posted
and told Hobbes that when it comes around christmas time, he only acts good to get more presents. He knows that the only reason he's not doing bad things is 'to get more loot'. His question to Hobbes is: Is it really being good if one is only ACTING in hopes of getting stuff at christmas?
That leads me to wonder about actual life. The idea in most religions is that good little boys and girls will go to heaven whereas bad little boys and girls will go to hell. But most religions also make the admission that people are tempted to do "bad" things.
Now if the natural human impulse is to do "bad things" but test is to see if we can behave like good little boys and girls so that when we die we can get lots of goodies instead of the lump of coal, are any of us really being good?
I mean, the phrase 'Godfearing' alone is suspect to me. It has come to mean 'Moral, Good person' but if you break it down into its parts adn interpret it, it really means 'Doesnt wanna burn in hell'
I mean is that enough? To be kind towards your fellow humans (even though you think theyre assholes) and give to the needy (despite the fact that you think theyre boozehounds) and share with your brother (looking past the fact that he's a stingy selfish crook) just so that you can get yummy stuff after death?
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't it not work that way? I mean, if you give a gift and don't do it with the right feeling in your heart, it's like it didn't happen.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always assumed "Godfearing" indicated a healthy fear of displeasing someone you love. To use a bad illustration, like a child who only needs the disapproving look of a parent to start crying and stop whatever it is they're doing.
However, if my relationship with my god is dependent on me always WANTING to do the right thing and not simply fighting my tendencies for e-vile, then I'm seriously, seriously screwed.
posted
I think the question isn't "Are we good people if we still want to do bad things?" but rather "Are we good people if the only reason we do good things is ultimately selfish?" That is, maybe we don't always want to do the Good Thing, but we do it anyway. Why? Is it because it's the Good Thing, or because we think there will be something in it for us?
Ultimately, we all do the Good Thing for a selfish reason, even if it is only for the good feeling we get for doing it, or the feeling of self-satisfaction that we didn't do the Bad Thing.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I suppose it just wouldn't be any fun if there were nothing at stake. It would be like playing poker for fun. What's the point in that?
Posts: 3056 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But don't we teach children how to act based on reward/punishment consequences in order to teach them how to behave properly in society, expecting that as they grow they'll learn the real reasons and do things of their own volition?
It just like teaching addition with an algorithm - there is absolutely no reason to carry the one from a mathematical standpoint - it's only a framework so they can learn how to add, so they can better understand the concept before having to delve into complicated proofs to prove the existence of counting numbers.
Like training wheels...
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't doing good things -- especially with the right intentions, but even with the wrong ones -- help you become a good person? Like exercising a muscle -- the more you use it, the stronger it becomes.
Well, I think people have spiritual/moral "muscles" too. The more times you act in a generous manner, the more generous you become -- even if at first you have to battle your own selfish inclinations.
quote: I mean, if you give a gift and don't do it with the right feeling in your heart, it's like it didn't happen.
I disagree. You've definitely lost out on an opportunity to build a connection and stretch your "muscles." But a gift given without the right intent is not the same as no gift at all.
Depending on the intent, it might be better or worse than no gift. If it's a bribe or way to curry favor, I'd say it's worse than no gift. And if given out of a sense of obligation, but without caring, I'd say it's better than no gift (especially if you don't SHOW your apathy), but not by much.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Youre acting good to get the good stuff after death
or
Youre acting good to avoid getting the bad stuff after death.
Which actually makes religion problematic for me.
It operates under the assumption that you ARE bad and so you must pay attention and ACT good.
If humans are inherently immoral, and must resist the natural impulses and put on moral 'performances' each day, isnt that indicative of some kind of poor wiring in our engineering?
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ultimately, we all do the Good Thing for a selfish reason, even if it is only for the good feeling we get for doing it, or the feeling of self-satisfaction that we didn't do the Bad Thing.
If'n you believe in a deity, perhaps that's part of the design of humans - a reward for doing good as an act of consideration.
Usually doing 'good' is that thing that benefits the most amount of people, and often at a sacrifice for something self-serving. It's not always immediately obvious, and so feeling the warm-fuzzies of having done something 'good' is a small gift in return.
The thing is, determining your own motives is so infrequently black and white. In almost everything I personally do it seems I have a union of selfish and selfless intentions. If I choose to do The Good Thing, the action is (of course) way more cut-and-dry-obvious than my reasons for having done it.
As a religious person, that's part of developing a relationship with your deity. You make decisions based on how you feel that deity would most approve, and consider them a real friend so that if you don't act accordingly it's not punishment you fear, but a loss of that relationship.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always tend to think of "God-fearing" as being more "God respecting" - meaning that I respect him and trust that what he tells me to do is what is in my best interest, that he is motivated by love and wants me to, likewise, be motivated by love.
I've heard an idea about the different motivations for being good: 1) fear of being punished, 2) hope for a reward 3) because you think that doing good, in and of itself is best (without thought of punishment or reward, but for the love of goodness). I think that basically all our good actions are for one or more of those reasons. Hopefully, we can progress beyond doing good simply out of fear or punishment and beyond doing good to obtain a reward to the point that we do good simply for the sake of doing good. I think that is ultimately God's goal for us: to do good for the sake of goodness.
quote: If humans are inherently immoral, and must resist the natural impulses and put on moral 'performances' each day, isnt that indicative of some kind of poor wiring in our engineering?
That goes back to the question of why a god would allow imperfection, evil and death in the world.
I can think of at least two religions in which the answer to this IS a central doctrine. It's just whether or not that answer satisfies you.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
actually jehovoid, it always sounded more like to me a frustrated parent shouting "For God's sake, be GOOD!"
which, to fit the season, the rhyme scheme of the song, and good taste, became "so be good for goodness sake"
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
i didnt say it was the central idea, but it is an idea. the central idea in christianity is that you must accept christ to be saved, but then there are all kinds of rules that must be adhered to in order to get your presents in your stocking after death.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In almost everything I personally do it seems I have a union of selfish and selfless intentions.
I'm of the opinion that it is nearly impossible to do something truly selfless. Sometimes we don't get a warm fuzzy from doing the Good Thing. Sometimes it hurts terribly. But we do it anyway, maybe because we can't bear not to do it. Ultimately, even the selfless act bears some reward, whether it is a warm fuzzy at having done the Good Thing, or maybe just less pain than if we had done the Bad Thing. This isn't to say that the struggle leading up to the decision is easy, but I think it ultimately does boil down to a fundamentally selfish question: "Which of these options can I live with?"
quote:I've heard an idea about the different motivations for being good: 1) fear of being punished, 2) hope for a reward 3) because you think that doing good, in and of itself is best (without thought of punishment or reward, but for the love of goodness).
quote:the central idea in christianity is that you must accept christ to be saved, but then there are all kinds of rules that must be adhered to in order to get your presents in your stocking after death.
I can only speak for the religion I adhere to, but from my reading of the scriptures the central idea is that there is a question of who has the right to be Universal Sovereign - God or man - and accepting Christ's sacrifice is only a part of taking sides in that issue.
Following all the other 'rules' accompanies chosing God as having the right to rule mankind. If you don't believe He has that right, then there is no need to follow His principles. If you believe He does, then following those principles is a prime way of taking His side on the Sovereignty issue and saying you feel He DOES have the right to set the standard of living.
quote: Ultimately, even the selfless act bears some reward, whether it is a warm fuzzy at having done the Good Thing, or maybe just less pain than if we had done the Bad Thing. This isn't to say that the struggle leading up to the decision is easy, but I think it ultimately does boil down to a fundamentally selfish question: "Which of these options can I live with?"
posted
i agree, i should have phrased it more strictly, but i still stand by it. The idea behind religions in general is to keep people in line. to keep people from doing the awful things that it is assumed they want to do.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Youre acting good to get the good stuff after death
or
Youre acting good to avoid getting the bad stuff after death
There are certainly more ways to look at it than that!
This is a subject that I’ve thought long and hard on recently. Kohlberg has been mentioned, but really, his theory of moral reasoning is the best example of how to deal with this question that I’ve seen. This theory deals with the development of moral reasoning , which deals with intent, which is why I like it. In case you didn’t look at Saxon75's link, here’s the rundown of Kohlberg’s 6 stages of moral reasoning development:
Stage 1: Fear of Punishment
In this stage, you would obey the rules of your religion because of a fear of going to Hell or being excommunicated or killed if you don’t.
Stage 2: Reward
In this stage, you would obey the rules of your religion because of a hope for a reward like Heaven, blessings, miracles, etc.
Stage 3: Good Person/Bad Person
In this stage, you would obey the rules of your religion because of how other people will think of you if you do or don’t.
Stage 4: Duty and Social Order
In this stage, you would obey the rules of your religion because of a sense of obligation. A sort of “the rules are the rules and the rules must be obeyed” mentality.
Stage 5: Social Contract
In this stage, you would obey the rules of your religion because of a “contract” relationship with God. “I hold up my end of the bargain, and you’ll hold up yours and we’ll all be happy.”
Stage 6: Universal Principles
In this stage, you would obey the rules of your religion because of a mind set that God is good and the greatest good must be served.
NOTE: These stages don’t just apply to moral reasoning in religion, but also to moral reasoning civil laws and obeying parents and care givers for children. Moral reasoning can also go both ways. It could apply to reasoning against religion, civil law, and obeying parents. According to my Human Development professor, most adults hang around Stage 3 or Stage 4 and so few people reach Stage 6 that no one’s even sure that it definitely exists.
There has been some opposition to this theory, I understand, but I don’t know what the main objections are. Most non-religious people I know assume religious people do what they do because of a moral reasoning of Stage 1 or Stage 2, but I think my personal relationship with God is a Stage 4 relationship most of the time.
Just because there are rewards and punishments, doesn’t mean we do things for those reasons.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
LDS theology certainly doesn't have hell for bad kids. What are the two you are thinking of?
A) all kids go to heaven automatically
b) There is no hell
c) The places that aren't "heaven" are places where you get the amount of supervision you've always shown a desire for.
It's not innate human nature that is the problem, as A) above indicates. It is a human life that doesn't take God into account. If one assumes God exists, a life lived in deliberate ignorance of that tenet is going to be about as successful as a life lived in defiance of gravity.
Maybe there is no God and all our observances are just a lottery ticket. The LDS concept of "heaven" is not really heaven, because you have to go on working. Getting along with your inlaws. Having charitable thoughts about the fact that some people brought their dogs along with them. I don't even know if I want to go sometimes.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
odouls, I suppose whether you consider those desires to be a design flaw or not depends on whether or not you can believe God ever has to compromise. I think that even God may not be able to do things that are mutually contradictory, and I believe that the supposedly "evil urges" are good in their right context, necessary for our survival. But because they are urges, and not rational awareness (which is dependent on our own decision by its nature), they don't go away when they're not appropriate.
quote:the central idea in christianity is that you must accept christ to be saved, but then there are all kinds of rules that must be adhered to in order to get your presents in your stocking after death.
quote:I can only speak for the religion I adhere to, but from my reading of the scriptures the central idea is that there is a question of who has the right to be Universal Sovereign - God or man - and accepting Christ's sacrifice is only a part of taking sides in that issue.
Following all the other 'rules' accompanies chosing God as having the right to rule mankind. If you don't believe He has that right, then there is no need to follow His principles. If you believe He does, then following those principles is a prime way of taking His side on the Sovereignty issue and saying you feel He DOES have the right to set the standard of living.
Conversely, I find that many people (not all) in my church believe that the principles exist for our own good, to keep our potentially-destructive urges in their appropriate contexts. One could almost say that, rather than it being necessary to follow God's principles because God has the right to rule, God has the right to rule because he knows the appropriate principles for our lives. This is somewhat distilled--I don't know that I have seen it in precisely this form--but I think it is in keeping with the Scripturally-derived ideas of all our authors that I know of.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, i was literally meaning 'bad kids' i was meaning 'bad people' but i was stretching the calvin and hobbes christmas analogy a little thin methinks.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"and I believe that the supposedly 'evil urges' are good in their right context, necessary for our survival"
sex and killing come readily to mind.
sex is definately 100% necessary for survival. But these days, the way things are, sex can get you good and killed.
and killing, at times, can be necessary for survival, albeit on FAR FAR rarer occasions than sex.
(aside: i should probably interject here that my own personal moral and religious beliefs are not coming into play in this thread. i was just on the crapper reading calvin and hobbes and got to thinking and started this thread. now back to your regularly scheduled hatracking.)
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The world of a comic strip ought to be a special place with its own logic and life. I don't want some animation studio giving Hobbes an actor's voice, and I don't want some greeting card company using Calvin to wish people a happy anniversary, and I don't want the issue of Hobbes's reality settled by a doll manufacturer. When everything fun and magical is turned into something for sale, the strip's world is diminished ... My strip is about private realities, the magic of imagination, and the specialness of certain friendships. Who would believe in the innocence of a little kid and his tiger if they cashed in on their popularity to sell overpriced knickknacks that nobody needs? Who would trust the honesty of the strip's observations when the characters are hired out as advertising hucksters?" -Bill Watterson
I found it at the site above, but there is a much better site ive found before with a whole Q&A about this issue on it. Ill find it again when the boss isnt looking. Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
