Am I a Good person or a Neutral one?

[Brett Wong]

Today I was reflecting on my alignment and I came across a situation I wanted you all to help me sort. I was dropping by a friends house today to say hi. The mother is going through a rough patch (dealing with divorce, bills she is struggling to pay, taking care of her two kids and a not so steady job) and I just wanted to make sure she was okay. I walked in as they were eating dinner and she invited me to sit down and eat with the family, the uncle is over for the holidays. She proceeded to tell me that she was glad to have me in, as a neighbour of theirs could use a couple of extra hands to help move furniture. I said 'for sure!' and me, my friend Dar and his uncle were on our way to Ms. Pimatel's. Ms. Pimatel was an elderly woman who didn't look like she could lift 20 lbs. with any confidence and I was glad to help her out. After about an hour of work we were done and on the way back the Uncle (Jamie) slipped me and Dar fifty dollars each. I tried to refuse but he wouldn't take no for an answer and stuffed the money down the back of my sweater, I thanked him for his generosity. When we got in the mother thanked me and went downstairs and left the rest of us to play vidya games in the living room. I went downstairs to get a controller and saw her on the couch. I took out one hundred dollers and told her that Jamie had given me some money for helping move furniture. I told her that I didn't need payment for helping out an old lady- and that I knew she was in a tough spot and that every bit helps, I handed her the money and told her I want her to have it and use it on what she needs. She looked at me eyes tearing up and told me I was a true friend. I proceeded back up the stairs controller in hand to play vidya games with the rest of the family. When I got back home I reflected upon my actions and realized that a big part of giving her the money was because I wanted her to view me as a good person. It was also apparent that the reason I gave her the extra money was in hopes of her telling her brother and them coming to realize what I had done. I do things like this all the time and It makes me wonder if doing things that are good on the surface makes you a good person. Was what I did considered a good act- even if I had selfish ulterior motives? Because of the reason behind why I did it does it change the good act into a neutral or even evil one? Does being 'fake' good make you a good person?

[Worira]

If everybody was as "selfish" as you, the world would be a better place.

[Xyk]

Alignment is not a real thing and morality cannot be boiled down to good-neutral-evil. That said, actions are more important than the motives of those actions.

[Brett Wong]

I think you can tell if someone is really a good person if they do good things when they know no-one will find out. I sadly cannot say that about myself. I don't think that I would continue doing good things if there wasn't anyone to acknowledge my actions, is this normal?

[Skeppio]

I think you can tell if someone is really a good person if they do good things when they know no-one will find out. I sadly cannot say that about myself. I don't think that I would continue doing good things if there wasn't anyone to acknowledge my actions, is this normal?

It's totally normal. Wanting to get recognition/praise for your efforts is completely human. *hugs*
Don't worry, you sound like a good person to me. :smallsmile:

[Mikhailangelo]

I think you can tell if someone is really a good person if they do good things when they know no-one will find out. I sadly cannot say that about myself. I don't think that I would continue doing good things if there wasn't anyone to acknowledge my actions, is this normal?

According to Hume's view, entirely, and he is a hard man to prove wrong, though there are certainly many who disagree with him. Personally, I don't find them particularly credible.

The reason that morality exists is entirely down to our perceptions - We act 'morally' because it causes us to perceive ourselves as good people and others to view us as the same. To paraphrase his treatise of human nature, imagine a 'wicked' act, such as murder or rape. Try to imagine exactly what makes these things 'bad' acts - The vice will entirely elude you until you look within yourself and find a sense of disapprobation towards the act.

Now, with this in mind, is doing what you did good or bad, in your own view?

If your motives were hidden, and in this instance it is quite easy to hide them, I would say almost everyone would perceive virtue in your actions. Throwing in the motive would confuse things somewhat for many moralists, however. Simple answer - Keep quiet or lie about your motives, unless you perceive lying as a vice.

[Newman]

There's a couple (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20001222b) of very comprehensive (http://easydamus.com/character.html) tests on the internet.

I'm Neutral Good. Always been.

[tensai_oni]

I suggest not equating real life morality to DnD terms, and especially NOT because of internet tests.

Taken to the logical extreme, there is no such thing as a non-selfish action. You perform a good deed because you want to feel better about yourself - selfish. Because you want others' approval - selfish. Because you have a small voice at the back of your head that won't shut up if you don't do the right thing - that too is selfish. All deeds are performed to sate your inner desires, so they are ultimately all selfish.

And this is not a bad thing. It just means we need a better criteria to decide what is good or not than the act's selfishness.

Don't judge whether you do something for yourself or others. But rather, does it help others or hurts them.

[Newman]

I suggest not equating real life morality to DnD terms, and especially NOT because of internet tests.

Taken to the logical extreme, there is no such thing as a non-selfish action. You perform a good deed because you want to feel better about yourself - selfish. Because you want others' approval - selfish. Because you have a small voice at the back of your head that won't shut up if you don't do the right thing - that too is selfish. All deeds are performed to sate your inner desires, so they are ultimately all selfish.

And this is not a bad thing. It just means we need a better criteria to decide what is good or not than the act's selfishness.

Don't judge whether you do something for yourself or others. But rather, does it help others or hurts them.

Allow me to direct you to this very interesting series of blog posts on metaethics (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Metaethics_sequence), that is, deciding which are those criteria we should use to qualify actions. The author's interest in the topic derives from wanting to program a Fully General Artificial Intelligence. Get one thing wrong and you'll have a disaster at your hands (the "typical" example: the paperclip maximizer: the machine's morality is structured around making as many paperclips as possible... this is an exxageration of similar lesser mistakes, such as "ensuring humanity's survival above all" or "ensuring maximum human pleasure above all", which by themselves can also lead to disastrous results). Obviously, the machine won't have a natural, human instinct for right or wrong (flawed though that instinct may be). So here we are, trying to figure out how to explain, in the simplest terms possible (the author is not a fan of pedantic jargon), what's the best way of telling what's right or wrong.

[DonutBoy12321]

In my opinion, it depends on why you want to look like a good person.
If you want to look good because you want then to see the real you, you're probably good.
If you want to look good because people will treat you better, and that makes life easier, you're probably Neutral.
And if you want to look good so the look on her face is even more shocked when you stab her, you're probably evil.

[Melayl]

Was what I did considered a good act- even if I had selfish ulterior motives? Because of the reason behind why I did it does it change the good act into a neutral or even evil one? Does being 'fake' good make you a good person? Good done, even in the name of evil, is still good. You helped out several someones who needed help. Regardless of your motivations, that makes you a good (or at least better) person.

The fact that you are questioning whether or not you are a good person (because you thought you might have some inkling of an ulterior motive for your actions), just confirms (in my mind, at least) that you are a good person.


If everybody was as "selfish" as you, the world would be a better place. Indeed.

[thubby]

good people frequently question their own goodness.

even supposing i bought for a second you weren't lying to yourself about "i just wanted her to think of me as good"(really, this only occurred to you in retrospect, right?).

you want to be good. wanting it, and acting toward that end would be enough for my book.

[Xondoure]

Obligatory link to slightly related OotS strip here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html)

[hamishspence]

"Do you consistantly do good acts"

and

"Do you generally refrain from doing evil acts"

are the two main criteria.

As to what constitutes a good act- while different people will have different definitions- an act that benefits another person and harms nobody, may be a good starting point.

As to whether "you benefitting as well" turns the act from Good to Neutral- this might depend on whether you knew this from the start and it was a factor in your decision making. Though personally I'd say it could still qualify as good- or at the very least, not a factor that guarantees a Neutral alignment.

The PHB does say that good people "make personal sacrifices to help others"- so it may be that (at least, by D&D standards) this is a requirement in addition to simply performing "benevolent acts"- you must perform "acts of self-sacrifice" as well. There might be a little personal benefit- but if the overall cost outweighs the benefit, it's still a sacrifice.

[pendell]

Was what I did considered a good act- even if I had selfish ulterior motives? Because of the reason behind why I did it does it change the good act into a neutral or even evil one? Does being 'fake' good make you a good person?

Congratulations. Now you know why wise men of old said that all our righteousness is as filthy rags and that there are no righteous people.

I'm going to go with the English Common Law approach -- an action for good or evil consists of both the act ( Actus Reus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus)) and the intent ( Mens Rea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea)). To establish a crime, you must show that both act and intention are criminal.

It follows from that the intention is itself evil, and therefore anything proceeding from intention is also an evil act. The problem is, of course, that judging such things is beyond the capability of human beings, so the best we can do is guess at a person's intention from their acts.

So we don't punish good deeds done with evil motives. They are undetectable. That doesn't mean evil wasn't done, even if it was secret evil that no one is aware of besides us ourselves.

The logical conclusion that I can give within forum rules is that all us humans are deeply flawed, and none of us are as good as we imagine we are. Our hidden motives, our secret desires sometimes hidden even from ourselves, show that we aren't elemental beings of pure law and good.

The logical conclusion is to show grace, compassion, and mercy to our fellow humans. To be kind rather than self-righteous. To recognize that there isn't really such a thing as a "good" person in this world, only deeply flawed people struggling , climbing towards the light, or deeply flawed people who have given up the struggle. But a really, truly good person? No such varmint.

So I can't say you're a good person. Heck, I can only judge your action as you describe it, and one action does not define a person. But maybe .. just maybe ... you're a person who wants to be good. That's not the same thing as being good, but at least it's a step in the right direction. I'm trying to walk the same road. And since I stumble to , I'd prefer to offer grace to a fellow struggler, not criticism.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Solaris]

Alignment is not a real thing and morality cannot be boiled down to good-neutral-evil. That said, actions are more important than the motives of those actions.

I disagree, motive is far more important than actions (except in a legal context, as thought is not a crime). Someone who means well, but his actions turn out poorly, is of higher moral fiber (though not necessarily intellectual prowess) than someone whose intentions are selfish.

[Starwulf]

I'm concerned.

I got Chaotic Evil on that first test.

And hard though it may be to believe I answered each question honestly and was pretty sure I'd get some kind of Chaotic Neutral thing. :smalleek:

Based on your answers to the quiz, your character’s most likely alignment is Neutral.

That was the first quiz, can't say I'm to terribly surprised, I've always tended to keep to myself, sticking to the idea that If I keep my nose out of others business, they'll keep their nose out of mine. Guess I'm a bit disappointed I wasn't Neutral Good, as I generally try to show compassion and kindness towards others, but that test asked a lot of questions based on things I don't hold much stock in, like family and country, neither of which I hold any loyalty to beyond my parents. Blood is NOT thicker then water imo. As far as country, ehh, leaders get exactly as much respect as they earn, and not a bit more. Now, the ideal of the country, I'm all for(I spent some time in the military even), but individual leaders can kiss it. They are there to serve the will of the people(in an idealistic world).

For the other test....True Neutral Human Wizard (4th Level)

Wow, that's kind of interesting. Ahh well, at least I'm not overtly evil ^^

To the OP, I'd say you're a good person. It's always an honorable and kind thing to help out those you know and love when they are in need, and I'm fairly certain that you didn't think at that very moment "Yeah, I'm going to give them 100 bucks so they will like me and respect me more". Maybe you thought that afterwards, but during? Probably not.

[Anteros]

Today I was reflecting on my alignment and I came across a situation I wanted you all to help me sort. I was dropping by a friends house today to say hi. The mother is going through a rough patch (dealing with divorce, bills she is struggling to pay, taking care of her two kids and a not so steady job) and I just wanted to make sure she was okay. I walked in as they were eating dinner and she invited me to sit down and eat with the family, the uncle is over for the holidays. She proceeded to tell me that she was glad to have me in, as a neighbour of theirs could use a couple of extra hands to help move furniture. I said 'for sure!' and me, my friend Dar and his uncle were on our way to Ms. Pimatel's. Ms. Pimatel was an elderly woman who didn't look like she could lift 20 lbs. with any confidence and I was glad to help her out. After about an hour of work we were done and on the way back the Uncle (Jamie) slipped me and Dar fifty dollars each. I tried to refuse but he wouldn't take no for an answer and stuffed the money down the back of my sweater, I thanked him for his generosity. When we got in the mother thanked me and went downstairs and left the rest of us to play vidya games in the living room. I went downstairs to get a controller and saw her on the couch. I took out one hundred dollers and told her that Jamie had given me some money for helping move furniture. I told her that I didn't need payment for helping out an old lady- and that I knew she was in a tough spot and that every bit helps, I handed her the money and told her I want her to have it and use it on what she needs. She looked at me eyes tearing up and told me I was a true friend. I proceeded back up the stairs controller in hand to play vidya games with the rest of the family. When I got back home I reflected upon my actions and realized that a big part of giving her the money was because I wanted her to view me as a good person. It was also apparent that the reason I gave her the extra money was in hopes of her telling her brother and them coming to realize what I had done. I do things like this all the time and It makes me wonder if doing things that are good on the surface makes you a good person. Was what I did considered a good act- even if I had selfish ulterior motives? Because of the reason behind why I did it does it change the good act into a neutral or even evil one? Does being 'fake' good make you a good person?

What it boils down to me is motivation. Think about why you really made this post. If you did it because you want people to know about and recognize your good acts then you're probably neutral. If you did it because you're really worried about it then you're probably good. As the saying goes "good doesn't worry about being evil".

The only one who really knows is you.

[Lord Raziere]

There's a couple (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20001222b) of very comprehensive (http://easydamus.com/character.html) tests on the internet.

I'm Neutral Good. Always been.

Both of them put me at Chaotic Neutral. :smallamused:

Not surprised.

[Xondoure]

What it boils down to me is motivation. Think about why you really made this post. If you did it because you want people to know about and recognize your good acts then you're probably neutral. If you did it because you're really worried about it then you're probably good. As the saying goes "good doesn't worry about being evil".

The only one who really knows is you.

Wouldn't it be "Evil doesn't worry about being good?" Although that would be false as well. Most people will attempt to justify their actions as a way of living with the guilt.

[Solaris]

I'm concerned.

I got Chaotic Evil on that first test.

And hard though it may be to believe I answered each question honestly and was pretty sure I'd get some kind of Chaotic Neutral thing. :smalleek:

I wouldn't be overly concerned. Those quizzes usually put me somewhere in the range of LG/NG, sometimes LN. Shows you how much they're worth.

[Newman]

Frankly, from the contents of the questions, especially the second one, which is very comprehensive, I'd say you get a pretty good idea of your alignment only by looking at the way you're answering the questions. They don't test what alignment you think you have, but what alignment your behavior consistently shows. I might be tempted to give pepper to the squirrel if only for the sake of novelty, but my first and most overwhelming instinct is to give him the bread just to watch it being all cute about eating it. For example.

No, I think the tests are quite good.

[Kaeso]

good people frequently question their own goodness.

even supposing i bought for a second you weren't lying to yourself about "i just wanted her to think of me as good"(really, this only occurred to you in retrospect, right?).

you want to be good. wanting it, and acting toward that end would be enough for my book.

I have to agree with this post, questioning your own goodness usually indicates that you're either good or attempting to be good. I also have to agree with C.S. Lewis on this subject. To paraphrase him, he believes that one of the most arrogant and despicable thing a human can do is believe that he is already virtuous enough.

To get back to OP's main question: no, IMHO a "fake" good act is no good act at all. Good acts, IMHO, require not only good consequences, but also the intention to do good. There's a difference between feeding an impoverished man out of empathy, because you want him to return the favour or to gain a good reputation among others, only the first is a truly good act. That said, unless you're vying for sainthood you shouldn't feel too bad about a bad act or two. Hell, even if we're going into saint territory, Saint Augustine wasn't the nicest guy around before he converted (historical fact, not trying to start a theological discussion here).

Of course, everything I said can be thrown out of the window when you assume Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment thinking about good. In the eyes of Thomas Hobbes (debatably the father of the Enlightenment), all good acts are the acts that give you profit, and all evil acts are acts that harm you. In his eyes the only reason why we don't steal, loot, rape and plunder is because we can't get away with it. However, if you believe you can get away with it, Hobbes wouldn't stop you from doing it.

[The Succubus]

I don't know - it's a bit of a grey one for me.

When we have moments when we're proud of ourselves, it's natural we want others to notice and say "Hey, you did a great job there!". Regardless of the semantics about it, the OP did do a good deed and declined a reward. From an outsider's perspective, it classes as good for me.

Those people that do charity work for the warm glow of doing something positive - are they being selfish and neutral? A thousand times no. Should we expect to have a positive action qualified if we only feel wretched or reluctant about having to have done it? Because to me that's a surefire way to stop people from trying to better themselves.

My final thoughts - You did a good thing OP and you should feel positive about it. Just don't let it go too much to your head when you do good stuff and you'll be fine. :smallsmile:

[Newman]

You know, Ayn Rand would have a fit reading y'all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29#Ethics:_rational_self-interest) You're equating goodness with altruism, and even I think that's wrong.

[Asta Kask]

You know, Ayn Rand would have a fit reading y'all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29#Ethics:_rational_self-interest) You're equating goodness with altruism, and even I think that's wrong.

Well, yes and no. They're talking about Good in the context of the D&D alignment system and that definitely does equate goodness with altruism. Whether that alignment system is applicable to real life is another issue.

[H Birchgrove]

You know, Ayn Rand would have a fit reading y'all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29#Ethics:_rational_self-interest) You're equating goodness with altruism, and even I think that's wrong.

Well.

1st, most people don't care what Ms. Rand thinks. :smalltongue:

2nd, this is about what constitute good and evil in Dungeons and Dragons. :smallsigh:

3rd, she stole* from Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche. Thieves shall be robbed! (http://www.thepulp.net/the-links/thespider/) :smallmad:

*She didn't aknowledge she took stuff from other philosophers, aside from Aristotle, who she IMO misunderstood.

[Giggling Ghast]

I think you are an Evil person for subjecting me to that giant wall of text.

But on the whole, you did a Good thing. :smallsmile:

[Newman]

Well.

1st, most people don't care what Ms. Rand thinks. :smalltongue:

2nd, this is about what constitute good and evil in Dungeons and Dragons. :smallsigh:

3rd, she stole* from Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche. Thieves shall be robbed! (http://www.thepulp.net/the-links/thespider/) :smallmad:

*She didn't aknowledge she took stuff from other philosophers, aside from Aristotle, who she IMO misunderstood.

Yes, I know, and I despise her in general, but you've got to admit she's got a point here:


Rand did not agree with altruism. She explicitly rejected the doctrine and considered it, essentially, a suicide morality that was advanced by power-crazed wannabe-dictators for the purposes of cloaking their Evil Plan in the robes of benevolence.

To most people, the charges she leveled at altruism wildly vary with what they have been told altruism actually means. To most people, altruism means (more or less) be kind to other people and refrain from being a jerkass.

This common definition of altruism is most emphatically not the definition Rand has in mind. Nor did she ever say that giving to charitable/philanthropic causes was bad (as explained in her nonfiction essays written after Atlas Shrugged, if someone honestly chose to use their money/time that way, it was their business), only the presumption of it as a moral duty.

The word "altruism" was coined by Auguste Comte. He defined it as live for others and intended it to mean, basically, that a person can be called noble if the ultimate end of their actions is the benefit of others. In other words, the motive of service to others is intrinsically virtuous.

It is this definition of altruism that Rand was attacking. And Rand was not the only person to consider it insane. John Stuart Mill, a Utilitarian philosopher (not an ethical egoist like Rand), was quite shocked at the implications of Comte's definition. For more on this, please see Robert L. Campbell's ''Altruism in Comte and Rand'', The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 7, no. 2 (Spring 2006): 357 to 369.

Rand argued that Comtean Altruism essentially results in a situation where the ends justifies the means with "others" as the end. As long as the intended end is the benefit of others, anything goes. For someone as concerned as she was with individual liberty, this is an understandable concern; Comtean Altruism can easily justify revoking the liberty of individuals if it is "for their own good."

Unfortunately, Auguste Comte's original definition was made much Lighter and Softer by many people that continued to use the word he originally coined to mean things much less severe than Comte originally intended.

This Lighter and Softer version of altruism has, unfortunately for Rand, had such an influence on ethical discourse that altruism became, in the minds of most people, a synonym for good. And if "the good" and "good for others" became equated, then it was only a matter of time before "good for the self" became equated with evil.

Rand's case against altruism is composed of multiple arguments. The first is that altruism does not actually define "the good", what makes an action good is the intended beneficiary of it (i.e. other people). This in turn is the basis for her aforementioned political argument; that the doctrine can justify revoking individual rights "for the good of others."

Rand also saw Comte's Altruism not as a new idea, but as a variant of a long string of very old ideas that she opposed. Altruism argues that the self must serve others, but there are many ethical traditions that argue the self must also serve something other than itself in order to justify the self's existence. For instance, monotheistic religions generally argue that individuals must serve God. Feudalism argued that individuals must serve their Monarchs. The common thread is that the individual must forego being concerned with their own interests and instead live for something outside themself; they must sacrifice themself for something else.

Rand assembled a very long list of traditions and ideas she believes to be related to, a cause of, or a consequence of, the basic belief that a human's highest moral duty is to serve something that isn't themself.

The idea she argued is the foundational cause of this belief is Original Sin. Original Sin is not merely the idea that Humans Are Flawed but that they are intrinsically flawed; to be evil is part of human nature. Objectivism rejects this idea because the nature of things is amoral; morality applies only in situations where choice exists and because a thing is what it is, it cannot choose its nature. Objectivism also argues that Original Sin is a belief from Platonic Realism in epistemology.

As stated before, Platonic Realism is the idea that universals, including "the good," exist in a transcendent realm of perfection beyond our world. An implication of this idea is our world is inherently flawed; it can only approximate "the good" and it can never match it. Original Sin is the application of this to human beings.

Because, according to this idea, humans are intrinsically flawed, they have to justify their existence. How? By sacrifice and service to something greater than themselves. Enter various codes of selfless morality, each promoting a different thing to serve; a tribe, a god, a king, a country... the Aryan race, the universal brotherhood of the proletariat, the list goes on.


In short, Rand argued that Auguste Comte's definition of Altruism is the best encapsulator of a long-existent moral tradition based in Platonic misanthropy, exploited by the power-hungry and used to control people. It is used to justify heinous acts and violate individual rights. Finally, it does not actually serve the function of an ethical code in the first place; it fails to give guidance on how to live: it essentially states that one must sacrifice their values/life to others (which in turn makes their life impossible/unbearable), in order to deserve the right to live. Likewise, if one chooses to instead live their life with their values, then they are denounced as evil and unfit to live by society. This simple contradiction makes Altruism, in Rand's eyes, a morality completely impossible to practice.


And, see, I can't help but agree with her there. Anyone here read "No Longer Human" (or watched the anime adaptation thereof)? It's exactly about this sort of nonsense. The protagonist has extremely low self-esteem because he thinks he's incapable of being a productive member of society, which, he has been taught, disqualifies him from being called human.

[hamishspence]

Indeed.

Defining the goodness of an act by how sacrificial it is, and how much one benefits from it, with

"more sacrificial means more good"
and
"more personal benefit means less good"

has a pretty horrible endpoint.

[The Succubus]

Indeed.

Defining the goodness of an act by how sacrificial it is, and how much one benefits from it, with

"more sacrificial means more good"
and
"more personal benefit means less good"

has a pretty horrible endpoint.

Agreed 100%.

[hamishspence]

With respect to D&D morality, the PHB is pretty clear that Good implies

altruism
respect for life
making personal sacrifices to help others

However, one can clarify that "While all Good people make personal sacrifices to help others, not all acts of personal sacrifice are good"

and that "respect for life" includes "respect for one's own life"

This at least reduces the problem somewhat.

[Starwulf]

Of course, everything I said can be thrown out of the window when you assume Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment thinking about good. In the eyes of Thomas Hobbes (debatably the father of the Enlightenment), all good acts are the acts that give you profit, and all evil acts are acts that harm you. In his eyes the only reason why we don't steal, loot, rape and plunder is because we can't get away with it. However, if you believe you can get away with it, Hobbes wouldn't stop you from doing it.

Yeah, I'll have to be honest, that's the biggest crock o **** I've ever heard. I wouldn't rape, steal or plunder if I could get away with it. I find all of those acts abominable, and would actively go out of my way to stop them from occurring if I witnessed them happening. Whoever Thomas Hobbes is, he's a gigantic expletive expletive expletive, and that's me being very nice about it.

[pendell]

I don't think that's what Hobbes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes) meant. He wasn't advocating plunder and robbery by humans. He was arguing that humans were innately selfish creatures who looked to improve themselves at the expense of others. "Life is nasty, brutish, and short". He then went on to elaborate a theory of government designed to restrain such passions.

I am concerned that further discussion would violate the rules on politics, so I will point you towards the section on his book Leviathan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes#Leviathan) which will place the remarks noted above in context.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Starwulf]

I don't think that's what Hobbes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes) meant. He wasn't advocating plunder and robbery by humans. He was arguing that humans were innately selfish creatures who looked to improve themselves at the expense of others. "Life is nasty, brutish, and short". He then went on to elaborate a theory of government designed to restrain such passions.

I am concerned that further discussion would violate the rules on politics, so I will point you towards the section on his book Leviathan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes#Leviathan) which will place the remarks noted above in context.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I'll still have to disagree with even that interpretation, I prefer to remain a bit more optimistic of my fellow human brethern, and believe that we aren't inherently selfish, and especially not trying to improve our own lot at the expense of others. I would never step on someone else to make my own lot in life better. Not even a random stranger or my worst enemy.

[hamishspence]

One way of looking at it is that humans (like all animals) are inherently selfish from birth,

but have a "conscience" instilled in them by whoever's given the job of parenting them. With society as a whole playing a part- with its stories, the activities of the media condemning "evil" behaviour, and so forth.

How successful this is, varies. For some, their learned moral code may be more powerful than their "selfish instincts" in most circumstances.

Moral philosophy's an interesting topic IMO, and I hope it can be discussed without straying into forbidden territory.

[pendell]

I'll still have to disagree with even that interpretation, I prefer to remain a bit more optimistic of my fellow human brethern, and believe that we aren't inherently selfish, and especially not trying to improve our own lot at the expense of others. I would never step on someone else to make my own lot in life better. Not even a random stranger or my worst enemy.


That's easy to say, but it's another thing entirely to DO it. Consider what happened on the Titanic: Do I really have it in me to give my seat up to someone else, knowing that it means drowning in icy water?

I can't answer that question for myself. I would like to believe the answer is yes, but how can anyone know for sure unless they're tested?

Those people who have a pessimistic view of human nature tend not to listen to protestations by westerners, people who are well fed and sleep in comfortable houses, about how good they are and how they would never do X. When the world falls apart and it really is a matter of life and death -- then we see just how "unselfish" people really are. It's very easy for a lion who is stuffed with food and sleepy to be generous and compassionate. But it's when people are really hungry that the fangs come out.

Case in point (http://ferfal.blogspot.com/2010/03/i-had-to-shoot-people-do-you-understand.html).

It has been said that civilization is only three meals from anarchy. Someone like Solaris can tell us what he would or would not do, and I'll believe him -- he's been tested. He's been on the edge. But your typical suburbanite -- I don't know what's in them, or even in me.



One way of looking at it is that humans (like all animals) are inherently selfish from birth,

but have a "conscience" instilled in them by whoever's given the job of parenting them. With society as a whole playing a part- with its stories, the activities of the media condemning "evil" behaviour, and so forth.

How successful this is, varies. For some, their learned moral code may be more powerful than their "selfish instincts" in most circumstances.



I would tend to agree with this. A human infant is incredibly selfish. That's why it will wail horribly about an injury to a little finger but won't blink at someone else being hurt -- at that age we literally can't grasp that other people are "real".

Most training is to convince children that other people are human, too. We try to teach them to think of others as we think of ourselves. For some people, they are able only to think of their immediate families as human. If you look at history, it's very common for people to classify some group of humans as 'really human' and the others as 'outsiders/barbarians/heretics/people that don't really count'. The others to whom you can do anything, because they are literally 'outside all protection of law, numbered among the enemies-general of mankind, to be dealt with as wolves are'.

Thing is, at some point people have the *choice* to act as predators or not. And it is both amazing and sad what people will do when they think they can get away with it. Consider the phenomenon of internet trolling and bullying. There are a lot of people out there who are much more brave from an anonymous hotmail account than they ever would be to someone's face.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Starwulf]

That's easy to say, but it's another thing entirely to DO it. Consider what happened on the Titanic: Do I really have it in me to give my seat up to someone else, knowing that it means drowning in icy water?

I can't answer that question for myself. I would like to believe the answer is yes, but how can anyone know for sure unless they're tested?

Those people who have a pessimistic view of human nature tend not to listen to protestations by westerners, people who are well fed and sleep in comfortable houses, about how good they are and how they would never do X. When the world falls apart and it really is a matter of life and death -- then we see just how "unselfish" people really are. It's very easy for a lion who is stuffed with food and sleepy to be generous and compassionate. But it's when people are really hungry that the fangs come out.

Well, I may be a "Westerner" but I'm also dirt poor(under 14k a year income), and my life has been anything but good and comfortable(Shattered 3 parts of my spine 9 years ago, live in a trailer that is practically falling apart at the seams), and I can proudly say I would gladly give up my seat to a woman or child. Another man, no, probably not, though if there were extenuating circumstances I believe I would. That's a much different situation then what I was thinking of though, but it is a good point. I was more thinking that I wouldn't further my own life goals, or gain money/power if it meant I had to step on, or hurt another person. If I was given a choice between having a completely healed back, but knowing that it would be forced on another person who was perfectly healthy, or keeping my back the way it is and suffering for the rest of my life, I'd keep my back. Having said all that, I also would prefer to believe(because to do so otherwise would make me terribly depressed) that other people that I know, that are in better situations, would also do the same as I would. Always seeing the negative, and the darkness in life, leads to darkness living inside you.

[Michaeler]

Are you planning to use this act to seduce the mother? Because that would be neutral. Alignment is a sliding scale and there is always someone more lawful or more good than you but this act still appears to have been lawful good. Lawful because you obeyed the instruction to take the money and get something with it and good because what you got with it was the satisfaction of a good deed.

[Newman]

One way of looking at it is that humans (like all animals) are inherently selfish from birth

If that were so, kids wouldn't give each other things, wouldn't share, exchange or trade. They wouldn't make drawings for mothers' day. They also would be callously indifferent to, say, their parents getting injured. They would derive no pleasure from feeding animals or playing with them.

Also, some could argue that humans are solipsistic by default, start seeing life with a "me" and a "them", and then progressively learn to include more and more people in "us". At some point, they might be able to include all of humanity in "us". The capacity exists. So "inherently selfish" they are not.

This includes moral issues: you need to have them pointed out to you before noticing they're even there. This requires communication. Lots of it. It's much easier to feel sorry for a bird in pain than for a fish in the same situation: the bird does a much better job of expressing it. As language and communication develops and accelerates, humans learn more about each other, barriers break down, and "us" becomes everyone.

[H Birchgrove]

With respect to D&D morality, the PHB is pretty clear that Good implies

altruism
respect for life
making personal sacrifices to help others

However, one can clarify that "While all Good people make personal sacrifices to help others, not all acts of personal sacrifice are good"

and that "respect for life" includes "respect for one's own life"

This at least reduces the problem somewhat.
Yeah, or you could go Golden Mean like Aristotle. *shrugs*

[pendell]

Always seeing the negative, and the darkness in life, leads to darkness living inside you.


While I agree with you there, I think a proper appreciation of the negative is nonetheless important. If always seeing the negative leads to cynicism -- something to which I am prone -- then always seeing the positive can lead to a disneyfied view of life. Ignoring the evil and potential evil in ourselves and others can lead to trouble from people who take advantage of such things, and it can also lead to self-righteousness. I personally would rather deal with someone who had too strong a view of their own wickedness than someone who was blind to their flaws.

To put this in OOTS terms, I'd rather deal with a Haley than with a Miko.

Although it is better, of course, to be neither. A previous poster mentioned the "Golden Mean". That's probably the best approach.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Karoht]

Today I was reflecting on my alignment and I came across a situation I wanted you all to help me sort. I was dropping by a friends house today to say hi. The mother is going through a rough patch (dealing with divorce, bills she is struggling to pay, taking care of her two kids and a not so steady job) and I just wanted to make sure she was okay. I walked in as they were eating dinner and she invited me to sit down and eat with the family, the uncle is over for the holidays. She proceeded to tell me that she was glad to have me in, as a neighbour of theirs could use a couple of extra hands to help move furniture. I said 'for sure!' and me, my friend Dar and his uncle were on our way to Ms. Pimatel's. Ms. Pimatel was an elderly woman who didn't look like she could lift 20 lbs. with any confidence and I was glad to help her out. After about an hour of work we were done and on the way back the Uncle (Jamie) slipped me and Dar fifty dollars each. I tried to refuse but he wouldn't take no for an answer and stuffed the money down the back of my sweater, I thanked him for his generosity. When we got in the mother thanked me and went downstairs and left the rest of us to play vidya games in the living room. I went downstairs to get a controller and saw her on the couch. I took out one hundred dollers and told her that Jamie had given me some money for helping move furniture. I told her that I didn't need payment for helping out an old lady- and that I knew she was in a tough spot and that every bit helps, I handed her the money and told her I want her to have it and use it on what she needs. She looked at me eyes tearing up and told me I was a true friend. I proceeded back up the stairs controller in hand to play vidya games with the rest of the family. When I got back home I reflected upon my actions and realized that a big part of giving her the money was because I wanted her to view me as a good person. It was also apparent that the reason I gave her the extra money was in hopes of her telling her brother and them coming to realize what I had done. I do things like this all the time and It makes me wonder if doing things that are good on the surface makes you a good person. Was what I did considered a good act- even if I had selfish ulterior motives? Because of the reason behind why I did it does it change the good act into a neutral or even evil one? Does being 'fake' good make you a good person?

This first boils down to your definition of good and evil. Since these are both highly subjective, trying to narrow the two down rapidly turns into an arguement of semantics and constantly shifting goal posts. So we will skip that step.

Second, is doing good for karma sake really doing good? Some view it as a question of action VS intent, I prefer to see it as action PLUS intent. I personally consider the two to be of equal value in considering such events. Just my opinion mind you.

Which brings us to your account of the situation.
You dropped by just to make sure she was okay. No reward or incentive, you did good. Grats.
You moved the furniture before there was offer of any kind of reward. You had no way of knowing about the reward, therefore it is irrelivant to this action. You did good, your intention was helping out an old lady. Grats.

You turned over the reward to another party, for (according to yourself) the sake of spreading the word of your awesomeness.
Well, you still turned over your reward to someone, which you could have kept for yourself. Yes, your intention was to spread the word about yourself (I actually don't believe you on this part) but you could have done that without handing over the reward. This is again why I consider intention to be worth consideration with the act. Had you intended to be selfish you could have kept the reward and merely mentioned it. You could have intended to be more selfish, you could have intended to be less selfless.

3 selfless acts for 1 selfish intention and 2 selfless intentions. On those terms, I'd say you net positive still.


========
Not to get into a religious debate, but this is why I don't believe in doing good out of fear of or divine punishment/retribution. If your only reason for doing good is to avoid getting punished, is it really that good anymore?
This applies to Karma as well. If I do good things to avoid negative Karma or to garner positive Karma, it's not that different from a stockbroker aiming for good trades to maximize gains and to to minimize loss from bad trades.
I'm not saying Karma is bad, or that people are not actually good for paying attention to Karma, but if it is the sole motivator for doing something good or avoiding something bad, it just sort of taints the whole thing.


I look at it the same way I look at Global Warming. Should we stop cutting down rainforest due to climate change and climate change [I]alone? Or should we stop cutting down rainforest due to the miriad of other obvious negative effects it has for life on our planet?


========
In theory one should do good without a code of morality to guide them. Following the rules isn't necessarily good either. If something is bad, it should be readily obvious that it is bad without there being a rule to tell you that it is bad. IE-Drunk Driving. A rule telling you not to do it is fine, but the common sense of the situation (getting into a machine that can and will kill people and destroy property, while impaired in your ability to handle that machine properly) should be readily obvious to people.


DISCLAIMER:
All of the above is purely my opinion and should be taken as such. Good and bad are highly subjective terms and tend to vary from person to person. Your mileage may vary.

[H Birchgrove]

Yeah, I'll have to be honest, that's the biggest crock o **** I've ever heard. I wouldn't rape, steal or plunder if I could get away with it. I find all of those acts abominable, and would actively go out of my way to stop them from occurring if I witnessed them happening. Whoever Thomas Hobbes is, he's a gigantic expletive expletive expletive, and that's me being very nice about it.

Compare Rousseau Was Right (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RousseauWasRight) with Hobbes Was Right (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HobbesWasRight). :smallsmile:

[Newman]

To be fair, if I remember right, Hobbes had just gone through a fairly brutal and iconoclastic civil war, and an unsuccessful revolution, and the trouble with civil wars is that, while they're just as violent as an invasion, they don't allow you the luxury of "othering" the guys in front. So the pain and absurdity is felt much more, and, whatever the outcome, society remains scarred afterwards, and trust in your fellow man wanes.

Basically, he saw some bad things during a period of power vacuum, and thought that the power vacuum was the ultimate cause, and that brutal authoritarianism was the only protection against that.

[Lord Raziere]

While I agree with you there, I think a proper appreciation of the negative is nonetheless important. If always seeing the negative leads to cynicism -- something to which I am prone -- then always seeing the positive can lead to a disneyfied view of life. Ignoring the evil and potential evil in ourselves and others can lead to trouble from people who take advantage of such things, and it can also lead to self-righteousness. I personally would rather deal with someone who had too strong a view of their own wickedness than someone who was blind to their flaws.

To put this in OOTS terms, I'd rather deal with a Haley than with a Miko.

Although it is better, of course, to be neither. A previous poster mentioned the "Golden Mean". That's probably the best approach.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

A good awareness of ones own flaws, is the first step towards improvement. and one cannot improve the world if one cannot improve oneself. needless to say, a good awareness of the worlds flaws in the first step towards improving the world.

To see darkness is not to become darkness….and to think that you don't have darkness within yourself is to deny humanity. Everyone has darkness within themselves. The question is whether you are are strong enough to stand not against the world, but against yourself. For I am my greatest enemy.

[DabblerWizard]

Wanting to be seen as a good person could be reworded as wanting / liking recognition. My personal belief is that it's healthy to want recognition, and that desiring it doesn't negatively impact a person's morality.

In the OP's case, his (her ?) analysis of his motives occurred after the act took place, not before. This matters. Debating whether to give someone money, and then only giving money because it seems like the best result for you, is much more selfish than interpreting actions after the fact, and finding that you like being seen as good. Doesn't everyone?

On a more philosophical level:

Classic utilitarians would say that action goodness is determined by analyzing the results, the deed, the outcome. It's obvious that happiness was spread, the deed was good.

Virtue ethics might say that acting like a good person is one way to bring about becoming a good person, and liking being seen as good is fine and dandy, and might be a great motivation to continue working towards being good.

Deontology (of the Kantian sort) might say that OP fulfilled his "imperfect duty" to be charitable in a reasonable circumstance. OP chose to be charitable before analyzing his motives. He could have decided to be charitable only for his own gain, an intention that would have sullied his morality, according to this stance.

[Esprit15]

Even if you did it to be viewed as a good person, unless that's the only reason you did it, you are still a good person, though maybe not lawful good.

[hamishspence]

What if the form of "personal gain" is emotional rather than physical.

If a person is strongly empathic- someone who feels considerable emotional pain at the sight (or even thought) of someone suffering, and considerable joy at the sight (or thought) of someone else in a state of joy.

Therefore, for them, it is in their own self-interest (emotionally speaking) to help others.

Compare with someone much less empathetic. Or perhaps even misanthropic- a person who actually finds pleasure in someone else's suffering, and pain in someone else's joy.

Both people do the same "good deed"- helping someone else in trouble with no physical reward.

But for the second person, it's a "bigger sacrifice" than for the first.

Does that make the second person's deed more good, and the first person's deed "more neutral"?

I wouldn't think so.

A case could be made that "taking pleasure in the act" might be a multiplier, rather than simply always making an act "less good".

So- while taking pleasure in an evil deed might make that deed more evil, taking pleasure in a good deed might make it "more good".

[Karoht]

Wanting to be seen as a good person could be reworded as wanting / liking recognition. My personal belief is that it's healthy to want recognition, and that desiring it doesn't negatively impact a person's morality.Wanting recognition is related to wanting acceptance.



Classic utilitarians would say that action goodness is determined by analyzing the results, the deed, the outcome. It's obvious that happiness was spread, the deed was good.Interesting view point. I bribe a police officer, he in turn buys gifts for his family. Net good in that I spread happiness. Later on down the road, the cop covers for me because of the bribe. I'm now happy that I am not going to jail.



Virtue ethics might say that acting like a good person is one way to bring about becoming a good person, and liking being seen as good is fine and dandy, and might be a great motivation to continue working towards being good.This is much along the line of positive thinking and positive reinforcement. It gets the mindset in the right place to do good things. But you may want to clarify what you mean by "acting like a good person" because while I read that as going so far as performing good acts, others might interpret that as pretending to be a good person. For an extreme example of the harm "acting like a good person" could bring about, watch the show Dexter. He is "acting like a good person" when really he is very much performing murder. Sure, it is murder that the audience cheers for, but it is still murder, and his facade does cause others to suffer.



Deontology (of the Kantian sort) might say that OP fulfilled his "imperfect duty" to be charitable in a reasonable circumstance. OP chose to be charitable before analyzing his motives. He could have decided to be charitable only for his own gain, an intention that would have sullied his morality, according to this stance.I guess this is about where I sit on the matter. This is probably the philosophy I most closely identify. I think this is also why spontaneous acts of kindness are valued, in that there is no time or inclination to formulate a motive to taint the deed or outcome, along with the infrequency of such acts and thus the surprise factor.


========

What if the form of "personal gain" is emotional rather than physical.

If a person is strongly empathic- someone who feels considerable emotional pain at the sight (or even thought) of someone suffering, and considerable joy at the sight (or thought) of someone else in a state of joy.

A case could be made that "taking pleasure in the act" might be a multiplier, rather than simply always making an act "less good".

So- while taking pleasure in an evil deed might make that deed more evil, taking pleasure in a good deed might make it "more good".I never thought about it quite like that.

[DabblerWizard]

Karoht Quoted
Wanting recognition is related to wanting acceptance.

Interesting view point. I bribe a police officer, he in turn buys gifts for his family. Net good in that I spread happiness. Later on down the road, the cop covers for me because of the bribe. I'm now happy that I am not going to jail.

This is much along the line of positive thinking and positive reinforcement. It gets the mindset in the right place to do good things. But you may want to clarify what you mean by "acting like a good person" because while I read that as going so far as performing good acts, others might interpret that as pretending to be a good person. For an extreme example of the harm "acting like a good person" could bring about, watch the show Dexter. He is "acting like a good person" when really he is very much performing murder. Sure, it is murder that the audience cheers for, but it is still murder, and his facade does cause others to suffer.

I guess this is about where I sit on the matter. This is probably the philosophy I most closely identify. I think this is also why spontaneous acts of kindness are valued, in that there is no time or inclination to formulate a motive to taint the deed or outcome, along with the infrequency of such acts and thus the surprise factor.


The example of bribing a police offer shows that classic utilitarianism has a strange moral stance, as it only really cares about outcome.

Another example: A man walks up to a woman, plans on stealing her purse, but then chances his mind because he sees a cop nearby. Utilitarianism has nothing to say about his intentions. He didn't steal, he didn't do anything wrong, thus the action wasn't a bad one.

As far as acting like a good person is concerned, virtue ethics says that a person can become a good person by thinking to themselves "what would a good person do in this situation? I should do what they would do." The action is genuinely intended to be a good one. Whether it actually turns out to be a good thing to do, is another matter. Deceptively acting like a good person just to bring about a good outcome isn't virtue ethics; it'd be something closer to egoistic hedonism, which, like utilitarianism, is a kind of consequentialist morality system.

It might be helpful to point out that Kant's perspective is much more annoying and complex than I presented. His moral system only allows for absolutes. Either you do your duty, or you're in the wrong. For instance, there's no such thing as an acceptable lie. Luckily, charity is an "imperfect duty" as I said; you're not required to commit charity all the time, as that would be impossible, so Kant's categorical imperative mess doesn't apply.

[Newman]

I bribe a police officer, he in turn buys gifts for his family. Net good in that I spread happiness. Later on down the road, the cop covers for me because of the bribe. I'm now happy that I am not going to jail.


No. Think of why bribing is "bad": in very few words, it completely destroys an enforcement system, which makes the rules meaningless, which opens everyone for abuse by the richest and most powerful. You want to make that cop happier? Work harder and make more money, you and everyone, and behave like a "good person" so your society works better... and it'll come around. Also, everyone will be happier, not just the cop.

While Dr. Manhattan was right in that there's no such thing as "in the end", there's a certain predictability to systems, and a certain type of actions will push them in a certain type of direction. Actions that make your society more desirable for you are good actions from your viewpoint.

Kantianism is pretentious bullcrap. You find two dying guys in a car, you can't call for help, the hospital is at a distance, you're not strong enough to get them both in time. A utilitarian chooses the guy with the best chance of survival, and goes for it without looking back. A kantian will still try to save both, they'll both die, and he'll congratulate himself that he did the right thing.

[AtlanteanTroll]

I'm concerned.

I got Chaotic Evil on that first test.

I get Lawful Good, so you know it can't be that accurate.

EDIT: Re: the OP. It's not why you do something that matters, but what you do. Ends Vs Means and whatnot. Deontology. Yadda, yadda.

[pendell]

A good awareness of ones own flaws, is the first step towards improvement. and one cannot improve the world if one cannot improve oneself. needless to say, a good awareness of the worlds flaws in the first step towards improving the world.

To see darkness is not to become darkness….and to think that you don't have darkness within yourself is to deny humanity. Everyone has darkness within themselves. The question is whether you are are strong enough to stand not against the world, but against yourself. For I am my greatest enemy.

Well said.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[H Birchgrove]

Kantianism is pretentious bullcrap.
Can we please avoid this type of bad rheatorics?

BTW, if one wonder why it's a good thing to consider Man to be an End in Itself, not as a Mean to an End, remember world history.

Many utiliatarians supported eugenics and sterilizations of who were considered "inferior specimens" (read: Roma, the unemployed, the mentally retarded, deaf persons, etc) in order to "improve" mankind in general.

Deontologists (in general) did not, and worked against it.

[Asta Kask]

Can we please avoid this type of bad rheatorics?

BTW, if one wonder why it's a good thing to consider Man to be an End in Itself, not as a Mean to an End, remember world history.

Many utiliatarians supported eugenics and sterilizations of who were considered "inferior specimens" (read: Roma, the unemployed, the mentally retarded, deaf people, etc) in order to "improve" mankind in general.

Deontologists (in general) did not, and worked against it.

The problem with Kant is that he takes the idea to it's logical conclusion and concludes that you mustn't view yourself as a mean to your own ends either. So any act taken with any end - any end whatsoever - in sight is at best morally neutral. To be moral, a person should act with only respect for the Law of Custom (Sedelagen - I don't know the English word) in his mind. This is impossible for goal-directed beings like humans.

[H Birchgrove]

The problem with Kant is that he takes the idea to it's logical conclusion and concludes that you mustn't view yourself as a mean to your own ends either. So any act taken with any end - any end whatsoever - in sight is at best morally neutral. To be moral, a person should act with only respect for the Law of Custom (Sedelagen - I don't know the English word) in his mind. This is impossible for goal-directed beings like humans.
At the same time, he supported and defended (the Period of) Enlightment, and was a scientist. For example he helped to create the Kant-Laplace hypothesis, which explains how our solar system was created. He also approved of the USA and its Republican constitution, even though he was against revolutions, being a pacifist. Unlike the early conservatives, he didn't think that the solution against revolutions was to turn back everything to the same as it was before the revolution. Because then, it would mean the same unjust conditions that brought the revolution to be would be back.

I'm not saying Kant, or any other philosopher, is perfect. He thought women were less clever than men even though he didn't consider their brain mass to be less than men's, and his work on anthropology shows he had racist (or racialist) ideas.

BTW, not all Deontologists are Kantian, and modern Kantian/Neo-Kantian thought has developed just like modern virtue ethics, and indeed, utilitarianism and egoism.

[Newman]

Can we please avoid this type of bad rheatorics?

BTW, if one wonder why it's a good thing to consider Man to be an End in Itself, not as a Mean to an End, remember world history.

Many utiliatarians supported eugenics and sterilizations of who were considered "inferior specimens" (read: Roma, the unemployed, the mentally retarded, deaf persons, etc) in order to "improve" mankind in general.

Deontologists (in general) did not, and worked against it.

Deontology refuses to take moral risks and damns itself by inaction. A true deontologist would never have used lethal force to work against it. They'd have had to rely on the utilitarians that were ready to take a gun and shoot people.

A Utilitarian will asses a situation to the best of their ability, and aim for the best outcome they can predict. This implies that if either their judgement or their knowledge are deficient, there's a risk that they'll get undesirable results.

Oh, and "people being ends in themselves" is simply meaningless. In fact, the very concept of "end in itself" is meaningless in a world where the chain of causality never stops.

And I apologize about the bad rhetorics, it's just that lawfulness for the sake of lawfulness is a bit of a berserk button for me. Neutral Good, that's what I'm all about: rules exist to serve a purpose, and following them is pointless (and arrogantly self-righteous) if the purpose is lost. It's not just a reasoned ideology, it's my sensibility at a very fundamental level, and the reasoning is just putting it into words.

[Lord Raziere]

It matters not, every philosophy is wrong in its own way. To cling to such things too closely is to become them and therefore, become imprisoned by them. One must keep their thoughts free from rigidity and do what is best for the situation. Some solutions these philosophies spout are better for some situations, and worse for others, it all depends on which one is best for the situation, therefore use those philosophies as tools for the problems they are supposed to solve, and not a way to live life. You must be the master of the philosophy, or the philosophy will be the master of you.

[H Birchgrove]

Deontology refuses to take moral risks and damns itself by inaction. A true deontologist would never have used lethal force to work against it. They'd have had to rely on the utilitarians that were ready to take a gun and shoot people.
Not true. Immanuel Kant supported the death penalty, and wanted rapists to be castrated. So did the Catholic Church in the past (at least the former), before they decided that even a murderer's life is sacred. Many Catholics were members of the Resistance movements during WWII (against the Nazis), including a Resistance movement in Poland which sole purpose was to save Jews from being sent to the camps.


A Utilitarian will asses a situation to the best of their ability, and aim for the best outcome they can predict. This implies that if either their judgement or their knowledge are deficient, there's a risk that they'll get undesirable results.
Basically, I agree on this.


Oh, and "people being ends in themselves" is simply meaningless. In fact, the very concept of "end in itself" is meaningless in a world where the chain of causality never stops.
Incidentally, Ayn Rand also thought that Man is an End in Itself.


And I apologize about the bad rhetorics, it's just that lawfulness for the sake of lawfulness is a bit of a berserk button for me.
You misunderstand deontology. The "lawfulness" has a purpose.


Neutral Good, that's what I'm all about: rules exist to serve a purpose, and following them is pointless (and arrogantly self-righteous) if the purpose is lost. It's not just a reasoned ideology, it's my sensibility at a very fundamental level, and the reasoning is just putting it into words.
More name-calling. :smallsigh: :smallannoyed:

You know what is a berserk button for me? People who think they have the right to decide on who's life is meaningful, and who's life is not. That is being self-righteous, IMHO.

[Xondoure]

See the explanation you just gave for neutral good... Is arguably pretty lawful. That is if there is one unified LG doctrine it would have to resemble that because anything else wouldn't be constant enough to actually fit the same category. Just my opinion though.

[Brett Wong]

I just talked to my father about it. He told me that I'm exactly like my mother, when she does things she always likes telling people about it so that she gains the recognition's for what she's done. My dad said that what I did was good but for it to be truly virtuous I would have had to do it out of the goodness of my heart instead of doing it and then telling everybody 'HEY! LOOK AT ME I DID A GOOD THING : D'. I guess I'm okay with the way I am though, I mean the people I help get good things done for them and I get a better reputation. I'm happy with this mutually beneficial system and I think I'll stick with it. Note that I don't go around telling everybody about all the things I do, for most good deeds it's enough for just the person to know. Only the deeds that I think stand out as exceptional do I tell to other people :smalltongue: I think that someone should make a thread where people can post the good deeds that they've done that day- It would be nice for people like me who feel good knowing that people know what you've done.

[Starwulf]

I just talked to my father about it. He told me that I'm exactly like my mother, when she does things she always likes telling people about it so that she gains the recognition's for what she's done. My dad said that what I did was good but for it to be truly virtuous I would have had to do it out of the goodness of my heart instead of doing it and then telling everybody 'HEY! LOOK AT ME I DID A GOOD THING : D'. I guess I'm okay with the way I am though, I mean the people I help get good things done for them and I get a better reputation. I'm happy with this mutually beneficial system and I think I'll stick with it. Note that I don't go around telling everybody about all the things I do, for most good deeds it's enough for just the person to know. Only the deeds that I think stand out as exceptional do I tell to other people :smalltongue: I think that someone should make a thread where people can post the good deeds that they've done that day- It would be nice for people like me who feel good knowing that people know what you've done.

you mean a thread like this? http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226953

[Newman]

^^Well done, sir. Doing good is its own reward, but there's no harm in seeking that your actions are acknowledged (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DudeWheresMyRespect?from=Main.ptitletgwk4nyi). There is harm, however, in demanding praise, remuneration or reciprocation for help that was unsolicited. If you want a very basic allegory of why doing good stuff for praise (rather than praise simply being a welcome, incidental bonus) is a dangerous, slippery slope, I'd suggest this My Little Pony (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAisf00z0jo) episode. Alternately, you can read Irredeemable (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Irredeemable).


Ayn Rand also thought that Man is an End in Itself

I generally disagree with Rand, and when she says man is an end in itself it isn't any less meaningless just because she's saying it. The reason I quoted her on altruism is because I thought she made a good point there, against this dangerous, culturally pervasive confusion between altruism and goodness, and selfishness and evil. Nothing more.


Immanuel Kant supported the death penalty, and wanted rapists to be castrated. So did the Catholic Church in the past (at least the former), before they decided that even a murderer's life is sacred. Many Catholics were members of the Resistance movements during WWII (against the Nazis), including a Resistance movement in Poland which sole purpose was to save Jews from being sent to the camps.

Well, then that's an inconsistency from the part of Immanuel Kant and Catholics. It happens, when you preach a nonsense that is impossible to practice. Also, what about the Communists, the Homosexuals, and all the many, many other people the Nazis saw fit to exterminate, who make the other half of the Holocaust?


You misunderstand deontology. The "lawfulness" has a purpose.

At first glance, it seems to have value in itself, for the deontologist. But please elaborate: I may well be mistaken.


following them is pointless (and arrogantly self-righteous) if the purpose is lost

You disagree that following rules when the purpose for which the rules was designed is lost is arrogant and self-righteous on the part of the follower? And I was being charitable by assuming the follower was able to discern that the rules weren't intended for that context and being a zealot. The alternative is that they really do blindly believe in the rules in all circumstances and don't notice when following them is wrong: that's called Lawful Stupid.

People who think they have the right to decide on whose life is meaningful, and whose life is not. That is being self-righteous, IMHO.

Good point, as long as you don't confuse "whose life is meaningful" with "whose life it's okay to sacrifice (especially without their consent)": meaningfulness is not the issue here. In fact, assuming all lives are equally meaningful, it is your duty to preserve as many of them as possible (all other factors being equal).

Being Utilitarian means you place a much bigger burden on yourself than a Deontologist. A Deontologist will follow what they think is their "duty", and their worry is in how to follow all of the rules at the same time, all the time. As long as they did right by them, they are free of guilt. Kant is especially insidious in that he advocates inaction when the rules conflict, which I would argue is not a non-choice, but simply another choice, and an even greater violation itself. A Utilitarian, no matter what they do, will always be plagued by doubt that their actions ultimately lead to unwanted consequences, because they failed to think far enough, to investigate deep enough, or to try hard enough.

Of course, then there's people who use deontological or utilitarian discourse to justify actions that are not, in fact, motivated by seeking the greater good or the rightest action, whatever their definition of it may be. They'll start a phrase with "It pains be but..." "I have to kill you because you cheated on me". "I have to abandon you because of the Prime Directive". "I have to rape you because you are my wife and we must make children". Says the "Deontologist". "I have to steal so I can feed my children". "I have to kill others before they kill me." "I have to cheat in this debate because it doesn't matter who's right, only who looks better in front of the audience, and it is better for everyone that my side prevails." Says the "Utilitarian". They might even cry and curse while doing those things. That's the definition of "crocodile tears", by the way.


See the explanation you just gave for neutral good... Is arguably pretty lawful. That is if there is one unified LG doctrine it would have to resemble that because anything else wouldn't be constant enough to actually fit the same category.

There can't be a unified LG because being Lawful is about following one set of laws. It's hard enough to find a set of laws that's consistent with itself, but sets of laws are usually not consistent with each other. Lawful Good characters also set themselves up for very dangerous dilemmas when they are faced with the choice of To Be Lawful Or To Be Good (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ToBeLawfulOrGood). Neutral goodness, in my understanding, is to not have a bias against nor towards the rules, and to decide whether to follow them or not depending on what gets the good deed done. "You could call it heroic responsibility, maybe. Not like the usual sort. It means that whatever happens, no matter what, it's always your fault. Even if you tell an authority, they're not responsible for what happens, you are. Following the rules isn't an excuse, someone else being in charge isn't an excuse, even trying your best isn't an excuse. There just aren't any excuses, you've got to get the job done no matter what."


Note: I said earlier that a Principles Zealot (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PrinciplesZealot) deontologist would be arrogantly self-righteous. So would a Totalitarian Utilitarian (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TotalitarianUtilitarian). And, to be honest, so would my ideal, heroic Utilitarian, in that they would give burden themself a responsibility they can't possibly handle, and they know it.

[Brett Wong]

you mean a thread like this? http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226953

: O Exactly like that! :smallbiggrin:

[H Birchgrove]

Newman, please edit your post so one can see who you quote. Thanks in advance.

[Lord Hakura]

You come across as a good person, for several reasons.

1. You want to be good. You wouldnt beasking us if being good wasn't important to you, and therefore worth working for. Almost quoting oots here, but its applicable. You are trying to do a good thing for someone else. Yes, you wanted some recognition for it, but the essence of the act was generosity and kindness.

Regards,
~Lord Hakura

[Vacant]

I suggest not equating real life morality to DnD terms, and especially NOT because of internet tests.

Taken to the logical extreme, there is no such thing as a non-selfish action. You perform a good deed because you want to feel better about yourself - selfish. Because you want others' approval - selfish. Because you have a small voice at the back of your head that won't shut up if you don't do the right thing - that too is selfish. All deeds are performed to sate your inner desires, so they are ultimately all selfish.

And this is not a bad thing. It just means we need a better criteria to decide what is good or not than the act's selfishness.

Don't judge whether you do something for yourself or others. But rather, does it help others or hurts them.

I can't really say I agree with that oft-argued end of the altruism/selfishness debate. For one thing, it's either circular or relies on assumption which it actually cannot prove or validate; either the logic relies on itself (all acts are selfish, therefore "selfless" acts must be performed for actually selfish reasons, thus all acts are selfish) or follows from an unproven premise (all "selfless" acts stem from selfish morals), depending on how it is argued. In either case, the validity of the idea that some selfish reason underpins every act of kindness is an assumption much too general to prove and probably much too general to be true. More specifically than this, though, my problem with it is that the argument comes down to telling other people why they did something and the idea that one knows every individual, including all those one has never met, much better than all of those individuals know themselves.

I agree with the rest of what you say, but that argument's always bothered me. Just because one can come up with a selfish reason why somebody would do something doesn't mean one has come up with a selfish reason why that somebody did something.

[H Birchgrove]

@ Newman: Sorry for not giving you a more detailed reply for the moment, which you deserve.

For now, I'm just going to say that a prejudiced person is going to be a prejudiced person whether or not he or she follow this or another moral philosophy. Kantianism (and duty ethics in general, and rights ethics as well) is not a safeguard against prejudice; it's a safeguard against certain actions which prejudice would otherwise lead to. This is of course not perfect.

It should also be noted that there are more than one form of utilitarianism, including Henry Sidgwick's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Sidgwick) rule utilitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_utilitarianism).