Motivation in Morality

[Vap841]

I did - you got some?

I truthfully couldn’t tell if you were slipping in a subtle joke at the end or you were known for tree planting donations or something lol

 

[Treeplanter]

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.

You're not making any sense!

My definition of what is immoral:
TO CONSCIOUSLY AND PURPOSEFULLY INFLICT NEEDLESS HARM

Your definition of what is immoral:
THAT WHICH HARMS OR DESTROYS THE LIFE OF A RATIONAL BEING

And you refer to mine as "too narrow"???

Also, did I not assure you already that my standard does NOT necessarily hold to "the good of others"?
My standard, clearly, holds to the individual moral agent!

To consciously and purposefully inflict harm is immoral - all else is either moral or morally neutral


*We seem to be flying off onto a tangent

Getting back to the OP:
Do you or do you not agree that in order for a being to be regarded as morally good it is not enough to simply do what is regarded as morally good - one must also do what is regarded as morally good FOR THE RIGHT REASONS?

 

[Treeplanter]

I truthfully couldn’t tell if you were slipping in a subtle joke at the end or you were known for tree planting donations or something lol

LOL

Just a joke!

 

[Bradskii]

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}

I'm off to the soup kitchen to help because people are hungry: Moral action.
I'm off to the soup kitchen to help because I need to impress my boss: Amoral action.
I'm off to the soup kitchen to beat up hungry people: Immoral action.
I can't be bothered to help. I'm going down the pub: No action, so nothing to define. Athough your actions might help define you as a good or bad person depending on whatever else you do with your time (maybe you spend 6 evenings at the kitchen and one down the pub).

 

[Treeplanter]

I'm off to the soup kitchen to help because people are hungry: Moral action.
I'm off to the soup kitchen to help because I need to impress my boss: Amoral action.
I'm off to the soup kitchen to beat up hungry people: Immoral action.
I can't be bothered to help. I'm going down the pub: No action, so nothing to define. Athough your actions might help define you as a good or bad person depending on whatever else you do with your time (maybe you spend 6 evenings at the kitchen and one down the pub).

These are actions - what I am asking about are the beings responsible for the actions

Are moral actions enough to qualify a being as a morally good being

OR

must moral actions be accompanied by moral reasons/motivations in order to qualify a being as a morally good being?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

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

But that's not a standard. a desire to avoid being immoral does not tell you what is immoral. you need a measuring stick. I was wrong. I said that your standard was the good of others but that's not it. what I take away from what you say is that your standard is selflessness. Selflessness for the sake of selflessness.

Win-lose relationships are ubiquitous and inevitable

Sadly, you are right. That's the result of holding selflessness as the standard of virtue. But man has free will. He does not have to choose an irrational standard of virtue. He can choose one that actually has a basis in the facts pertaining to man's life, not in their contradiction.

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

Absolutely, sacrifice is a loss. It's the giving up of something you value for a lesser value or a non-value. But if one wants to be selfless then the whole concept of values is out the window, of value to whom and for what? Blank out.

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

You've demonstrated that you hold selflessness as the standard of value, not life. I can't even think of using the concepts "good", "right", "moral" outside the context of life and life is an inherently selfish process. It's self-generated, self-sustaining action. That is clearly the polar opposite of selflessness. That would be a textbook example of the fallacy of the stolen concept.

 

[Bradskii]

These are actions - what I am asking about are the beings responsible for the actions

Are moral actions enough to qualify a being as a morally good being

OR

must moral actions be accompanied by moral reasons/motivations in order to qualify a being as a morally good being?

What if I go to the soup kitchen 6 days a week to help out because it's the right think to do and then turn up on Sunday because my boss is there and I want to impress him. Am I morally good Mon to Sat and immoral on Sunday? How would you describe me? Moral most of the time?

You can be generally described as a moral person if most of your action are moral. But then we need to associate you with what actions you perform and whether they are moral actions in themselves. So I don't think we can describe someone as moral or immoral based on only one event. We can only describe the action.

 

[Treeplanter]

But that's not a standard. a desire to avoid being immoral does not tell you what is immoral.

To the contrary, I have told you EXACTLY what qualifies as immorality!

To consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm IS immoral

what I take away from what you say is that your standard is selflessness. Selflessness for the sake of selflessness.

Then you are not understanding what I am saying

My moral standard, once again, is this:

To consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm is immoral
Anything and everything else goes - as it is either moral or morally neutral

As an aside:

To be selfless {i.e. loving} is moral, but it is entirely up to the individual to decide if that is what he/she wants to do/be - no skin off my nose whatever their decision is

The OP is about the labelling of individual beings, who's actions are selfless/loving, as morally good even when their reasons/motivations for engaging in selfless/loving acts are not, in and of themselves, selfless and loving

To qualify as a moral person, as far as I am concerned, requires not only that one act selflessly and lovingly, but also that their reasons for doing so are selfless and loving

This does not mean, though, that I insist upon a standard of selflessness!
It is perfectly fine to NOT be selfless
I, myself, in most circumstances am NOT selfless

It's the giving up of something you value for a lesser value or a non-value.

Absolutely not true!

Self sacrifice is NOT necessarily the giving up of something I value {myself} for something of a lesser value - much less a non-value

I value certain people more than I do my own self and would willingly lay down my life for these people if need be

You've demonstrated that you hold selflessness as the standard of value, not life.

That's just not true

While there are a few that I would happily make sacrifices for - there are billions more that I would not

 

[Treeplanter]

What if I go to the soup kitchen 6 days a week to help out because it's the right think to do and then turn up on Sunday because my boss is there and I want to impress him. Am I morally good Mon to Sat and immoral on Sunday? How would you describe me? Moral most of the time?

You can be generally described as a moral person if most of your action are moral. But then we need to associate you with what actions you perform and whether they are moral actions in themselves. So I don't think we can describe someone as moral or immoral based on only one event. We can only describe the action.

Agreed

It is a preponderance of actions that define a moral character

Again, though, the OP is concerned with motivation/reason

Is it fair and accurate to call someone morally good on the basis of performing morally good actions when the motivation/reason for doing so is less than morally good?

 

[Bradskii]

Agreed

It is a preponderance of actions that define a moral character

Again, though, the OP is concerned with motivation/reason

Is it fair and accurate to call someone morally good on the basis of performing morally good actions when the motivation/reason for doing so is less than morally good?

It's the same question as: Are there any truly altruistic actions?

We get an inner glow if we do something right, even if no-one else knows about it. But I can't see someone continuously doing good works but for the wrong reasons. That person might well be psycopathic. So I'd say...no.

 

[Treeplanter]

It's the same question as: Are there any truly altruistic actions?

An age old question...do I do for others because it does others good or do I do for others because it makes me feel good about myself?

I can't see someone continuously doing good works but for the wrong reasons. That person might well be psycopathic. So I'd say...no.

Speaking of psychopaths...

Nobody seems to be picking up on this, but what I am really talking about is God as described in scripture - particularly as related to my thread titled: {Yin and Yang? Not in my Bible!}

God created us FOR HIS OWN GLORY - not because He loves us and wanted to bestow upon us the precious gift of life, but rather because He wants His holy name to be praised and glorified

God offers us salvation FOR HIS OWN GLORY - not because He loves us and desires for us to be eternally at His side, but rather because He desires that His holy name be praised and glorified

Is this a morally good god?
No question - giving us life was/is a moral act
No question - offering us salvation was/is a moral act

Is God, Himself, though, a moral god when His selfless acts are primarily motivated by selfish reasons???

 

[Bradskii]

An age old question...do I do for others because it does others good or do I do for others because it makes me feel good about myself?


Speaking of psychopaths...

Nobody seems to be picking up on this, but what I am really talking about is God as described in scripture - particularly as related to my thread titled: {Yin and Yang? Not in my Bible!}

God created us FOR HIS OWN GLORY - not because He loves us and wanted to bestow upon us the precious gift of life, but rather because He wants His holy name to be praised and glorified

God offers us salvation FOR HIS OWN GLORY - not because He loves us and desires for us to be eternally at His side, but rather because He desires that His holy name be praised and glorified

Is this a morally good god?
No question - giving us life was/is a moral act
No question - offering us salvation was/is a moral act

Is God, Himself, though, a moral god when His selfless acts are primarily motivated by selfish reasons???

The answer you might get from our Christian chums is: 'Ah, but Who Can Know The Mind Of God?' In other words: 'I dunno'.

But it always puzzled me as a kid. Why did God want us here? He can't actually need us (notwithstanding that it took Him two attempts to get it right).

 

[Treeplanter]

The answer you might get from our Christian chums is: 'Ah, but Who Can Know The Mind Of God?' In other words: 'I dunno'.

But it always puzzled me as a kid. Why did God want us here? He can't actually need us (notwithstanding that it took Him two attempts to get it right).

Well, scripture actually makes it clear as to the why...



See Isaiah 43:7

“everyone who is called by my name,
whom I created for my glory,
whom I formed and made.”

In other words, created FOR HIS GLORY!



See Isaiah 48:9-11

"For my own name’s sake I delay my wrath;
for the sake of my praise I hold it back from you,
so as not to destroy you completely.
See, I have refined you, though not as silver;
I have tested you in the furnace of affliction.
For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this.
How can I let myself be defamed?
I will not yield my glory to another."

In other words, saved for HIS OWN SAKE!



And as if we needed any further confirmation that God’s selfishness trumps His selflessness, we have the words of Jesus Christ, Himself:

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
{Matthew 22:36-39}

FIRST AND GREATEST!

 

[com7fy8]

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?

no

And this would include if you were a Bible claiming person, but your morality was forced by fear of hell or by peer pressure of a church which judges mainly by if you conform or not.

So, no I would not want unbelievers to go along with Christian laws only because they were forced by laws when they did not agree. I would want God to make it good for them.

 

[partinobodycular]

I don't know if this has been pointed out already or not, but it is believed by many that animals can't commit immoral acts because they lack the ability to form intent. This would seem to indicate that intent isn't just necessary for morality, it's essential. In and of themselves, acts are neither moral nor immoral.

Thus caring for your fellow man is in itself neither moral nor immoral.

 

[Clare73]

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.

That means either you or Catholicism got it wrong.

"Thou shalt not murder" does not exclude killing for self defense, or killing to preserve the life of the innocent (according to civil law) person.
Preservation of innocent (according to civil law) human life trumps all other moral law.

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.

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?

 

[Clare73]

Would you agree with my definition of immoral?

"Moral" is compliance with
1) the Ten Commandments,
2) civil law, and
3) the Golden Rule.

It's not complicated.

Loving others is not about morality.

 

[Clare73]

The answer you might get from our Christian chums is: 'Ah, but Who Can Know The Mind Of God?' In other words: 'I dunno'.

But it always puzzled me as a kid. Why did God want us here? He can't actually need us (notwithstanding that it took Him two attempts to get it right).

Just couldn't let this go by without a response. . .

The NT reveals that to glorify his Son through God's showing forth his own goodness and justice, the plan of God's infinite wisdom is that his own Son shall with his life purchase from fallen condemned mankind a remnant to be God's own personal inheritance and treasure in eternity.

It's about the glory of God through the glory of his Son.

And perhaps I should also add as a reminder:

God's thoughts are not our thoughts,
Neither are our ways his ways.
As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are God's ways higher than our ways
and his thoughts than our thoughts.
--Isaish 55:8-9

 

[eleos1954]

Actually, I gave TWO motives for the same moral action

One selfless
and
one selfish

We all, presumably, agree that the individual who does the right thing for the right {i.e. selfless} reason is a moral person

The question, though, is this:
Is the person who does the right thing for the wrong {selfish} reason also a moral person?

Depends on what a person believes ... what they base their moral decision(s) on .. in Christianity motive makes a big difference .... outside of that perhaps not so much (not sure). In the example you gave .... if the motivation is known (by others) it would be considered immoral .... if not known then it would be perceived as being moral.

Depends on what information is known/disclosed.

 

[apogee]

And as if we needed any further confirmation that God’s selfishness trumps His selflessness, we have the words of Jesus Christ, Himself:

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
{Matthew 22:36-39}

FIRST AND GREATEST!

I think this is an interesting observation, although context is interesting too.

34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”​

So what is going on here? The Pharisees are not there to learn....I'm unsure of their motivations for "testing him" but it's probably safe to assume some degree of mischief.

And why wouldn't they, as the embodiment of morality "expert in the law" not want to trip up, an arrogant upstart like Jesus who spent time with immoral people, and was about to demonstrate his audacity by telling them that their entire area of expertise could be reduced to two lines? Why would they not want to trip him up?

What did his response mean for them? you have probably heard this phrase..

"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." from 1 John 4

They asked for one law, 'the greatest' he gave them the two, why? because they are linked.

If you love 'Love' with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, then that will most likely have an effect on you, (Law 1)

But in what way can you love 'love' and not express love to those around you? (Law 2)

So Law 1 is no doubt what the Pharisees expected and would probably have claimed to uphold, but their disregard for Law 2 is the evidence that they are just a bunch of hypocrites that ultimately uphold neither.