Superior ethics

[EnemyPartyII]

Which is superior, someone who lives an ethical life because he wishes to please God, or someone who lives an ethical life because he wishes to do right by his fellow man. Both people would respond precisely the same way in any given situation, it is only their motivation that differs.

So, given that their acts are identical, which is superior, or are they equally admirable?

 

[nolongerhome]

The first acts out of fear - fear of displeasing a God that can punish them for eternity. Their actions for others are a means to an end.

The second acts as though others are an end in itself.

I think that makes the second the more ethical person.

 

[jayem]

Of course, the person who acts out of love for his fellow man is ethically superior to the one acting out of fear of God. And if there really was a just and righteous God, he'd be more pleased with the first man, too.

 

[sidhe]

Equally ethical...the premise was the first man does what he does to please their deity, not out of fear of punishment. I'd call that "True Devotion to the Highest", if it comes with no threat of punishment, but only the desire to please. While perhaps not a rational reason, it's one out of love, and therefore good by me.

The other acts out of love for humanity. Also fine by me. Though we could read into it that he only acts to please other people because if he didn't, he'd get arrested for various acts of fraud and violence.

 

[nolongerhome]

Equally ethical...the premise was the first man does what he does to please their deity, not out of fear of punishment. I'd call that "True Devotion to the Highest", if it comes with no threat of punishment, but only the desire to please. While perhaps not a rational reason, it's one out of love, and therefore good by me.

The other acts out of love for humanity. Also fine by me. Though we could read into it that he only acts to please other people because if he didn't, he'd get arrested for various acts of fraud and violence.

Why does the first man want to please the deity?

I struggle to differentiate the desire to please the deity and the fear of the consequences of not pleasing the deity. Could you explain the difference?

 

[sidhe]

Why does the first man want to please the deity?

I struggle to differentiate the desire to please the deity and the fear of the consequences of not pleasing the deity. Could you explain the difference?

/sigh

Break free, for a moment, from the twisted notion of deity as some kind of cosmic abusive father, and consider the notion of deity as a lover - why do you want to make your lover happy? Is it not an end in itself? The presented scenario is "to please God"...not "to avoid punishment." Doing one does not imply the other without an a priori assumption of motive.

Why does the other person want to serve man? Again, one could just as easily put into the equation that he serves his fellow man because if he doesn't behave in socially pleasing and acceptable ways, he'll be a pariah at best and a criminal at worst. I see nothing in the situation as presented to assume either the religious individual is fearing punishment or the humanist is a closet sociopath. One, I assume, acts out of love for their God, and the other out of love for mankind, if all we know is they desire to cause pleasure. If the results are the same, I see no ethical difference.

 

[tulc]

Voted "They are equally admirable." Because as someone who never desired to live an ethical life it was the "wanting to please God" that carried me to the place of "wanting to do right by my fellow man".
tulc(just a thought)

 

[ebia]

Which is superior, someone who lives an ethical life because he wishes to please God, or someone who lives an ethical life because he wishes to do right by his fellow man. Both people would respond precisely the same way in any given situation, it is only their motivation that differs.

So, given that their acts are identical, which is superior, or are they equally admirable?

If they are properly understood the two are one and the same. Surely the whole point of the Judeo/Christian story is that God is acting to put right all creation through and for humanity and invites us to be part of that.
"Love the Lord your God... and love your neighbour as yourself" are inseperable.

Dangers lie with taking either on its own.

 

[Mling]

Desire to help man is superior. To serve man out of a desire to please God treats the person as a means to an end. Essentially they're using a human being as a convenient tool, and the 'service,' is really about themselves, and some other relationship.

Consider somebody dating you because they like you; versus somebody dating you because, even though they're really gay, they want to make their mom happy.

Or, me buying you a new sandwich after you accidentally drop yours, because I want you to have lunch; versus me being a waitress and getting you a new meal for free after you spill yours. The first is actually being nice, the second is good customer service, which helps out my boss by improving his reputation and, thus, income.

Altruism and admirability are inversely proportional to the number of ulterior motives.

 

[pgp_protector]

Point of order (IMO)
Wanting to Please God is not necessary acting out of Fear of God.

 

[nolongerhome]

/sigh

Break free, for a moment, from the twisted notion of deity as some kind of cosmic abusive father, and consider the notion of deity as a lover - why do you want to make your lover happy? Is it not an end in itself? The presented scenario is "to please God"...not "to avoid punishment." Doing one does not imply the other without an a priori assumption of motive.

Why does the other person want to serve man? Again, one could just as easily put into the equation that he serves his fellow man because if he doesn't behave in socially pleasing and acceptable ways, he'll be a pariah at best and a criminal at worst. I see nothing in the situation as presented to assume either the religious individual is fearing punishment or the humanist is a closet sociopath. One, I assume, acts out of love for their God, and the other out of love for mankind, if all we know is they desire to cause pleasure. If the results are the same, I see no ethical difference.

Ok, I can see how acting to please God doesn't necessarily mean acting out of fear of what God would do if you didn't please him...

But aren't we still left with a situation in which the person is treating other human beings as a means to an end, and not as ends in themselves?

 

[No Swansong]

If they are properly understood the two are one and the same. Surely the whole point of the Judeo/Christian story is that God is acting to put right all creation through and for humanity and invites us to be part of that.
"Love the Lord your God... and love your neighbour as yourself" are inseperable.

Dangers lie with taking either on its own.

Once again my friend you give voice to what I think but can't so eloquently express.

 

[sidhe]

Ok, I can see how acting to please God doesn't necessarily mean acting out of fear of what God would do if you didn't please him...

But aren't we still left with a situation in which the person is treating other human beings as a means to an end, and not as ends in themselves?

Your wife/husband/lover/partner likes seeing their child happy. You buy the kid an ice cream cone because it will make the child happy, but ultimately because it pleases your partner. Have you used the child as a means to an end, and is it any different than just buying the kid an ice cream cone because it make them happy full-stop?

ETA: See, ultimately what's making the deity happy is your own acts of kindness towards others...basically, you making them happy. So it is a situation where the end justifies the means.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Wow guys! This thread has already gone deeper and in directions far outside what I was expecting! Please continue...

 

[nolongerhome]

Your wife/husband/lover/partner likes seeing their child happy. You buy the kid an ice cream cone because it will make the child happy, but ultimately because it pleases your partner. Have you used the child as a means to an end, and is it any different than just buying the kid an ice cream cone because it make them happy full-stop?

ETA: See, ultimately what's making the deity happy is your own acts of kindness towards others...basically, you making them happy. So it is a situation where the end justifies the means.

Ok, so basically from here we have to say that we can't answer the original post without the further information of why each of the individuals wishes to please God/others - it is possible for both to want to please God/others in a way that uses others as means to an end and not ends in themselves.

The "act" is not what matters here, as you have displayed that the act can represent behaviour which is self serving or uses a good deed for other ends. I don't see how that could be considered ethically equal to someone that performs the same act for no other reason than to please another person - the full motive for the act needs to be known to make a judgement. There is a difference between buying a child an ice cream simply to please the child and buying a child an ice cream to shut them up, to make someone else happy, or for some other reason, if we are looking at this from the perspective of "superior ethics" which the original post outlined.

Therefore fact that the means of pleasing the deity is good doesn't really tell us about the ethics of that person - we can only know about their ethics if we know their motivation for pleasing the deity, so I would disagree that the "ETA" section provides us with an answer to the original problem.

I would argue that it is possible for Person B to be treating human beings as an end rather than a means, but that it is impossible for Person A to be treating human beings as an end, and therefore Person B has the potential to be acting more ethically than Person A, but doesn't necessarily do so.

I suspect there will be disagreement from some on that, notably those that beleive in the God that is being pleased - from an agnostic perspective, the human is the highest end, for the believer the highest end is God - the most ethical person is therefore the person that performs an act purely for the highest end. If we disagree what that end is, we will disagree in our answer to the original question (if we assume that both Person A and Person B are acting as though God/others are the highest end and that neither are acting in such a way for other ends, and I think we have to make that assumption otherwise we will get bogged down in the infinity of possibilities that represent those other potential ends).

 

[sidhe]

Ok, so basically from here we have to say that we can't answer the original post without the further information of why each of the individuals wishes to please God/others - it is possible for both to want to please God/others in a way that uses others as means to an end and not ends in themselves.

The "act" is not what matters here, as you have displayed that the act can represent behaviour which is self serving or uses a good deed for other ends. I don't see how that could be considered ethically equal to someone that performs the same act for no other reason than to please another person - the full motive for the act needs to be known to make a judgement. There is a difference between buying a child an ice cream simply to please the child and buying a child an ice cream to shut them up, to make someone else happy, or for some other reason, if we are looking at this from the perspective of "superior ethics" which the original post outlined.

Therefore fact that the means of pleasing the deity is good doesn't really tell us about the ethics of that person - we can only know about their ethics if we know their motivation for pleasing the deity, so I would disagree that the "ETA" section provides us with an answer to the original problem.

I would argue that it is possible for Person B to be treating human beings as an end rather than a means, but that it is impossible for Person A to be treating human beings as an end, and therefore Person B has the potential to be acting more ethically than Person A, but doesn't necessarily do so.

I suspect there will be disagreement from some on that, notably those that beleive in the God that is being pleased - from an agnostic perspective, the human is the highest end, for the believer the highest end is God - the most ethical person is therefore the person that performs an act purely for the highest end. If we disagree what that end is, we will disagree in our answer to the original question (if we assume that both Person A and Person B are acting as though God/others are the highest end and that neither are acting in such a way for other ends, and I think we have to make that assumption otherwise we will get bogged down in the infinity of possibilities that represent those other potential ends).

All quite true. If both are merely aspiring to their highest ideals, then there's no difference between them.

 

[Zaac]

Which is superior, someone who lives an ethical life because he wishes to please God, or someone who lives an ethical life because he wishes to do right by his fellow man. Both people would respond precisely the same way in any given situation, it is only their motivation that differs.

So, given that their acts are identical, which is superior, or are they equally admirable?

As a Christian, I am to be a servant and act in humility so I don't seek to ascribe superiority of one man over another.

Jesus Christ is superior.

I can tell you that the one who is saved, if either, is better off than the one who is not.

So can we surmise that one or both are Christians?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

As a Christian, I am to be a servant and act in humility so I don't seek to ascribe superiority of one man over another.

Jesus Christ is superior.

I can tell you that the one who is saved, if either, is better off than the one who is not.

So can we surmise that one or both are Christians?

Doesn't matter. They could both be Christians, or both be some other religion, or one could be religious and the other an atheist. Why does that matter?

 

[Zaac]

Doesn't matter. They could both be Christians, or both be some other religion, or one could be religious and the other an atheist. Why does that matter?

Are YOU a christian? If so, why are YOU asking people to make judgments about the moral superiority of one man over another when there can be no such thing?

Jesus Christ is morally superior and absent the indwelling of the HOLY SPIRIT, each man is as morally bankrupt as the next.

The Jesus Christ in a Christian is morally superior, but we certainly are not.

 

[Mling]

Given that so little information was given about *who* these hypothetical people are, I've been thinking of it as looking at which worldview or motivation was morally superior, not which human being.