Motivation in Morality

[Treeplanter]

Depends on the definition of moral person.

What is the definition?

I suspect it is: one who does what is moral.

What does my definition of 'moral' have to do with the question that I am asking you?

Based upon your OWN definition of what 'moral' is, will you call the person who does the right {i.e. moral} thing for the wrong {i.e. selfish} reason a moral person or not?



That said, it's easier for me to determine what isn't moral than it is to summarize as lofty a concept as
'moral'...

To consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm is immoral
Anything else is moral or, at the very least, morally acceptable

If pressed to define what is 'moral' - then I would start by saying that 'moral' is to be concerned with the welfare of others

It is outward and other directed
Selflessness

 

[Treeplanter]

I was not excluding there the one who does the moral thing because of love of God from the group who does the moral thing because of the love of man, I was including them in that group of the moral.

No offense.

OK - thanks for explaining!

 

[Clare73]

What does my definition of 'moral'
have to do with the question that I am asking you?

I mistakenly responded there to a post to someone else.

We just can't seem to get synced, can we?

 

[Treeplanter]

I mistakenly responded there to a post to someone else,

No worries

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Consider this:

Were I to donate my time and energy helping to feed the hungry at a soup kitchen, I think we can all agree that this would be a good and moral thing

Regardless of my motivation/reason for being there - it is a moral ACTION because there is good coming from it, right?

Hungry people are being fed
That's good

It is my contention, though, that my status as a moral PERSON hinges entirely upon my motivation/reason for undertaking said action

If I help to feed the hungry primarily because I care about people and I desire to alleviate their suffering and to benefit their lives then I am a moral person on the basis of doing so

If, on the other hand, I help to feed the hungry primarily because my boss at work is pressuring me to do so and I am angling for a promotion then I am NOT a moral person on the basis of donating my time and energy to a soup kitchen



Agree?
Disagree?
Thoughts?
Monetary donations? {PM me and I'll give you an address}

Disagree. It would not be immoral to do it because it betters your life and your work. Whether you did it for the first reason or the second, the people still got helped, not that helping others is the standard of morality in my view. The standard is man's life and its requirements. Not the life of others but your own life. It would be immoral to do it self-sacrificially.

The way to tell if it's moral is if it's win-win. If it is then it's moral. If it's win-lose then it would be immoral on my view of morality.

 

[Treeplanter]

Disagree. It would not be immoral to do it because it betters your life and your work. Whether you did it for the first reason or the second, the people still got helped, not that helping others is the standard of morality in my view. The standard is man's life and its requirements. Not the life of others but your own life. It would be immoral to do it self-sacrificially.

The way to tell if it's moral is if it's win-win. If it is then it's moral. If it's win-lose then it would be immoral on my view of morality.

I didn't say that feeding the hungry because it benefits one's job status is immoral

What I said is that, unlike one who feeds the hungry due a desire to help the less fortunate, one who feeds the hungry for the selfish reason of career advancement cannot be considered moral on the basis of feeding the hungry


Win-lose is immoral in your estimation?
So a mother who steps in front of a bullet in order to spare the life of her child is immoral?

Really??

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I didn't say that feeding the hungry because it benefits one's job status is immoral

What I said is that, unlike one who feeds the hungry due a desire to help the less fortunate, one who feeds the hungry for the selfish reason of career advancement cannot be considered moral on the basis of feeding the hungry


Win-lose is immoral in your estimation?
So a mother who steps in front of a bullet in order to spare the life of her child is immoral?

Really??

Why can't they. If your standard is the good of others then in both scenarios you laid out the people get the help.

Yes, win-lose relationships are immoral according to my moral code. Life, by its nature, requires the gaining of values, not their loss. All human relations should be win-winBoth of the scenarios you laid out are win-win so both are moral. I do not hold the good of others as the standard of morality as you apparently do. The standard is man's life and specifically the life of the individual. Whatever supports the life of a rational being is the good or the moral. Whatever harms the life of a rational being is the bad or immoral.

Not moral and immoral are the same thing in my view. A mother who steps in front of a bullet to spare the life of HER child is acting in her own selfish interests because presumably, she loves the child. Therefore she is serving her value. It would be horribly immoral of her to throw herself in front of a bullet to save the life of a stranger's child thereby leaving her own child as an orphan. Why is it that every question about morality involves what one will do for others? Well, I know why. Are you a devote of Kant, Treeplanter?

What you are saying is that I am NOT moral and my customers are NOT moral because I make a product and sell it for selfish reasons, i.e., I want to make a living. My customers buy my products because they want to selfishly improve their lives. My motivation is selfish and so is the motivation of my customers. They do not buy it for my sake at their own expense because they "care" about me and I do not make it for their sake at my expense. Both of us are acting selfishly to improve our respective lives. This to you is NOT moral?

I would say that a man or woman acting to improve their own lives is just about the most moral thing a person can do, provided one does not harm or force others in the process.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

disregard this, it was a mistake.

 

[Treeplanter]

Not moral and immoral are the same thing in my view.

There is no such thing as morally neutral in your view?
There is in mine!

A mother who steps in front of a bullet to spare the life of HER child is acting in her own selfish interests because presumably she loves the child

I disagree
A mother who loves her child and sacrifices herself to save her child is acting selflessly

This is what love is
Love is the opposite of selfishness
Love is selfless

{You might argue that love {i.e. behaving selflessly} is selfish in that we love because it makes us feel good to love, but that is a discussion for another time!}

What you are saying is that I am NOT moral and my customers are NOT moral because I make a product and sell it for selfish reasons, i.e., I want to make a living.

Again, even if you don't, I DO differentiate between NOT moral and immoral

I would say that a man or woman acting to improve their own lives is just about the most moral thing a person can do, provided one does not harm or force others in the process.

The MOST moral thing?

Although there is absolutely nothing immoral whatsoever in a person acting to improve his own life, I would hardly characterize this as the MOST moral thing that a person can do


Would you agree with my definition of immoral?

To consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon another is immoral

{anything and everything else either falls under the heading of moral or morally acceptable}

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Would you agree with my definition of immoral?

To consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon another is immoral

{anything and everything else either falls under the heading of moral or morally acceptable}

 

[partinobodycular]

However, is the person committing a sinful action always guilty of being sinful or does intent matter?

As I understand Catholicism (from many years of debating such subjects on CAF) a sinful act is always sinful regardless of the circumstances or intentions. Killing someone, even to save yourself or someone else, is still a sin.

What if I tricked a Christian into taking the name of the Lord in vain by means of asking him/her to read aloud a blasphemous statement which I have written in the Czech language - a language not understood by the Christian

This is indeed a perplexing question. Questions of this type have led to many a heated debate over the years. But if we change the parameters just a bit it might become clearer. What if I read this blasphemy in a book? Is it a sin to read a book? What if I heard it in a Youtube! video? Is it a sin to quote a video? Reading a book isn't a sin. Quoting a video isn't a sin. And likewise, repeating what someone else says, isn't a sin. Sometimes it's difficult to recognize exactly what action is taking place.

No moral merit in caring for our fellow man?

This reminds me of the old saying, "they also serve who only stand and wait". If I spend my life caring for my fellow man, can I really say that I have done more than anyone else? Do I truly deserve greater moral merit?

 

[Ken-1122]

Consider this:

Were I to donate my time and energy helping to feed the hungry at a soup kitchen, I think we can all agree that this would be a good and moral thing

Regardless of my motivation/reason for being there - it is a moral ACTION because there is good coming from it, right?

Hungry people are being fed
That's good

It is my contention, though, that my status as a moral PERSON hinges entirely upon my motivation/reason for undertaking said action

If I help to feed the hungry primarily because I care about people and I desire to alleviate their suffering and to benefit their lives then I am a moral person on the basis of doing so

If, on the other hand, I help to feed the hungry primarily because my boss at work is pressuring me to do so and I am angling for a promotion then I am NOT a moral person on the basis of donating my time and energy to a soup kitchen



Agree?
Disagree?
Thoughts?
Monetary donations? {PM me and I'll give you an address}

What constitutes morality is strictly subjective. If YOU feel you are being moral by feeding the hungry, regardless of if you are doing it for selfish reasons or not, that’s all that matters. If I or someone else decides your motives aren’t pure enough, that is our subjective opinion and will amount to nothing unless you allow it to amount to something

 

[com7fy8]

If, on the other hand, I help to feed the hungry primarily because my boss at work is pressuring me to do so and I am angling for a promotion then I am NOT a moral person on the basis of donating my time and energy to a soup kitchen



Agree?
Disagree?
Thoughts?

But once you are doing it, you could find out it is good for you to do it, and then you could be motivated by love

 

[Treeplanter]

If your standard is the good of others

If anything, my standard is simply to avoid being immoral

Just so long as you are not consciously and purposefully inflicting needless harm then you are OK in my book

That said, if we are going to afford someone - man or God - status as a morally good being on the basis of selfless acts then it is imperative that the motivation of said acts also be of a selfless nature

In other words, motivation matters!

If I choose to do the right thing because I care about doing the right thing then I am a moral person

If I do the right thing because I am being forced to do the right thing then I am not a moral person

If I choose not to do the right thing - just so long as I am not consciously and purposefully inflicting needless harm upon anyone - I am neither a moral or immoral person

If I choose to consciously and purposefully inflict needles harm then I am an immoral person

Yes, win-lose relationships are immoral according to my moral code.

Win-lose relationships are ubiquitous and inevitable

Life, by its nature, requires the gaining of values, not their loss.

Are you denying that self sacrifice might qualify as the gaining of a value?

Why is it that every question about morality involves what one will do for others?

I am trying to demonstrate that simply doing that which is good and right does not make someone a morally good being

I am trying to demonstrate that in order to qualify as a morally good being one must do what is good and right for the right reasons

Are you a devote of Kant, Treeplanter?

No, I am not

I am partial to the writings of Nietzsche, Camus, and Sartre

 

[Treeplanter]

As I understand Catholicism (from many years of debating such subjects on CAF) a sinful act is always sinful regardless of the circumstances or intentions. Killing someone, even to save yourself or someone else, is still a sin.

I don't think that's actually true

Catholic teaching, as I understand it, makes clear that it is morally acceptable to employ deadly force in self defense

This is indeed a perplexing question. Questions of this type have led to many a heated debate over the years. But if we change the parameters just a bit it might become clearer. What if I read this blasphemy in a book? Is it a sin to read a book? What if I heard it in a Youtube! video? Is it a sin to quote a video? Reading a book isn't a sin. Quoting a video isn't a sin. And likewise, repeating what someone else says, isn't a sin. Sometimes it's difficult to recognize exactly what action is taking place.

I think the point is kinda being missed here...

The point is that one must consciously and purposefully sin in order to be regarded as a sinful person, right?

To drown a baby is sin
What if a severely retarded child drowned a baby - is this child a sinner on this basis?

 

[Vap841]

Consider this:

Were I to donate my time and energy helping to feed the hungry at a soup kitchen, I think we can all agree that this would be a good and moral thing

Regardless of my motivation/reason for being there - it is a moral ACTION because there is good coming from it, right?

Hungry people are being fed
That's good

It is my contention, though, that my status as a moral PERSON hinges entirely upon my motivation/reason for undertaking said action

If I help to feed the hungry primarily because I care about people and I desire to alleviate their suffering and to benefit their lives then I am a moral person on the basis of doing so

If, on the other hand, I help to feed the hungry primarily because my boss at work is pressuring me to do so and I am angling for a promotion then I am NOT a moral person on the basis of donating my time and energy to a soup kitchen



Agree?
Disagree?
Thoughts?
Monetary donations? {PM me and I'll give you an address}

Did you just ask us for money lol?
I definitely think intent matters, it doesn’t even feel good if someone does you a favor grudgingly. And this also made me think of the reversal too,
The Road to Hell is Paved in Good Intentions! But that would be more of a lesson in being wise not in being immoral

 

[Treeplanter]

What constitutes morality is strictly subjective. If YOU feel you are being moral by feeding the hungry, regardless of if you are doing it for selfish reasons or not, that’s all that matters. If I or someone else decides your motives aren’t pure enough, that is our subjective opinion and will amount to nothing unless you allow it to amount to something

What I am asking is whether you think doing the right thing is sufficient reason enough to call someone morally good

OR

must a person who does the right thing also be doing so for the right reason{s} in order to qualify as a morally good being?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Would you agree with my definition of immoral?

To consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon another is immoral

{anything and everything else either falls under the heading of moral or morally acceptable}

Absolutely not because it's far too narrow and it holds the good of others as its standard of morality. Morality is first and foremost about the individual. Only after one has a moral code to guide one's own life can it then be applied to others. I gave you my definition: That which harms or destroys the life of a rational being. That would include but not be limited to "others" after all I am a rational being, i.e., one who survives by reason.

 

[Treeplanter]

But once you are doing it, you could find out it is good for you to do it, and then you could be motivated by love

Agreed

That said, what I want to know is if it is fair and accurate to refer to someone as a morally good person on the basis of doing that which is right

OR

must this person also be doing what is right FOR THE RIGHT REASONS?


In other words, would you consider me to be a morally good person on the basis of sharing even of you found out the only reason that I share is because I am forced to?

 

[Treeplanter]

Did you just ask us for money lol?

I did - you got some?

I definitely think intent matters

Yes, thank you, intent absolutely does matter!

I don't understand why some others are making this so difficult...