what is a "good heart"?

@Fido,

Fido;102176 wrote:

Culture defines the individual, and society does not define good, but is the definition of good... All good is the result of society just as children are a result of their parents... Community is morality, and morality defines the form of relationship we have with society, if we are not outlaws...People should not try to be good, but should be moral, and moral is a form of good in relation to ones society... A Palastinian may be moral, and an Israeli may be moral, but neither would ever be good in the eyes of the other... So I would not tell people to tear down an old form to have a part in a new and larger form of relationship; but I would tell them to build upon what they have...It is always a mistake to cash in one relationship for another...

---------- Post added 11-06-2009 at 11:55 AM ----------

Here you see the futility of moral reasoning... We should not because they should not...That is goodness till it is out of sight... Why do you think the ten commandments and Jesus were so aware of the psychological setting for sin??? Sin happens in the dark of the mind before happening in the light of day...Rather than making a moral argument that no one will heed longer than it will take to read, create the environment where good is the next most natural behavior... Do not make people, but do try to make them feel the value of good... Good, like Justice is not true for one and not the other... If, in our dispute it is Justice for me, then it is Justice for you, and that is morality, -that point where individual and society agree upon what is good....

I don't understand what you are talking about.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;102185 wrote:

I don't understand what you are talking about.

People are good because they feel like being good, and that is why they are better to family than to strangers... To say what people should do rationally does not reach the problem because it does not touch our real motivation in life...

@Fido,

Fido;102190 wrote:

People are good because they feel like being good, and that is why they are better to family than to strangers... To say what people should do rationally does not reach the problem because it does not touch our real motivation in life...

Yes. Why don't you always write in English instead of "philosophese"? The question is what ought people to do. Not what they do. That is what ethics is about. Psychology is about what people do. Don't you think that if it is wrong for others to do something, then it is wrong for you to do that very same thing if everything else is equal? If not, what makes you privileged?

@Fido,

Fido;102176 wrote:

Culture defines the individual, and society does not define good, but is the definition of good...

I read this contradiction and then I stopped there. Put down the thesaurus and think about what you are saying next time.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;102192 wrote:

Yes. Why don't you always write in English instead of "philosophese"? The question is what ought people to do. Not what they do. That is what ethics is about. Psychology is about what people do. Don't you think that if it is wrong for others to do something, then it is wrong for you to do that very same thing if everything else is equal? If not, what makes you privileged?

If the question is what people ought to do the answer is to understand the problem... You cannot motivate people with some abstract idea of good, or virtue... You have to understand why people do as they do when they do good...Forget hypothetical situation in the discussion of ethics... Every choice is a moral choice, and not one of them is hypthetical....As one English Jurists said: There are no imaginary cases... Argue the case you have with the fact you know......

@Fido,

Fido;102290 wrote:

If the question is what people ought to do the answer is to understand the problem... You cannot motivate people with some abstract idea of good, or virtue... You have to understand why people do as they do when they do good...Forget hypothetical situation in the discussion of ethics... Every choice is a moral choice, and not one of them is hypthetical....As one English Jurists said: There are no imaginary cases... Argue the case you have with the fact you know......

So how would you recommend we go about the course of understanding
_" why people do as they do when they do good"_
What real circumstance can you give to further the conversation?

Why cant motivation come from the idea of doing good and being virtuous, in your opinion?

@Unconqured,

Unconqured;102291 wrote:

So how would you recommend we go about the course of understanding
_" why people do as they do when they do good"_
What real circumstance can you give to further the conversation?

Why cant motivation come from the idea of doing good and being virtuous, in your opinion?

I have read a lot of anthropology, and there are many moral examples to be found in the behavior of primitives...They did not think of it objectively, they just did it....Now; I grew up in Indian Country, and I have books on them by the yard...There are often statements to the effect that they were more moral than the Christians who often tried to convert them...Why???Apart from their groups, and captive they would no less try to represent their group well, and often allow themselves to be tortured to death without complaint...To do less would be to invite attack, and the entire object of morality is to save the community even at the sacrifice of self...Then; look at our world... After a thousand years of law our communities are broken or under attack... Now morality does not guide the man, but law, though you might call in reason... Why does it not work??? As soon as law has defined the individual he has made him an outlaw... People have always known some moral restraint, but within the context of community... To hold sway, law must break the social ties of community which were always encumbered with obligations and restrictions, and set men free, yet without the context for good behavior...I would say that people act good because it is the price of acceptence, but their goodness is always within a certain context of community... That is what anthopology teaches... We cannot recreate with reason what emotion once carried... We can, by expanding the context expand the morality... An example of this attempt is found in calling this country a nation... A nation is a people related through a distant common mother: Native, natal, naval...What mother would let her children abuse and exploit each other... Want morality; build community...

The reason morality cannot be presented and taught as an ideal is that it is not ideal...Morality in its milieu is an obligation, more negative than positive but, sometimes, demanding the ultimate sacrifice...You cannot say to anyone: Do A, and B good will follow... The greatest benefit of morality is long term survival for ones community, and for people to understand that they are investing their lives to salvage their existence is not an ideal lesson...It is easy to observe prehistorically and historically, and impossible to prove...

@tcycles710,

It is easy to overlook the fact that the basis of Western morality lies in (among other things) the Judeo-Christian ethic, and the good ol' Good Book. Now I am not specifically religious, I am not a 'bible basher'. But I believe the basis of morality lies beyond the realm of reason and the civil contract - if you are brought up in a corrupt society, you can be a normal citizen and still be deeply corrupted. The Good Heart must reflect something intrinsic to the nature of reality (for example 'God' or 'Dharma') otherwise it is just social convention and conditioning. It has to be anchored in that, in some way. It doesn't need to be explicitly or conventionally 'religious' but there are universal values, of which selflessness and compassion are the most important, which simply must be there, otherwise in the end egotism will always have its way.

@tcycles710,

There are two different and distinct questions. 1. What is it that motivates people to act morally? 2. What is a moral action? They should not be mixed up. In The Republic, Plato asked the question, "Why should I be moral?" and in particular, when being moral is to my own disadvantage? Why should I harm myself in order to act morally? His answer is that it is always to your advantage to be moral even when it does not appear to be so. But was that really an answer, or was it the avoidance of an answer?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;102304 wrote:

There are two different and distinct questions. 1. What is it that motivates people to act morally? 2. What is a moral action? They should not be mixed up. In The Republic, Plato asked the question, "Why should I be moral?" and in particular, when being moral is to my own disadvantage? Why should I harm myself in order to act morally? His answer is that it is always to your advantage to be moral even when it does not appear to be so. But was that really an answer, or was it the avoidance of an answer?

Being moral is always to one's disadvantage, and for that reason it is illogical for the individual having an individual mentality and identity... What makes moral men is the connection to community, with the understanding that community gives life and protects life... I could drag up many examples of people giving up membership in one group for another, along with the moral obligations; but when it comes down to it they were out for themselves...Jesus talks about such men who would deny their parents their just support, saying they were saving for a great gift to the temple... What was their primary obligation??? When the richest member of a community was able to close the commons for his own benefit he could as easily be dispossessed of his rights... He not only acted immorally, but he lost the support of community, and so, in giving up the obligation he lost the advantage...

---------- Post added 11-07-2009 at 07:17 AM ----------

jeeprs;102299 wrote:

It is easy to overlook the fact that the basis of Western morality lies in (among other things) the Judeo-Christian ethic, and the good ol' Good Book. Now I am not specifically religious, I am not a 'bible basher'. But I believe the basis of morality lies beyond the realm of reason and the civil contract - if you are brought up in a corrupt society, you can be a normal citizen and still be deeply corrupted. The Good Heart must reflect something intrinsic to the nature of reality (for example 'God' or 'Dharma') otherwise it is just social convention and conditioning. It has to be anchored in that, in some way. It doesn't need to be explicitly or conventionally 'religious' but there are universal values, of which selflessness and compassion are the most important, which simply must be there, otherwise in the end egotism will always have its way.

Judeo-Christian ethics is only one form of morality; and morality is far older than Jews, or Christians...Community is morality... There has not ever been even one community without morality... They say there is no honor among thieves, but even there one can find an ethic, or gangs of thieves would not exist...What most confuses people in regard to ethics is that we have no universal ethic... The Roman Law of Nations, the basis of our natural law tried on the basis of a general equality of nations to find such a common ethic; but the fact remains that it is not ethical to treat ones enemies with the love we treat our families and relatives, nor is it ethical to treat our frends with enmity...Certainly Jesus voiced the opinion that we should love our enemies, but in his ministry he gave very short shrift to other nations beside the Jews...One Woman got the better of him, comparing her need for his help to dogs getting a scrap from the master's table...
If we want a universal morality we have to build the universal community; and those trying to break community always have the advantage simply because community is an obligation for all who can bear it... And think of all who cannot bear the burden, like the old, the infirm, the insane, and the young...People seeking an advantage only want so much of morality and no more... When they are strong they wish to not give others the advantage of their strength, and when they are weak they wish to be supported... Here is where rationality comes into play, and here is where primitives were way ahead on rational: One must have a true picture of self, in time, as a member of a community with rights, with obligations, and a life long investment in community...Primitives with only little technology gave their minds to social organization as we with all our logic, and science cannot...But; we survive that time as a result, and who will survive us, and our time???

@Fido,

Fido;102314 wrote:

Being moral is always to one's disadvantage,

---------- Post added 11-07-2009 at 07:17 AM ----------

That is not true. I may do good by being good. For example, I may, by helping someone in need, be rewarded by that person.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;102331 wrote:

That is not true. I may do good by being good. For example, I may, by helping someone in need, be rewarded by that person.

We do not need morality to color our futures with hope...If we were doing good for a reward we would not be moral, but we would be working...

@Fido,

Fido;102341 wrote:

We do not need morality to color our futures with hope...If we were doing good for a reward we would not be moral, but we would be working...

Someone does not have to be good in order to do well. We can just want to be good (not in order to collect a reward) and be rewarded anyway. Our motive may be just to help, and we may be rewarded too.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;102342 wrote:

Someone does not have to be good in order to do well. We can just want to be good (not in order to collect a reward) and be rewarded anyway. Our motive may be just to help, and we may be rewarded too.

Well; we have in modern times the example of the Quakers who went to Hawaii to do good, and did well... Other than that, would you care to support your contention???I see people doing good because they are good, and that morality is always in the context of community, that when the Jews do good to the Jews in Israel, for example, they are not doing good for the Arabs...

@Fido,

Fido.. so morality is community? That means to say morality is developed through the community which there for you are exemplifying the human ability to distinguish between what is right and wrong? Sounds like your assumption is a tall glass of water for mankind to get correct.

@Fido,

Fido;102448 wrote:

Well; we have in modern times the example of the Quakers who went to Hawaii to do good, and did well... Other than that, would you care to support your contention???I see people doing good because they are good, and that morality is always in the context of community, that when the Jews do good to the Jews in Israel, for example, they are not doing good for the Arabs...

The Protestant Ethic revolves around the idea that by doing good one does well. Doing good does not mean doing good for everyone. Even utilitarianism recognized that.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;102543 wrote:

The Protestant Ethic revolves around the idea that by doing good one does well. Doing good does not mean doing good for everyone. Even utilitarianism recognized that.

I have an interesting book called the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism; by Max Weber... And it is a good read... And if I read it right, the Protestants were looking for objective proof of Gos's blessing (Tangible Justification), which is something no one could be certain of... What they found was that People who were industrius, careful of their time and money became wealthy, and the wealth became more important to them than their faith...As Jesus may have said: They have their reward... And yet, even with the facts before them that wealth proved more attractive than salvation; still they persisted... What alternative did they have but to become Catholics or truly Christian, and accepting of the poverty we must to alleviate the suffering of the poor???

It does not matter how you shake people up they will always settle back into the same modes of behavior that often will result in rich and poor... Primitive societies -through democratic social control had the means to take the sting out of both wealth and poverty...There is no half good, and no half moral... The morals of the Quakers were defective...Dr. Franklin is quoted through poor Richard extensively in the above book; but the fact remains that you cannot steal a person's country from them, and then do them any good... People do not look at the poor and ask what has been robbed from them; but like the protestants, they blame the victims, or put it all on the fickle will of God...Because what is lacking in this world, as in this country is the sense that we are all in this life together... We do not look at others as our same nation; but see only so many rubes to be taken the rough way out of their stupidity... Having a broken community the best we can manage is a defective morality...

---------- Post added 11-09-2009 at 07:51 AM ----------

Unconqured;102519 wrote:

Fido.. so morality is community? That means to say morality is developed through the community which there for you are exemplifying the human ability to distinguish between what is right and wrong? Sounds like your assumption is a tall glass of water for mankind to get correct.

A lot of damage has been done to community in Western Society in the last thousand years... And yet everyone knows some community, in their families... And usually even the best of people along with the worst will save their meanest acts for the preservation of their own children... Good is always good in regard to this larger sense of self, as community is, ones own self enlarged...We cannot have both the wild anarchic individual and the healthy community; and at some point all people will have to choose whether to die alone as gods, or to live as an equal among equals...What is happening more and more is that we are finding we cannot afford the good life for the rich, and luxury for everyone, so the promise of free enterprise is coming face to face with the facts of reality... We will at some point share dwindling resources as equals, or kill ourselves off to enjoy alone a more insecure luxury... That is what the Greeks and the Romans did... Their houses fell empty... The whole Roman empire was depopulated in order to provide excess to Rome... We are doing the same thing here... We have children out of hope, and not because we can afford them... Children are considered a nuisance by the state and by those with any money...The Romans had no use for children either, but the Germans welcomed many children as a blessing... As the Nazis considered of their captives, they need no more than a minimal education to be slaves...They do not want to bring up our whole level of existence, but make the most of our misery to have a slightly better individual life... So the problem, and the lesson we must learn from it we must not strain to teach, because reality will teach eventually for us...If out of stupidity and ideology we must be swept from this land, and off the face of this earth like the Greeks and the Romans, who can pity us for having no pity???

@Fido,

Fido;102578 wrote:

I have an interesting book called the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism; by Max Weber...

Yes, that is what I meant. They did well by doing good.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;102586 wrote:

Yes, that is what I meant. They did well by doing good.

For the most part, their doing well was the extent of their doing good... Why not ask; if you are doing all you can to reap profit, to work people long and hard for only a share of the value they have created, then how much time will such people have for contemplating their God so terrible and sublime... Poverty makes virtue more distant...We have more painful, and less Christian world thanks to the protestants...There were two answers for the coruption of the Catholic Church... One was humanism, and one protestantism, which was for the most part rational, but which depended utimately on faith and fate...It was the fear of radiical change that brought a hasty end to humanism. .. And Protestantism proved itself rational only in regard to business...It has turned many of us into Jews, and it has left of trail of bodies to help it find its way to hell...

@tcycles710,

actually it seems to me that for the most part the choices for many people are either blind faith or atheism, rather than humanism and protestantism.

The West has lost the 'sapiential' tradition (where 'sapience' is 'wisdom' in the sense of 'transcendent knowledge'.) That is why me and many like me have turned toward the Eastern spiritual traditions, which still keep the flame alive.

Philosophy Forum

what is a "good heart"?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know