Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Athiests good morality?

POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 6:09:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
lets say somebody gave money to poor person. thats make him he did "good" deed. right? well, no. what about his intention? if u help poor ppl because u feel "good" about that whats the difference between u and a psychopath, he feels "good" too if he harm ppl. imagine how many "good" deeds u see everyday.... how u can really know if his intention not for that person to feel good and help him (regardless if he benefits from that or harm himself) only for that person.

u get the point?
Never fart near dog
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 6:18:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 6:09:22 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
lets say somebody gave money to poor person. thats make him he did "good" deed. right? well, no.

Not inherently.

what about his intention? if u help poor ppl because u feel "good" about that whats the difference between u and a psychopath, he feels "good" too if he harm ppl.

Constructive vs destructive tendency. If we look around the natural world (at least with regards to societies), more benefit came from groups working together than harming each other.

imagine how many "good" deeds u see everyday.... how u can really know if his intention not for that person to feel good and help him (regardless if he benefits from that or harm himself) only for that person.

um... what?

Ultimately when it comes to such an act of charity, the desire for both parties to a constructive end is desired. In such charity, sure, the benefactor might derive a sense of accomplishment from the donation, but that doesn't inherently turn the charity into an act of immorality any more than the recipient feels good about taking such charity.

Morality appears to be a means to perpetuate a kind, what we deem as moral seems to align with what continues our specie, and what we deem immoral tends to detract from it. This is why 'victimless' crimes are hotly contested, as are personhood and marriage rights and good positions for both sides can be made.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 6:18:20 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 6:09:22 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
lets say somebody gave money to poor person. thats make him he did "good" deed. right? well, no. what about his intention? if u help poor ppl because u feel "good" about that whats the difference between u and a psychopath, he feels "good" too if he harm ppl. imagine how many "good" deeds u see everyday.... how u can really know if his intention not for that person to feel good and help him (regardless if he benefits from that or harm himself) only for that person.

u get the point?

Yes, you just provided an argument showing the Quran is not moral and that anyone who follows it is a psychopath. Well done.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 6:26:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 6:09:22 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
lets say somebody gave money to poor person. thats make him he did "good" deed. right? well, no. what about his intention? if u help poor ppl because u feel "good" about that whats the difference between u and a psychopath, he feels "good" too if he harm ppl. imagine how many "good" deeds u see everyday.... how u can really know if his intention not for that person to feel good and help him (regardless if he benefits from that or harm himself) only for that person.

u get the point?

Regarding intentions, many times it has more to do with empathy for others more than concern about how it makes themselves feel. Psychopaths, by definition, feel no empathy.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 6:33:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
"though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 6:34:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 6:09:22 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
lets say somebody gave money to poor person. thats make him he did "good" deed. right? well, no. what about his intention? if u help poor ppl because u feel "good" about that whats the difference between u and a psychopath, he feels "good" too if he harm ppl. imagine how many "good" deeds u see everyday.... how u can really know if his intention not for that person to feel good and help him (regardless if he benefits from that or harm himself) only for that person.

u get the point?

What does this have to do with atheists?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 7:21:03 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 6:09:22 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
lets say somebody gave money to poor person. thats make him he did "good" deed. right? well, no. what about his intention? if u help poor ppl because u feel "good" about that whats the difference between u and a psychopath, he feels "good" too if he harm ppl. imagine how many "good" deeds u see everyday.... how u can really know if his intention not for that person to feel good and help him (regardless if he benefits from that or harm himself) only for that person.

u get the point?

Hi Popoo,

The question you raised has appeared frequently in both secular and sectarian moral philosophy: what makes good, good? Is it good to do something because of its effects? Is it good if your intentions are good? Is it good because some supreme ruler has told you to do it? Is it good because it may produce a good outcome for you later?

But I don't think that problem is confined to atheists.

For example, as an atheist I have a great deal of difficulty watching people of religious belief do deeds that they believe will gain them eternal paradise -- which to me seems a reward incommensurate with their efforts -- then praise themselves for their selfless acts.

When I do something for someone who needs it, it's usually without expectation of benefit, and I seldom tell people that I've done it. For me it's not enough that a deed benefits another. The measures of love are not praise or reward but wisdom, compassion, courage and sacrifice. So I too distinguish flattery, reciprocity and commerce from altruism -- which I think is your point, so to that extent, I agree with you.

Yet as a person who doesn't believe in a morally-ordered universe, who doesn't believe in some ultimate divine judge, and who has neither desire nor hope for heaven, I cannot be bribed with promised rewards later on. So when I do something for the benefit of another or for public benefit, it's literally for no other reason than that I love people, or society.

I know that the religious sometimes do good in praise of or celebration of their creator, and I respect that. However the sanctimony and self-congratulations that often come with it disgusts me, and I consider religious disdain for secular altruism both ignorant and bigoted, in view of the vanity of the rewards the religious claim as their moral entitlement.

You've talked about psychopathy and that's fair -- people sometimes do good to look good.

But I don't think you've acknowledged the extensive narcissism afflicting religious morality.