The right way to bet

[Spectral Paladin]

Unfortunately, most of your post was replying to something I never suggested.

A man can only be good if nothing keeps him from doing evil.

This has nothing to do with 'Man would be good if nothing kept him from doing evil'.

I am not downplaying man's carnal nature. However, like you seem to acknowledge, suppressing it only makes it stronger.

I 'll make a parenthesis here.

I can accept it is a logical assumption that an all-powerful entity created the universe.

I can accept that among all entities ever worshipped by men, it only makes sense to believe in the christian God.

However, there is no logical link between those two ideas. Nothing suggests that the entity that created the universe requires to be worshipped, offers salvation or has set standards for being good (which if it had, I agree would be absolute).

Back to what I was saying, I cannot claim that there are men who can live up to absolute good standards, because I don't believe there are such standards. What I 'm saying is that it is possible for men to exist who, even though not restricted by law,religion or morals will not commit most of the 'sins' or 'crimes'.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Unfortunately, most of your post was replying to something I never suggested.

A man can only be good if nothing keeps him from doing evil.

This has nothing to do with 'Man would be good if nothing kept him from doing evil'.

I am not downplaying man's carnal nature. However, like you seem to acknowledge, suppressing it only makes it stronger.

I 'll make a parenthesis here.

I can accept it is a logical assumption that an all-powerful entity created the universe.

I can accept that among all entities ever worshipped by men, it only makes sense to believe in the christian God.

However, there is no logical link between those two ideas. Nothing suggests that the entity that created the universe requires to be worshipped, offers salvation or has set standards for being good (which if it had, I agree would be absolute).

Back to what I was saying, I cannot claim that there are men who can live up to absolute good standards, because I don't believe there are such standards. What I 'm saying is that it is possible for men to exist who, even though not restricted by law,religion or morals will not commit most of the 'sins' or 'crimes'.

So i believe in Morals and you dont... (so we can throw you into the same boat as Dante)... I'm sorry did you have a point?... or did you just want to inform me of your belief system?

Ok i re-read your post... it seems you think there are men who arent restricted by law or religion or morals but will not commit most of the sins or crime?

What? Huh?  *scratches head*

I dont think such a culture or a person like that exists.... even tribal cultures have tribal laws. All people are shaped by their culture which is immersed in laws, religion, and morals.  You cant escape it.  The only child i know of to grow up  purely in the wild was the Wild Child of France.  Kid actually WAS raised by wolves.  For 15 years.  But he wasnt really capable of doing anything ... had less intelligence than a 5 yr old. Any actions commited by him would have been mere beast actions.... but he would fall under the "child clause" of being innocent instead of righteous.

So sorry friend you will have to rethink your position. Seems a bit shaky.  Whats with your signature?

[Spectral Paladin]

A culture? No. But such a person can exist, considering I 'm not judging him by absolute standards. One cannot be totally free from laws or community rules, but he free from religion and morals.

Yes, I believe that a man who is not restricted by the above will not necessarily go on a rampage, commiting every sin and crime known to man. I 'm saying most, because I mean the actions commonly accepted as evil, such as murder, theft etc. I do not include actions that cause no harm whatsoever but some consider a sin such as eating meat on a Friday of Lent.

A rapist is no more evil than a teenage boy wishing he could bend his beautiful coworker over the counter.... the only difference is that the rapist was brave/crazy enough to defy the law to act on his thoughts.  If the same teenage boy was on a deserted island with the pretty coworker after being shipwrecked.....never to be rescued.... would the teenage boy finally give into his desires and rape the girl?  Damn right he would.  If the same teenage boy were to become a king and have to power to execute the person he previously fancied dead.  Would he abuse his power and execute the man?  Damn right he would.  Modern laws are the only thing restraining us from acting out what we project in our minds... except for criminals of course. This does not make us "good" .  This simply makes us "restrained".

Unlike you, I believe the boy could be mature enough and see the futility of giving in his desires. Why rape the girl  when they could be cooperating to get out of there? Why have a man executed when he has all the power he could ever wish for? This is my point.

But if you were those situations, I take it that your carnal nature would be your excuse.

[GUNWOUNDS]

A culture? No. But such a person can exist, considering I 'm not judging him by absolute standards. One cannot be totally free from laws or community rules, but he free from religion and morals.

Yes, I believe that a man who is not restricted by the above will not necessarily go on a rampage, commiting every sin and crime known to man. I 'm saying most, because I mean the actions commonly accepted as evil, such as murder, theft etc. I do not include actions that cause no harm whatsoever but some consider a sin such as eating meat on a Friday of Lent.

Unlike you, I believe the boy could be mature enough and see the futility of giving in his desires. Why rape the girl  when they could be cooperating to get out of there? Why have a man executed when he has all the power he could ever wish for? This is my point.

But if you were those situations, I take it that your carnal nature would be your excuse.

I never said anything like eating meat on lent.... dont bring BS into this.  Stick to the real issues and dont use straw men to boost your arguement.    Secondly, why rape the girl? why execute the man? ... gee i dunno why dont you ask roman soldiers who have committed rape after occupying a town.  Certainly they werent restrained by morals...... why dont you ask french monarchs who have had husbands killed in order to have their wives..certainly they werent restrained by morals.....  you can list unrealistically good behavior as a counter arguement but its pretty weak.

You wanna know who you really are?... you are the person you are when nobody is around.... you know the stuff you say, the things you think,  and the stuff you do when nobody is around.  Thats who you really are.  And most people are absolutely wretched when they are alone.  When people are all by themselves  they do the most inhuman things.  Sorta like that guy in American Pie who stuck his schlong into the cherry pie. 

[Spectral Paladin]

You fail to get the point. I do not deny that the majority of people are as wretched as you suggest. Nor do I claim that I am a righteous person.

The point is that that you can find unrealistically good behaviour. It doesn't matter how rare it is, it exists. And actually it isn't illogical (which is how it appears to you) nor random, but the result of concious and sensible decisions of a mature person.

[GUNWOUNDS]

You fail to get the point. I do not deny that the majority of people are as wretched as you suggest. Nor do I claim that I am a righteous person.

The point is that that you can find unrealistically good behaviour. It doesn't matter how rare it is, it exists. And actually it isn't illogical (which is how it appears to you) nor random, but the result of concious and sensible decisions of a mature person.

ok you are missing a piece of my point.... you can find good behavior.. but its at the expense of something else.  You see we humans are imperfect and do not keep all the commandments....BUT we are VERY proud of the commandments [insert any other moral code here] that we keep, and are extremely judgemental of those who do not.

You see a man who commits adultry will ignore his adultry and be proud of the fact that he does not steal or murder.  And he will be very judgemental of the people who do steal and murder.... while ignoring his own wrong-doings.  The murderer will ignore his murder and be proud that he doesnt commit sexual sin and be very judgemental of those that commit sexual sin.

So yes you can find people who have good behavior, and yes it can be attributed to discipline.... however the point is that these people only have it partly right.  You may find a guy who gives money to a charity and feels good about it and then goes home and beats his wife and then masturbates to child pornography.  Or you may find a man who treats his woman perfectly and abhors child pornography yet is stingy and will not give to charity.  Both men will be proud of the virtues they keep and be extremely critical of each other's imperfections.

No matter how wonderful a person you find you will always find a wretched flaw within them.  And so therefore i stand by my statement that Doing Good deeds in the hopes that it will make you a good person or get you into heaven is futile and is equal to doing the good acts in ignorance of their intrinsic value.

Perhaps semantically "random" was the wrong choice of word (becuz random implies no purpose while you do have a purpose albeit a false one).... but i think ignorant and illogical still fit nicely.  To perform an action for the wrong purpose is indeed ignorant and illogical.  Someone may say they are going to drink poison to make themselves lose weight... that is illogical and ignorant.  Another person may drink the poison and know that it will kill them.  This is performing an action and understanding the intrinsic value of the action.  To poison oneself is to kill oneself.

Same goes for performing good deeds.  To perform a good deed is to Glorify God because you are fulfilling His will.  To perform a good action in order to be  independantly "good" or "holy" apart from God is ignorant/illogical.  A man can never be absolutely good, he cannot live up to moral law... therefore man can never be "good"  so to perform good deeds to become "good" is pointless, futile, illlogical, and ignorant.

Since i believe in Moral Law and you dont i guess we can agree to disagree... any discussion past this may become repetitive.  Howwever if you dont beleive in Moral law you shouldnt even be arguing about *good* or *bad*.  You should only be addressing *logical* and *illogical*

And i dont think you will be able to convince anyone that performing actions out of ignorance is logical.

Guns

[nemafakei]

What about doing good acts for the sake of doing good acts? Does that not count as performing good deeds for their intrinsic value?

[gunner154]

And what is the point of doing good acts? Complete the sentence: What about doing good acts for the sake of doing good acts for the sake of _______?

This brings me to a discussion a friend and I had about altruism. I don't exactly remember the details of the discussion (it was generally a short class discussion, my friend and I thought about it and we generally agreed at one point). However, we concluded that doing good deeds to feel good about yourself is not altruism. It's simply selfish. It's like doing community work to improve your chances at getting a scholarship.

However, if you do good deeds simply because you really want to help people (unfortunately, a rare case), and you subsequently derive personal satisfaction from helping someone - that's altruism. In a nutshell, you look at the intention of committing the act, and as I've explained - this does apply to doing good deeds.

[nemafakei]

You can make that point about anything. Somewhere, you must choose your goal. For many, it's your own well-being, from immediate hedonism to spiritual salvation. For some, it's a moral code. For others, it may be to serve God.

[GUNWOUNDS]

What about doing good acts for the sake of doing good acts? Does that not count as performing good deeds for their intrinsic value?

Thats pretty ambiguous.  But it could work i suppose.  Depends on how well you understand your own logic core.  

Interesting let me run this through my brain

Let's see:

-[sTATEMENT] I give to charity for the sake of giving to charity.

-[QUESTION]  Why?

-[sTATEMENT] Because if no one gave to charity then charity would cease to exist.

-[QUESTION]  Cease to exist in practice....but surely not in concept?

-[sTATEMENT] Charity in practice is greater than charity in concept.

-[QUESTION]  Why?

-[sTATEMENT] Because Charity is a "good" thing

-[QUESTION]  Why?

-[sTATEMENT] It is something that should be done.

-[QUESTION]  Why?

-[sTATEMENT] By definition a good deed is something that ought to be done.

-[QUESTION]  What decides what ought to be done?

-[sTATEMENT] Moral Law

-[QUESTION]  Who establishes Moral Law?

-[sTATEMENT] A Moral Standard.

-[QUESTION]  Why?

-[sTATEMENT] You must have a measuring stick by which to judge.

-[QUESTION]  What is this Moral Standard?

-[sTATEMENT] It must be perfect, therefore cannot be human, it must be something greater, therefore must be what we define as a God.

-[QUESTION]  So you do good deeds because it is something you ought to do based on Moral Law determined by a Deity?

-[sTATEMENT] Yes.

-[QUESTION]  So to perform good deeds for the sake of good deeds could be viewed as performing actions in alignment with God's Will?

-[sTATEMENT] Yes...

From this it could be said that doing good deeds for the sake of doing good deeds is equal to doing them as God's Will. If you believe in God and Moral Law that is

However... the discussion continues...

-[QUESTION]  What if you dont believe in God or Moral Law and perform good deeds for the sake of doing good deeds?

-[sTATEMENT] Then you do the good deeds and perform the actions out of ignorance ....or hold a paradoxical logic core, hence illogical.

-[sTATEMENT] I see.

Guns.

[GUNWOUNDS]

You can make that point about anything. Somewhere, you must choose your goal. For many, it's your own well-being, from immediate hedonism to spiritual salvation. For some, it's a moral code. For others, it may be to serve God.

Yes you can choose your goal... but it can be an ignorant or illogical goal.  You may drink poison with the goal to make your liver healthier but its ignorant and illogical.  No one is debating that people do things for reasons and purposes... i said that *random* was a poor choice of words.... i am now using ignorant & illogical which i think fits better with my point.  You statement about doing something for the sake of something is something i ran through my head in my above post and i think i clarified that doing something for the sake of itself can have the same exact outcome..... you can do something for the sake of itself and still do it and understand the intrinsic value or you can do it and be ignorant  or illogical about it.

Guns

[nemafakei]

"-[QUESTION]  What decides what ought to be done?

-[sTATEMENT] Moral Law

-[QUESTION]  Who establishes Moral Law?"

You ask that because you know where you want the conversation to go. Perhaps a more neutral phrase would be

-[QUESTION] What defines Moral Law?

In any case, my answer would be:

-[sTATEMENT] Moral Law must be defined as supporting actions which convey the greatest possible benefits with regard to all parties susceptible to those actions, and condemning actions which fall short and cause harm.

[GUNWOUNDS]

"-[QUESTION]  What decides what ought to be done?

-[sTATEMENT] Moral Law

-[QUESTION]  Who establishes Moral Law?"

You ask that because you know where you want the conversation to go. Perhaps a more neutral phrase would be

-[QUESTION] What defines Moral Law?

In any case, my answer would be:

-[sTATEMENT] Moral Law must be defined as supporting actions which convey the greatest possible benefits with regard to all parties susceptible to those actions, and condemning actions which fall short and cause harm.

Ah.. the point of "establishing" is to determine WHO is the entity "defining"... in your case a man is defining morals.... which logically is unaccpetable since man is imperfect. 

Your last statement in that quote is merely utilitarianism.... not really the best candidate for Moral Law.  Utilitarianism dictates what is best utility-wise but not necessarily what you "ought" to do.  It might be best utility-wise to perform a bad deed in order to achieve "benefits for all those susceptible to those actions"....not really the moral or "good" thing to do.

If there are such flaws in Utilitarianism (i.e. morals defined by imperfect man) then surely it should not be used as the moral definition for doing good deeds for the sake of good deeds.  Only Moral Law determined by God will work here.

[Dante]

That is assuming that there is somehow an objective 'right' and 'wrong' anyway. If utilitarian morality is dictated by imperfect humans, then their right is right and their wrong is wrong. ...How can I explain this properly? Gnn... Say a utilitarian society of imperfect humans creates a law that social minorities are to be purged from the world. According to their morality, this is self-evidently right. And if everyone ('who matters') accepts it as right, believes it is right, etc, then what proof is there that it is not right?

Bluntly put, utilitarian morality is morally right by its own definition. Just as divine commanded morality is morally right by its own definition, or any other system of objective morality you care to name. They only become morally wrong (or doubtful) when viewed from the perspective of another system, or none at all.

Therefore, moving around to the actual point, utilitarianism is perfectly acceptable for providing a moral definition, provided you are a utilitarian. And God's law will also prove perfectly acceptable, if you follow god's law. And when faced with two contradictory 'objective truths,' you must either pick one or reject both (unless you choose to- no, I'll leave that out. Will only complicate matters). What I'm trying to say is that you can use any moral definition, since they are all morally 'right,' in their own way.

My own conclusion from this is that faced with so many different definitions of 'right,' I choose to follow none of them. For reasons that don't really need to be explained.

Moving on, it could be argued that since man is imperfect, an imperfect law or moral system would be quite suitable. Or that any attempt toward perfection is futile, with or without God's law.

I would probably be the last- make that second last person to call myself an altruist. I don't give to charities because I want to keep my money for my own, selfish wants. Hey, at least I don't use false justifications. But every so often I break the habit and give to a charity, or give something to some guy who asks on the street. Why? Certainly not because I want to help people, or that I believe it will make a difference. If I wanted to help them I'd be far more generous. No, when I give like that it is usually on a whim. A spur of the moment thing just to break the monotony. I suspect it may also be due to a subconscious decision to exert power over people. You know, 'I can choose to give or not to give. I may hold a life in my hands; I can save it or throw it into the gutter on the merest impulse. Mwa ha ha ha.' That sort of thing.

Now, narcissistic as the above paragraph may seem, it does actually serve a purpose unrelated to demonising myself. That is to say that I hold no illusions about my moral compass, or lack of same, and yet still manage to do what some would define as 'right' occasionally. And the point of this (I do have a problem being succinct, don't I?) is: 'Do we need a moral law for doing good needs just for the sake of doing them? If the deeds aren't done, there is no question. If they are done, 'good' will result regardless of intentions.

I really need to work on my delivery.

[Spectral Paladin]

Howwever if you dont beleive in Moral law you shouldnt even be arguing about *good* or *bad*.  You should only be addressing *logical* and *illogical*

Indeed. What I 'm saying is that logical decisions lead to what you call good deeds. If they wish their actions to benefit themselves and/or others in this life and they do benefit themselves and/or others in this life, you cannot say their actions are in ignorance. You may believe there are more consequences than they are aware of, however that doesn't negate the fact that they accomplish what they set out to do (as opposed to your examples).

Concerning eating meat on lent, you ask for it when you post about demons. Since the entire thing appears absurd to me, I cannot make the distinctions you do. I am aware that the protestants got rid of much of the crap, but as I have said again, before them the religion was full of man-made bullshit. What makes you think there is anything true in it?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Indeed. What I 'm saying is that logical decisions lead to what you call good deeds.

The problem is that your conclusion is fallacious because your premise is fallacious.  Logical decisions do not always lead to "what you call good deeds".   So you will need to rethink what it is you are trying to say.

As far as what i choose to believe in as a Protestant, thats called discernment.  One must filter out the apostasy of man-tainted religion.

Apostasy ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apostasy

It is composed of several sections in that Link.... my belief system is most similar to this section below with emphasis on the green font:

Lutherans and Calvinists - reformists (against apostasy)

     Lutherans and Calvinists have taught that a gradual process of corruption was predicted and evident, even in the New Testament, which finally reached a culminating stage and brought about the Protestant Reformation. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches had developed from early on the idea of infallibility of the Church

[nemafakei]

"It might be best utility-wise to perform a bad deed in order to achieve "benefits for all those susceptible to those actions"....not really the moral or "good" thing to do."

Not quite.

Utilitarianism does not say that shooting a known terrorist immediately before he commits mass murder is a bad deed for the sake of good, it simply says that it is a good deed. There's a distinction.

"Ah.. the point of "establishing" is to determine WHO is the entity "defining"... in your case a man is defining morals.... which logically is unaccpetable since man is imperfect. "

Again, no.

Man is interpreting morals. Logic defines it. Sometimes, man mistakes logic. You say that God defines morals - but even then, man's interpretation is falliable. Sometimes, man mistakes God.

I'm not claiming that by following this, you'll always get it right, any more than (I assume) you're claiming that a follower of Jesus/God will always do the right thing.