"Practise random acts of senseless kindness". Do good for no reason and no ulterior motive.

Incidentally I saw Mohamed Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank, interviewed on television last night. He is just like that.

If your sense of goodness, truth and beauty does not arise from within your own being, then how can it mean anything? Just keep focussing on that and everything else in life will fall into place. Without it, everything else will fall to pieces.

Psalms 37:35 I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree.

y of, it sounds as though he was happy they were dependent on him.

---------- Post added 12-08-2009 at 11:31 AM ----------



but kenneth, what has this to do with anyone's best interest? the wicked have power to be sure, more often than the good. but their power is used to do more evil, and that is in no one's best interest.

It is in the wicked man's self-interest. And that's the point. Why ought he not to benefit himself even it it harms others? That's the question posed in the Republic. Why ought I to be a moral person, when I can benefit myself by being an immoral person?

but kenneth, i think i know you well enough by now to know that you dont believe in being immoral in order to profit materially. you must have the answer to mr socrates' question, spit it out already! i simply cant articulate things as convincingly as you do, help me out here!

Socrates's answer was already given by me in post #46. Last three lines. Also why I didn't think it was much good as an answer.

no, it was a terrible answer. i thought you could have come up with a better one than that actually...

ok, let's go back to the earlier part of the thread where it was mentioned that both feeling/emotion and reason/logic were necessary to make good moral decisions. so those often lead a person to choose to do something that does not benefit him materially, but it benefits him otherwise because he is being logical and sensitive at the same time, not allowing his emotions to run amok nor his logic to outwit his heart.

how can it benefit anyone to behave without a sense of reason or feeling?
in essence, isnt that what one would have to do in order to be immoral?

Wasn't my answer. It was Socrates's. You sound a little confused. Feeling and emotion do not lead a wicked person to choose to do something that does not benefit him. He is wicked. Remember? He does everything only to benefit himself even at the expense of others.

When is adultery justified? Is killing a person who is only about to injure your child acceptable, if it prevents the injury?

Is killing an old lady justifiable if it allows you to feed your kids? Or is it more moral to let the kids starve, and "do know harm"?

If a person could steal (computer fraud) a dime from every charity in the world and end up rich, is he justified by the happiness he brings himself?

no, kenneth-i realize it was socrates' answer, and i think it was terrible and that i believe you could articulate a better one based on logic.

i can only define 'evil person' as 'person who does evil things'. so using our emotions as total motivation, we would be likely to do a lot of evil things. or using logic alone, such as 'kill the king and keep his wealth so i would be rich' leads to an evil act. i believe these two tools, logic and emotion, if used in balance would lead to a good moral decision.

you may say the person in the fable used the reasoning 'killing the king and taking his wealth will provide me what i want' and his emotions telling him, 'i feel lousy to see the king with all that wealth and i have nothing' so he is in synch, but his reasoning is faulty and his emotions are not being fully considered.

Actually, you do agree with Socrates in the most part. His answer was that it is never in anyone's own self-interest to do what is evil, since by doing evil, a person is, in fact, harming himself. In fact Socrates held that it was better to have evil done to one's self, than to do evil to others, since doing evil is always harmful to one's self than any evil done to you. For evil done to you can harm only your body, but the evil you do harms your self (or what Christians would call, one's soul). So, Socrates said that it cannot be in your own interest to do evil whatever material benefits you get from doing so. That is why he famously said that it you know what the right thing to do is, you will be motivated to do it, since doing right always benefits you. Therefore, Socrates argued, one never does evil knowingly, since no one would do evil if he knew that doing evil would harm himself far more that it harms the other.

So I think you do agree with Socrates and don't think his answer is terrible. The question is whether Socrates is right.

yep-what he said!

i am glad for knowing someone said that so i can quote him instead of having to say it myself. who would believe me if i said such things?

Well, I salute you for answering the questions thoroughly. I know the situations are unlikely, but theoretical questions can bring out the difficulty in ethical positions. I don't have kids, but I think I would steal to feed them. I feel that many would commit armed robbery if it was the only way to feed their children. Adultery is more complicated. Sometimes people marry too young. Sometimes spouses fail one another. I do reverence the institution of marriage, in any case. I would kill a stranger to protect my kids from serious injury, assuming of course that this stranger was intentionally trying to injure my child.

Would anyone trade a finger to provide a starving person food for a month?

But it is not really good enough just to say it. You have to have some reason to believe it is true. The wicked still flourish, like the green bay tree.

I do a lot of actions to help others (working as a volunteer for the Red Cross, Greenpeace, a bird care centre,...). And everytime I help others, it gives me a good feeling. So to actions are both altruistic (I really want to help others as best as I can) and egoistic. However, I don't think that this egoism is bad, as it gives me more energy to take care of others. In other words: egoism combined with altruism is good. And the altruism should be honest, i.e. I'm not helping others for possible future benefits from them. I'm helping others because I love them. That means I do some efforts and critical reflection how to help others.
Perhaps there is a true altruistic act, e.g. helping others and having a bad feeling with that. but I don't think that this possibility is relevant.

Do you do those actions in order to get that good feeling, or is it only that those actions cause you to get that good feeling? The first is, I suppose, egotistical. The second is not, because if you get a good feeling from doing nice things for others, that just shows you are a nice person. Why would you think it would be altruistic only if you felt bad after helping others? You did not help them just in order to get a good feeling, did you? That you get a good feeling when you help others is to your credit, not to your detriment.