Lets approach this argument from its base. I am looking for real in depth answers, from a metaphysics standpoint. Therefore, all conclusions must be started and ended from scratch. My resolution is simple....... Should I do something bad, if I will gain from it, and not experience any "apparent" loss? I am really quite intrested. Even though I'm religious, if I were to base my reasoning on base thought alone, I see no reason why I can't so something that's bad, as in harms others, if I am not apparently affected. Can someone prove me wrong?
Would this qualify as an example? You get really drunk....totally wasted. Ugly, sloppy drunk. Something "bad"...even for those who hold nothing against moderate drinking. You do embarrasing things when drunk....and wake up with a hangover that makes you wish you were dead. BUT, it leads you to conclude against massive or binge drinking? Something "bad"...which leads to a "lesson learnt" choice to do something "good"?
It depends on ego. If an ego is overblown, as in a person who thinks only of him/herself, why care? If, however, a person is compassionate, loving and caring, the question answers itself.
Let me clarify. Should I do something that harms others, if I myself am not harmed. I'm religious, but from a secular view point, what reason would I have not to engage in the "bad" action that both benefits me and fails to get me in any trouble?
That's not exactly the answer I'm looking for. Ok, here's an example.......... Your sitting at the movies, and I'm behind you. You leave to go get some popcorn or something, and you leave your wallet on your seat. I could quickly take your wallet and flee without getting in any trouble, so why shouldn't I? I harmed you, but if my goal in life is to ultimately live beneficial to myself, why should I not take the left behind wallet? With that said, I do believe life lived for others is the most beneficial one to yourself. But in this scenario, I'm benefiting myself with no consequences.
Pinching the wallet is theft, making you bad, and could be arrested for breaking countries rules regardless of beliefs or not.
That's not the point. If I don't get caught, then why not? The goal of humanity is to benefit greatly in life. The context that we can't do something because society defines it as bad is fallacious. Define bad for me, because I see no reason why bad actions are off limits.
To be good is an evolutionary advantage in the long term and it comports with norms produced by societies in order to promote the common good. Good in this sense is to do no harm to others. It may be necessary to choose between options that do harm. Then it is up to the good person to choose the one that does the least harm. Very simple to say but difficult to implement.
What your saying, is that good is a word made by society to promote the common good? The sentence structure is broken, but I agree. This is not answering the OP though. Yes, but this "good" person is ill defined. I asked for people to argue from a metaphysical stance, with conclusions drawn from scratch. You are left making me wonder why people are good? And why good people are constrained from committing bad things? Arguing from a base premise, would lead me to believe that humans aren't inherently good or bad. If they say so, then they are lying. We choose whatever path leads us to the most beneficial life. From a secular POV, wouldn't taking the wallet cause net-benefit if I don't get caught?
Bad in most philosophical terms is a artificial word created by society to refer to "harm to others". Someone could make an argument that binge drinking harms others, but you did not in your refutation. My OP refers to someone who can get away with causing harm to others, with apparent net-benefit to himself. That's my resolution. Someone should do something bad if they can get away with it, at net-benefit to themselves. Well, from a secular POV that is. I'm actually religious, but that's unrelated.
Because you do not know for certain such things won't affect you; and, living in a society, you would be promoting an atmosphere in which you might become a victim of others sharing the same anti-social behaviors. Theoretically, at least.
I guess so, but that would be getting extremely hypothetical. If we just look at the immediate effects, of, lets say a week, then we can assume taking the wallet without getting caught is causing net-good. Our goals in life are to create net-benefit to ourselves, right? While I personally am choosing the moral path to a beneficial life, I see no reason on why someone else can't commit the occasional mischievous act. They would be achieving their purpose right? Even though they might be promoting the wrong atmosphere, they still cause net-benefit, therefore, should steal the wallet by my reasoning.
A lot of people certainly feel the way you are hypothesizing. I have been in some pretty dire straights financially before but there is no amount of money in your wallet or cash register drawer or teller drawer that would make me want to risk my freedom even for a few days, let alone many years. It doesn't take the promise of eternal salvation or fear of eternal damnation to make me not to want to be a thief.
So its ego, as I said. You are more important than the person who left the wallet, and his/her difficulties matter not....ergo lack of compassion.
Your emphasis is on the word "bad". That term is ambiguoous and therefore would allow each person to determine whether or not a particular action is 'bad'. Conclusion: Do what makes you feel "good". (the new age philosophy ... if it feels good, then do it).
In contrast to the highlighted text, all it takes is the fear of a few days or a few years in jail to convince you that you don't want to be a thief. In either scenario, jail or eternal damnation there is punishment and seemingly that is why you avoid being a thief.
There is no such thing as a good human being. Mark 10:18 says: nd Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
Well, I was raised not to be a thief, so there is the normative aspects to it as well. Be it a love of freedom or a commitment to some ethic/morality, I am a Pavlovian dog.
I think the question imposes a kind of egoistic imperative which is no less imagined than the morality of humans. If you call out secular morality for being naught but a construct, then I will call out your desire to obtain $100 on similar grounds. This argument can also be put in a negative form, ie, why follow God's laws if the punishment only is fear of retaliation? That would make morality lose its fundamental fabric and just become a calculation of chances and benefits. The humanist moral system instills one with a respect for humanity and its members, leaning back on empathy and similar concepts. Since such a system usually does not acknowledge a god, this system does not come across as insignificant when compared to an ultimate decree of morality. Therefore, humanists often respect humanity and its members to the same extent religious people respect God (at least from the viewpoint of the foundation of morality). Consequentially, this set of morality is generally not cast aside easily for a simple risk/benefit analysis. There are religious people who argue that if one loses one's religion, one becomes less moral. I'm becoming more and more convinced of this, but not in the way that it is most often presented. It seems to me that it is not being without a religion that makes one amoral, but the notion of having a morality anchored in God and then have that God taken away. That explains the atrocities of people like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler (I don't want to get into the discussion of Hitler's religion, but I'm willing to claim him for atheism, since it reinforces my point), Dahmer, Oswald and so on, who all were brought up to anchor morality in religion (or similar), whereas it is still compatible with crime rate comparisons between, for instance, the US and the scandinavian countries, where non-religion does not seem to cause the rampant crime and destruction sometimes argued. Edit: This reasoning does not include, but is quite compatible too, with people like Kim Jong Il, who, while probably not brought up with religious morality, does not seem to have been taught respect for humanity.
People are good because it has been hard wired into us to be good in order to survive. Goodness makes sense biologically. Now what it means to be "good" has evolved over time. Today, it means something entirely different than it did 3000 years ago. In today's world, the term has more significance as a term used to imply empathy, compassion, concern and the ability to see others as equal beings to the self. If I see you as my equal, I can empathize with you more easily. If I do not, then it is much easier to be bad. Bad has also evolved into the opposite of the good definition that I provided. Good and bad are constantly moving through time as we mature as a species. As for why I should be good, that is simply a matter of respecting yourself and the commonality of all human beings. The reward for being good is internally generated and externally acknowledged. One can live without the latter but the former is the essence of well being, peace and happiness.
IMHO, as far as Christianity is concerned, the moral/ethic issue dates back to the Genesis expedition. In that expedition, God and man entered into a contract (albeit a unilateral contract) wherein God set the stipulations of the contract and man merely (although short in adherence to) accepted those terms of the contract. Contract law (even as it exists today), places a punitive measure against the party violating the conditions of the contract. All societies of today have contract law within their national and local laws. Adherence to those laws gives way to benefits while standing in violation of those laws will implement the penal section of those laws. Bottom line... regardless of the country or the religious or non-religious status of that country, morals and ethics are a matter of contract law within those countries which exist as a condition of peaceful living or being put in a punitive position.
Hey.... you are the one who used the term "dog". I simply did not argue with your point. But if you wish to change your words now and say that you are not a dog after saying that you were, then there is room to question that honesty that was previously viewed by me as it pertained to you and what you stated.
