are you ever scared of your actions affecting others.

[myquestions]

are you ever scared / guilty that your own personal actions affect others.

eg: you win a 1st prise for a competition sports one which is really significant, and this affects the person that didn't win to be really depressed. like they were either not depressed before or on the borderline of been really depressed.

would you feel guitly? should you let them win?

like dind't god say to think of others before ourselves?

 

[levi501]

not at all.
Everything that happens is essentially God's fault not ours.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Other people are responsible for their own lives. While one may compassionately act in such a way as to minimize the negatives that one might affect others with, at some point they are responsible for their own feelings.

 

[Merlin]

With regard to a race, when in a race, I run to win.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

not at all.
Everything that happens is essentially God's fault not ours.

So you aren't responsible for anything you do whatsoever? No one is? If that is the case, then go ahead and let folks kill ea. other for no reason, I mean, it wasn't their fault they did that action...

 

[Soul Searcher]

No I am not scared that my actions may effect others. I know that our actions do often effect others it is up to us to make sure the effect is either neutral or positive whenever possible.

As for a sporting event, I believe in playing fair and playing to win. Those who can not handle defeat should not enter such contests.

 

[levi501]

So you aren't responsible for anything you do whatsoever? No one is? If that is the case, then go ahead and let folks kill ea. other for no reason, I mean, it wasn't their fault they did that action...

Because society has to protect itself...
You already know this though as it's been explained to you in another thread. Did you forget?

 

[EverlastingMan]

Well I am to some extent. I always feel sorry for the other person, unless we are just so incredibly close, so I let them get a few points or gain a few yards, but my competitive spirit never lets them win.

 

[David Gould]

The way the universe works, there are always win-lose situations. The fact that I got a job means that someone else didn't, for example.

However, we can strive for as many win-win situations as possible - for example, if I get the job, I contribute to the economy, thus creating more employment and thus opportunities for the person who did not get the job this time.

In other words, things are complicated. Everything we do affects other people, but whether that results in a benefit for them or a negative depends entirely on when we measure things.

In five years time, that person may be better off than me because they got a different job. Losing the race might make them train harder and win a gold at the Olympics - or even give up racing and become successful at something else.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Because society has to protect itself...
You already know this though as it's been explained to you in another thread. Did you forget?

Ignore the society protecting itself part and just focus on the morality of the situation. If you take the protecting out then you still have the same thing, people techinically have the rt. to do that then if going by what you've said in the previous post.

 

[David Gould]

Lilly,

What do you mean when you use the word 'right'?

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Lilly,

What do you mean when you use the word 'right'?

morally appropriate thing: that which is conventionally moral or appropriate

 

[David Gould]

morally appropriate thing: that which is conventionally moral or appropriate

I do not believe that there is any such thing as a 'morally appropriate thing'. However, I do believe that there are things which groups of humans - by convention, as you say - consider morally appropriate.

As such, there is no right to murder people, as there is no convention that says we consider it morally appropriate to murder people. This is the case whether people are responsible for their actions or not, isn't it?

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

I do not believe that there is any such thing as a 'morally appropriate thing'. However, I do believe that there are things which groups of humans - by convention, as you say - consider morally appropriate.

As such, there is no right to murder people, as there is no convention that says we consider it morally appropriate to murder people. This is the case whether people are responsible for their actions or not, isn't it?

Well, technically no if you ignore the society part and just look at individuals and their actions alone. It comes down to, is taking someone's life (or whatever the crime is) morally right. W/ that there has to be some outside standard of right and wrong if you believe there is rt. and wrong. IF not, then it is soley society that decides.

 

[David Gould]

Well, technically no if you ignore the society part and just look at individuals and their actions alone. It comes down to, is taking someone's life (or whatever the crime is) morally right. W/ that there has to be some outside standard of right and wrong if you believe there is rt. and wrong. IF not, then it is soley society that decides.

IMO, each individual in that society decides and their multiple, contradictory decisions are reflected in society's decision.

In other words, there is no such thing as 'morally right or wrong' - all there is is what we decide is right or wrong.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Then how in your opinion did the idea or right and wrong begin? What set the standard?

 

[David Gould]

Then how in your opinion did the idea or right and wrong begin? What set the standard?

We did.

Right and wrong are expressions of like and dislike.

We do not like being caused pain - we consider that wrong.

We like being given pleasure - we consider that right.

When we add to this the notion of tribal cohesion, we find the basis for all sorts of rules which seem to make no sense - for example, that women are not allowed at certain ceremonies. Such a thing is wrong - but only in the particular tribal culture that decided it is wrong.

When we add empathy - the feelings of pain and pleasure we get when we see others in pain and in pleasure - it is clear how rules for behaviour emerged.

Do unto others as you wish that they would do unto you emerges directly from that.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

We did.

Right and wrong are expressions of like and dislike.

We do not like being caused pain - we consider that wrong.

We like being given pleasure - we consider that right.

When we add to this the notion of tribal cohesion, we find the basis for all sorts of rules which seem to make no sense - for example, that women are not allowed at certain ceremonies. Such a thing is wrong - but only in the particular tribal culture that decided it is wrong.

When we add empathy - the feelings of pain and pleasure we get when we see others in pain and in pleasure - it is clear how rules for behaviour emerged.

Do unto others as you wish that they would do unto you emerges directly from that.

But what about actions that cause the person(s) doing them pleasure but not a small few.....or what if the majority is getting pleasure and like it and thus it's considered rt. at the expense of the few that aren't (similar to Utilitarianism)?

 

[David Gould]

But what about actions that cause the person(s) doing them pleasure but not a small few.....or what if the majority is getting pleasure and like it and thus it's considered rt. at the expense of the few that aren't (similar to Utilitarianism)?

What about such actions? Are you asking how we determine whether such actions are right or wrong?
The simplest answer is that we can't - there is no such thing as right or wrong.

However, what we do is examine such actions in the light of our own feelings. If we feel it is right, we see it as right; if we feel it is wrong, we see it as wrong.

It is obvious that this is how people operate, as people have different views on many things. For example, I like eating meat, and do not consider it wrong. However, others do consider it wrong.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Okay, then do you agree that one conclusion going w/ the assumption there is no rt. and wrong and we just go by feelings, is that there shouldn't be any punishment (ignoring the fact of preventing chaos and society's rules and etc...) if a person does something that is rt. to them (ex: kill an infant that is perfectly healthy and has done nothing) they shouldn't get punished since it was technically good and rt. for them?