem of Evil. How do you explain the Holocaust? How did inherently good people do such evil?

 

[QwertyGirl]

So, let’s give you your Problem of Evil. How do you explain the Holocaust? How did inherently good people do such evil?

Mental illness, most likely.

You seem to want to discount what people here tell you about their own, very personal life experience. I am not sure why you would want to do that, other than to perhaps bolster your own opinion. It isn’t necessary to do that. Your opinion is every bit as valid as anyone else’s on this subject. You should feel confident in that.

 

[Bradskii]

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)

Can’t say that I disagree with what you wrote.

 

[stavros388]

I bet! I had second thoughts about butting in. Your patience has been admirable.

 

[fisherman_carl]

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

Scripture says we love because He first loved us. And that if anyone says he loves God yet hates his neighbour is a liar. If we have never experienced love it is hard to give what we don’t have. And God’s love is greater than any person’s love. So His love has the potential to change us the most. But we have to be open to receive it.

 

[MPat]

Mental illness, most likely.

A whole epidemic of mental illness?

Do you actually believe it is possible?

Or is it just that you have no other option left, unless you abandon your view that people are inherently good, and you really really really want to avoid that?

You seem to want to discount what people here tell you about their own, very personal life experience. I am not sure why you would want to do that, other than to perhaps bolster your own opinion. It isn’t necessary to do that. Your opinion is every bit as valid as anyone else’s on this subject. You should feel confident in that.

If you claim that you do not do something because of your conscience, and then claim that you do that something because of your conscience, at least one of those claims is going to be false.

Even if it is “very personal life experience”.

Maybe you could present a verbatim quote about this. Because no one actually said that. Of course you might have misunderstood what was being said.

Happy to be of service:

Where on EARTH do people get this from? 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.

MPat:

And you know that the “ethical theories” you follow are not able to see a moral difference between performing a good action out of fear and performing the same action out of love - although you can, and try to use it as a stick to beat Catholics with.

I think that you have some sort of blinkers on. ‘This guy is an atheist so he can’t have any answers’. Whereas I couldn’t have made it clearer.

One is a selfish act. The other is selfless.

As you can see, his claim was that doing good out of fear of hell is selfish, and that is bad.

I am happy to see that you placed “selfish” into quotes. Maybe you understand (deep inside) that you are wrong.

You might have missed it but I claim that categories “selfish” and “selfless” are mostly useless.

Now to answer the question: “in my opinion if someone does the ‘right thing’ because she is scared of hell, is fine.” Not optimal, but fine.

OK, then you are not going to have quite as significant problems, as “Bradskii”.

A better formulation is “I will help you, because helping is the how ‘ love ’ manifests itself, so you will learn the advantage to help OTHERS”.

So, again, given your “metaethical” beliefs, why exactly is that better than fear of hell? How do they work?

 

[QwertyGirl]

A whole epidemic of mental illness?

Do you actually believe it is possible?

I do beleive it is possible. I read a statistic the other day that said approximately 40% of living human beings are living with some sort of mental illness (don’t ask for a citation, because I am not interested in doing the research. You can look it up yourself. ) I was actually surprised. The mind is no different than any other organ in the body with regards to susceptibility to illness, so I would expect that figure to be much higher. In any event, yes I do believe we are all born inherently good (going by my definition of “good”) and that very mentally ill people find ways to create a lot of grief, suffering and death. There are plenty of other mentally ill people who will jump on board with that. Sane people don’t commit those kinds of acts. They just don’t.

 

[MPat]

I do beleive it is possible. I read a statistic the other day that said approximately 40% of living human beings are living with some sort of mental illness (don’t ask for a citation, because I am not interested in doing the research. You can look it up yourself. ) I was actually surprised. The mind is no different than any other organ in the body with regards to susceptibility to illness, so I would expect that figure to be much higher. In any event, yes I do believe we are all born inherently good (going by my definition of “good”) and that very mentally ill people find ways to create a lot of grief, suffering and death. There are plenty of other mentally ill people who will jump on board with that. Sane people don’t commit those kinds of acts. They just don’t.

Yes, you did avoid a self-contradiction here. Yet I get an impression that you are getting close to rediscovering the doctrine of Original Sin.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Yet I get an impression that you are getting close to rediscovering the doctrine of Original Sin

Doubtful……