Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Philosophy


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-09-2004, 11:15 PM   #1 (permalink)
Happy as a hippo
 
StormBerlin's Avatar
 
Location: Southern California
Pure Motives.

I did a quick search and didn't find anything. Just a quick question:

Do motives determine the validity of actions?

Like, if you saw a little kid drowning in a river and you knew his father was rich and would offer a reward and that is your only motive for saving him, does your good deed still count to you? What about God?

Do you think God cares about your motives, or that you just saved this poor kid from drowning and it doesn't matter why?

I have this theory that unless your motives are pure, then you shouldn't really perform the act of kindness. Like the other day, a lady who didn't speak English very well got her bronco stuck at a turning lane by my apt. Her transmission was shot so she wasn't going anywhere. I hopped out and helped because I wanted to help. The boyfriend and I got her out of the road and all that good stuff. And to be honest, I would have helped her just to get her out of my way but then my good deed wouldn't be as good. Follow me? I dunno, this is a question I've had for a while so if anyone has thoughts, feel free to share.

Jenn
__________________
"if anal sex could get a girl pregnant i'd be tits deep in child support" Arcane
StormBerlin is offline  
Old 08-09-2004, 11:31 PM   #2 (permalink)
Jarhead
 
whocarz's Avatar
 
Location: Colorado
The world needs as many acts of kindness as it can get, regardless of the motive.
__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel

Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius

Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly
whocarz is offline  
Old 08-09-2004, 11:38 PM   #3 (permalink)
Psycho
 
CoachAlan's Avatar
 
Location: Las Vegas
A good deed is a good deed regardless of the motive. The drowning kid in your example just wants to not be drowning any more, he doesn't care why you're pulling him out of the water.

Motivation has more to do with what you get out of your good deed. I mean what you get out of it mentally. If you do the good deed for greed (for example), the outcome could be positive or negative depending on whether you get rewarded. If you do the deed simply for the sake of doing good, however, you are always rewarded. Even if the outcome isn't what you hoped for, you can take a great deal of comfort in the fact that you were doing what you deemed to be the right thing.

I am decidedly agnostic, but as far as that part of your question is concerned, I would imagine God to be purely concerned with motive.
__________________
"If I cannot smoke cigars in heaven, I shall not go!"
- Mark Twain
CoachAlan is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 12:49 AM   #4 (permalink)
I change
 
ARTelevision's Avatar
 
Location: USA
I'm of the opinion that motives make no difference and that what matters is the outcome of one's acts.
__________________
create evolution
ARTelevision is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 01:10 AM   #5 (permalink)
Please touch this.
 
Halx's Avatar
 
Owner/Admin
Location: Manhattan
I believe motives, if they can be proven, should be admissable in court. However the whole bit about God is moot to me because I don't believe in such.
__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]
Halx is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 11:03 AM   #6 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
The lady with the Bronco doesn't care why you helped her. You helped her. Even if you had just been looking to get around her, in a city full of saints, you were her angels.

One thing we human beings are good at is invalidating the good things we do. It's hard to be with our better side, because we're so much more familiar with our negative side, so much more comfortable there. So we pull out all sorts of weird things to take the good things we do down a peg or two. "Oh sure, I did that good thing, but it was really just because of X". It's the same impulse that causes us to play down compliments and say things like, "Oh, this old thing? I've had it forever!"

Also, Hal, motives are definitely admissible in court. The difference between Homicide and the various degrees of Murder is the motive of the act.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 11:33 AM   #7 (permalink)
Happy as a hippo
 
StormBerlin's Avatar
 
Location: Southern California
Alrighty, now that I have a few opinions on the subject as a whole, what do you guys think about God's opinion of the whole thing? Does He care about motive?
__________________
"if anal sex could get a girl pregnant i'd be tits deep in child support" Arcane
StormBerlin is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 11:40 AM   #8 (permalink)
I change
 
ARTelevision's Avatar
 
Location: USA
Personally, I have no knowledge of the entity to which you refer.
__________________
create evolution
ARTelevision is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 11:42 AM   #9 (permalink)
Mad Philosopher
 
asaris's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
This is a question I've thought about a lot over the past 10 years -- it's probably the first real philosophical problem I ever grappled with, and I'm still grappling with it. But I think I may have learned something over the years.

If you believe an act to be good, you should do it, regardless of your motives. The act itself can still be good, even if you are not good for performing the act. Let's say I rescue a drowning child purely for the reward I expect -- I would not do it were the child's parents not rich. I don't think this is the sort of act you would (or should) praise me for, were you fully aware of your motives. But I should do it anyway, since the child benefits greatly from my actions.

Let me put it this way. The central goal in trying to live an ethical life is to become an ethical person -- this ought to be true whatever one's religion or lack thereof is, though some may describe it in other terms. A good person is the sort of person who is inclined to perform good deeds, for no other motive than the goodness of the deed. To clarify, other motives are allowed to be mixed in -- even the best of people, rescuing the child of a rich woman, is going to think "Boy, I hope I get a reward" -- but the central motive should be the goodness of the action. The action should be of the sort such that, were we to have no other motive other than the acts instrinsic goodness, we would still perform another act. (I think this is what Kant's getting at in the 2nd Critique, but that's another thread). But nobody starts off life virtuous. Even if you reject the Christian doctrine of original sin, you have to admit that the really good people, the people even you would be tempted to call 'saints' (or sages or gurus or buddhas -- whatever your ethical parlance might be) weren't born that way. They had to work at it.

So how do you work at being good? Well, you do the sort of things good people do. As you do the sort of things good people do, you will start to enjoy doing the sorts of things good people do; that is, they will become habits. And that's all virtue is; a good habit.

So I agree with Coach and Art that a good deed is a good deed, regardless of the motives. But I disagree that motive is irrelevant to the praiseworthiness or blameworthiness of an action. If you'll allow me an (admittedly extreme) example. Say I am trying to shoot and kill you, but in attempting this (I'm a bad shot. I missed the broadside of a barn once, I kid you not), I accidentally shoot another man standing behind you who was also trying to kill you. Are you going to thank me for saving your life? Probably not. And it's the praiseworthiness/blameworthiness of our actions that are the best guide (not an infallible guide) to the sorts of people we are.

edit:
[And, of course, while I was writing that thing Storm posts another question. So, really quick...

God does and does not care about our motives. What he wants is perfect people, and motive is important to being a perfect person, so to that extent, God cares about our motives. But on the other hand, none of us are perfect, and impure motives are a large part of this. But God in his grace forgives us anyway. So to that extent, God doesn't care about our motives.
__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Last edited by asaris; 08-10-2004 at 11:45 AM..
asaris is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 12:22 PM   #10 (permalink)
Sky Piercer
 
CSflim's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland
Dig deep enough and you will find that "pure motives" are very few and far between.
__________________
CSflim is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 02:30 PM   #11 (permalink)
Please touch this.
 
Halx's Avatar
 
Owner/Admin
Location: Manhattan
Quote:
Originally posted by ratbastid
Also, Hal, motives are definitely admissible in court. The difference between Homicide and the various degrees of Murder is the motive of the act.
I know.. I was just alluding to the original question. While I don't believe in God, I'd have to assume that if he knows your motives, he'll sentence you based on them. Gosh.. that God's a scarey guy.
__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]
Halx is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 03:22 PM   #12 (permalink)
* * *
 
This is such an absurd question to me that I have no way of answering. I've thought about this for a while now and this is the best I've got:

Actions are actions and have consequences. We can either act recklesses or pay attention to what the possible consequences are. We can decide which consequence is the most desireable.

Given that, I have no idea what God has to do with motives unless you decide that your morality is going to match something that you've read or been told. And purity is also a very subjective term.

The validity of actions are measured by the actors, those acted upon, observers, and those who have information of the actions mediated to them. The only way to understand validity, then, is to see how each of these parties react to the action.

I think the thing about this thread that is absurd to me is that it hinges on the belief of an absolute morality, and that everyone knows what that is. The next absurdity is that for an action to be "pure" means that you aren't supposed to benefit from it in anyway. It seems to me that the purest actions can actually be the most selfish.
__________________
Innominate.
wilbjammin is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 07:37 PM   #13 (permalink)
Happy as a hippo
 
StormBerlin's Avatar
 
Location: Southern California
Quote:
Originally posted by wilbjammin
This is such an absurd question to me that I have no way of answering. I've thought about this for a while now and this is the best I've got:

Actions are actions and have consequences. We can either act recklesses or pay attention to what the possible consequences are. We can decide which consequence is the most desireable.

Given that, I have no idea what God has to do with motives unless you decide that your morality is going to match something that you've read or been told. And purity is also a very subjective term.

The validity of actions are measured by the actors, those acted upon, observers, and those who have information of the actions mediated to them. The only way to understand validity, then, is to see how each of these parties react to the action.

I think the thing about this thread that is absurd to me is that it hinges on the belief of an absolute morality, and that everyone knows what that is. The next absurdity is that for an action to be "pure" means that you aren't supposed to benefit from it in anyway. It seems to me that the purest actions can actually be the most selfish.
I'm sorry you feel my question is absurd. I give you my permission not to answer any more of them.

Alrighty guys, this question had a part in it about God. If you don't believe in God, then don't answer the question. I don't want responses that are "Personally I have no knowledge of the entity to which you refer". If you don't want to answer the question, then don't. Responses like that don't help me out any.
Thanks.

Oh, and asaris. You have an insight that is close to mine.

Jenn
__________________
"if anal sex could get a girl pregnant i'd be tits deep in child support" Arcane

Last edited by StormBerlin; 08-10-2004 at 07:45 PM..
StormBerlin is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 07:47 PM   #14 (permalink)
* * *
 
Quote:
Alrighty guys, this question had a part in it about God.
I think you're missing my point that even if there is a God, that an absolute morality that everyone can still agree upon doesn't exist. To talk about "pure" intentions as an absolute doesn't take into account the variability of personal interpretations.
__________________
Innominate.
wilbjammin is offline  
Old 08-11-2004, 11:37 AM   #15 (permalink)
Mad Philosopher
 
asaris's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
Wil -- I don't think my response depends on the notion of an absolute morality. In fact, I rather hope it doesn't, because I don't believe in an absolute morality, at least, what I assume you mean by an absolute morality. And my position explicitly does not depend on motives being 'pure'. Could you perhaps clarify exactly what it is you are objecting to?
__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche
asaris is offline  
Old 08-11-2004, 04:31 PM   #16 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Morals are guidelines for behavior that generally keep you behaving in accordance to what you believe is good on a very base level. If you save the little boy becuase you want the rewards you're bound to recieve, then not only did you do a deed with great results, but you did something that was in line with your beliefs. To yourself, it depends on how much working for your own interests is a valid reason for doing things, and to what standards you hold yourself to.

As for god, if you either live your life well or your intent for all the bad actions were pure in that they were true to yourself, then I think your set, because you'll either be forgiven or given a thumbs up. Thus concludes my simple bit of feedback.
Xell101 is offline  
Old 08-11-2004, 04:38 PM   #17 (permalink)
* * *
 
Quote:
Originally posted by asaris
Could you perhaps clarify exactly what it is you are objecting to?
yes -

Quote:
Originally posted by StormBerlin

I'm sorry you feel my question is absurd. I give you my permission not to answer any more of them.

Alrighty guys, this question had a part in it about God. If you don't believe in God, then don't answer the question.
I wasn't complaining about what you had said. I did not quote you.

I can tell you specifically what I was complaining about:

I had said that "I think the thing about this thread that is absurd to me is that it hinges on the belief of an absolute morality, and that everyone knows what that is," because we have no access to what a unified God thinks or would think. To talk about "purity" and what a God would want having some sort of relationship is a hard leap for me to make. There are many different Gods and interpretations of Gods and as many definitions of what those things are that would be the "most good".

I just don't think there is a purity standard, and certainly a teleological one.

There are other problems too, such as the increasing dependency created by globalization and the shared guilt for the problems happening around the world. We talk about intentions, but what about unintentially doing things that contribute to a destructive, oppressive system? Is it ok to buy a pair of pants on sale at the Gap knowing that those pants were manufactured in a "Free Trade Zone" on the coast of Kingston, Jaimaica by ethnic Chinese-Filipinos who were flown in by the companies to undercut the wage expectations of the local Jaimaicans that are barely getting by? Certainly, there is just so much going on the in the world now that is so complicated that it is very difficult to make a choice that isn't clouded by the system we live in.

It is also strange to me that some of the examples used focus on material wealth. Is what is good dependent on economies and the collective value placed on the meaning of ownership?

Forgetting God... since I can't speak for God and have no access to what a God would or wouldn't want, if anything... I would personally define a pure action as an action of specific sort of humanitarian rebellion. Example: Martin Luther King Jr. and Thoreau's civil disobedience have, to me, the purest kind of intention possible. To act against injustice without any material benefit to you appeals to my sense of humanity. At the same time, I'm sure Thoreau and King felt an intense need to go through with this acts for a sense of personal consistency with their ethics and morals.

That is the "most good" kind of action, I can think of.
__________________
Innominate.
wilbjammin is offline  
Old 08-11-2004, 06:21 PM   #18 (permalink)
Insane
 
I think this is a personal choice. there is no a catagorical answer. well unless you are Kantian in your moral

anways, there are many ways to look at it.
I'm going to try to do it wihtout the subject of God as it complicates the issue greatly in my opinion so this is a non-god answer to your questoin.. hope that doesn't defeat the purpose completely


To aristotlian (i can't spell for crap -__-), i think it's the matter of consistency thus, your actions are defined by habbits not the motive at the moment. thus your moral righteousness as a person is defined by how well you are educated/trained since youth to perform acts of sobriety as habits. he believes a accidental performance of good acts doesn't mean anything. thus you can also argue, your motives are really important in that aspect.

*** to aristotle, to save the kid is what you are taught to do. if you are ethical, you will do what is right without a second thought regardless of you motive. you are taught to do so and you will as excellance is a habbit...

moving forward in time, in the enlightenment age, as i pointed out earlier, the dominent moral would be Kantian. In the kantian sense, dicipline and absolutism is the game. "Act only on a maxim that you can will to be a universal law." your motives are especially important because through every decision you display your ethics and ability to act thrgou hte catagorical imperitive.

*** to kant, saving a child is regardless of his statue. you save a person from drowning regardless of who they are. it is a "sin" to let a criminal to drown as to let a child drown. motives are important but laws are nevertheless absolute in the Kantian sense. thus you have to save the boy regardlessly

if you move to Marxist and Mill's utilitarian type of moral, they deal more with politics... so i probalby should mention it here. but to Mill's and Marx, it is also important to understand you motives.

*** Marx would say your doubt in helping someone for an reward itself may be unethical because it is a form of alienation from another person.

*** Mill's would say saving hte boy is a great thing even if your motive is money because it's a win win thing. you are happy, he is happy. *i love mill :P * as long as your action brings the most amount of happiness to the most people, it's a good action.

my knowledge on ethics and moral is very limited as i'm only graduating from high school this year -_- if you want more ino:::
http://www.iep.utm.edu/

hope that helps
orphen is offline  
Old 08-11-2004, 07:26 PM   #19 (permalink)
Happy as a hippo
 
StormBerlin's Avatar
 
Location: Southern California
Quote:
Originally posted by Xell101
Morals are guidelines for behavior that generally keep you behaving in accordance to what you believe is good on a very base level. If you save the little boy becuase you want the rewards you're bound to recieve, then not only did you do a deed with great results, but you did something that was in line with your beliefs. To yourself, it depends on how much working for your own interests is a valid reason for doing things, and to what standards you hold yourself to.

As for god, if you either live your life well or your intent for all the bad actions were pure in that they were true to yourself, then I think your set, because you'll either be forgiven or given a thumbs up. Thus concludes my simple bit of feedback.
Wow. That makes perfect sense. Especially the part of it being in line with your beliefs. If I feel ok with just saving the kid to get the reward then that's my belief and it's totally cool.

Awesome insight about God too.
__________________
"if anal sex could get a girl pregnant i'd be tits deep in child support" Arcane
StormBerlin is offline  
Old 08-11-2004, 09:04 PM   #20 (permalink)
lascivious
 
Mantus's Avatar
 
StormBerlin,

Pure motive? Nothing is done without a reason and I believe that every motive is selfish. Even if one does not expect anything in return, one will still do kind things because it feels good. Thus one’s motives are always selfish.

That aside, it doesn’t matter what one’s motives are. The important fact is the impact of kindness on the person receiving it.

In my opinion an act of kindness is one where one doesn’t ask for anything in return otherwise it would be performing a service.

As for the issue of how such things would look in the eyes of God; we can only answer the question if we actually understand God.
Mantus is offline  
Old 08-12-2004, 04:55 AM   #21 (permalink)
Delicious
 
Reese's Avatar
 
I was under the impression that Greed was one of the 7 deadly sins. I really don't think doing something solely for a payment is wrong. I think if yourmotive is for an earthly reward, don't expect a heavenly reward for it. I wouldn't think that God would count your Deed for payment against you, but I doubt it helps.

Also, if you are hoping for a payment, but there's only a small chance you'd get one then you're gambling, which is also a sin.. according to most people
__________________
“It is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick” - Dave Barry

Last edited by Reese; 08-12-2004 at 05:01 AM..
Reese is offline  
Old 08-12-2004, 05:56 AM   #22 (permalink)
Happy as a hippo
 
StormBerlin's Avatar
 
Location: Southern California
All of these posts have answered my question in one way or another. thanks guys Keep discussing, I want to learn more.
__________________
"if anal sex could get a girl pregnant i'd be tits deep in child support" Arcane
StormBerlin is offline  
Old 08-12-2004, 07:47 AM   #23 (permalink)
Mad Philosopher
 
asaris's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
orphen -- Don't worry, I have the worst time with Aristotlian myself. Anwyay, my position is essentially an Aristotlian one, with a few alterations (it's really Scotist, with some Nietzschean tweaks, if you really want to know). And, IIRC at least, motives are one of the three features of right action in Aristotle.

cybermike -- yes, Greed is one of the 7 deadly sins, but anger is also listed among them. There are situations where anger is justified or even required. I doubt that exactly the same applies to greed, but we do have obligations to ourselves and our families that require material possessions to satisfy. So the desire for material wealth is not, in itself, bad. But the desire for material wealth as such, without the corresponding desire for what wealth can do for you (support Habitat for Humanity, send your kids through college, allow you to get to work), is "the root of all kinds of evil" -- it's very easy to get corrupted in a situation where the accumulation of wealth is your chief value.

Wil -- But according to the Christian belief system, we do have access to what God thinks. It's called scripture. And I don't know that the fact that the world is complicated means we can't say very general things about certain easy circumstances; these thoughts about easy circumstances can help us with the more difficult ones. It's important to remember that the ethical sphere is very complicated, and that's among the reasons we should be hesitant to judge someone's actions (Paul writes: "I do not even judge myself!"). Among my mottos is "Towards epistemic humility!", and that applies in the ethical sphere as well.
__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche
asaris is offline  
Old 08-12-2004, 09:43 AM   #24 (permalink)
Insane
 
wait does that mean i can't eat shrimps anymore God says no.. i guess..

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

i love shrimps/lobsters though

[/joke] sorry if i offended anyone... these are true passages though~
orphen is offline  
Old 08-12-2004, 10:43 AM   #25 (permalink)
lascivious
 
Mantus's Avatar
 
Asaris,

Quote:
So the desire for material wealth is not, in itself, bad. But the desire for material wealth as such, without the corresponding desire for what wealth can do for you (support Habitat for Humanity, send your kids through college, allow you to get to work), is "the root of all kinds of evil"
One never wants wealth and power just for the sake of having it. Such things are always pursued to raise one’s social standing. A carpenter would say “behold I can make tables”, a stock broker would say “behold I can make money”. If one can do something, which others cant, then society presumes that such an individual is worth more. Social climbing is a primal driving force that most human being are born with. Its primary goal is to ensure procreation and survival of one’s offspring.
Mantus is offline  
Old 08-12-2004, 12:03 PM   #26 (permalink)
Crazy
 
does a good deed fall in quality if you gain from it?
is being good being selfless?

i think those are the questions you were wondering about.
According to the bible, good people will live good lives in heaven. Would a good persons deeds be less good if the only thing motivating him to be good is his belief of a good afterlife? I dont think so, a good deed is a good deed regardless of motivation. If the deed benefits other people then it wouldnt really matter if you gained from it somehow. Lets just say, the good deed you did, somehow inspired someone else to do a good deed that affected you somehow. Just because you were expecting it, doesnt make your deed less good.
TawG is offline  
Old 08-12-2004, 10:26 PM   #27 (permalink)
Delicious
 
Reese's Avatar
 
asaris, Greed/Avarice by definition is "An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves."

Righteous anger is not a sin. Wrath is excessive anger. Being angry over something longer than required, and/or seeking revenge where it's not necessary.

Of all of the sins listed in and out of the bible, "excessive" is right there before every one of them.

I say that letting a child drown just because you aren't getting a reward to save him is excessive desire.

orphen, Jesus abolished MANY sins of the old testament. The only problem is that they weren't well documented and now we have belief that eating pork and lobster is all well but being homosexual is still an abomination. I don't know if it's still a sin or not, It doesn't much matter to me because it's not by place to judge them.
__________________
“It is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick” - Dave Barry
Reese is offline  
Old 08-13-2004, 06:53 AM   #28 (permalink)
Mad Philosopher
 
asaris's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
To contribute to Mike and Orphen's discussion -- traditionally, the laws considered to be 'abolished' are the purity laws -- those laws dealing with ritual cleansing, clean and unclean foods, and the like. Also sacrifices.

Mantus -- I suspect you're wrong in the case of money, but I don't have an argument. I have to disagree, though, when you say that "such things" are always pursued for the sake of social standing. Certainly there are many other reasons people pursue money and power?
__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche
asaris is offline  
Old 08-13-2004, 08:21 PM   #29 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally posted by orphen
wait does that mean i can't eat shrimps anymore God says no.. i guess..

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

i love shrimps/lobsters though

[/joke] sorry if i offended anyone... these are true passages though~
you are quoting old testement laws. Before Jesus died these laws were so strict that no one could get into heaven (even Jesus himself went to hell when he died). Jesus died on the cross in order to gain man forgivness and provide man a path to heaven through belief in himself. He is the one way and only way to heaven as stated in john 3 16
Rekna is offline  
Old 08-13-2004, 09:42 PM   #30 (permalink)
More Than You Expect
 
Manic_Skafe's Avatar
 
Location: Queens
The power in a symbol lies in how it's interpreted - without a meaning behind a symbol a symbol is worthless. The same rule applies to any action done for any reason. For every action there's an infinte spectrum of meanings behind thea ction - surely none of these meanings are any more right than the others because without the interpretation of the act, the act is meaningless.

I believe in judging the reasoning behind the action more than the action itself - if you had to steal a dollar to buy bandages for a penniless and homeless man then as a whole, your actions aren't wrong at all.

Everything is relative.

From the Christian perspective of it all, there's no reason to get into the scriptures and such great detail. Jesus establishes himself as the "truth, the light, and the way" and thus creates absolute truths - with that said, certain actions are wrong regardless of the meaning behind them and others are right. Adulterers do not pass go or collect $200.
__________________
"Porn is a zoo of exotic animals that becomes boring upon ownership." -Nersesian

Last edited by Manic_Skafe; 08-13-2004 at 09:48 PM..
Manic_Skafe is offline  
Old 08-13-2004, 10:19 PM   #31 (permalink)
* * *
 
Quote:
For every action there's an infinte spectrum of meanings behind the action - surely none of these meanings are any more right than the others because without the interpretation of the act, the act is meaningless.
There may be an infinite number of possible meanings, but often the actual number of meanings created that people actually latch onto are few.

Quote:
I believe in judging the reasoning behind the action more than the action itself
How can you do that? What if the reasons I tell you are lies? What if I'm deceiving myself and I tell you those self-deceptions? What if there are several reasons about an action, and some are good and some are bad - but I only let you know about the good ones? What if someone tells you that the reasons that someone else does something is completely different from the real reasons?

There is a kind of solipsistic trap here. We can only know so much, and analyzing what someone says is important - but looking at the consequences of actions, and particularly the deliberateness of those actions are much more crucial in my opinion.
__________________
Innominate.
wilbjammin is offline  
Old 08-13-2004, 11:10 PM   #32 (permalink)
More Than You Expect
 
Manic_Skafe's Avatar
 
Location: Queens
Quote:
Originally posted by wilbjammin
There may be an infinite number of possible meanings, but often the actual number of meanings created that people actually latch onto are few.

How can you do that? What if the reasons I tell you are lies? What if I'm deceiving myself and I tell you those self-deceptions? What if there are several reasons about an action, and some are good and some are bad - but I only let you know about the good ones? What if someone tells you that the reasons that someone else does something is completely different from the real reasons?
With this belief the popular opinion is exactly what I'm trying to escape - just because a certain view on a particular action is felt by a large number of people doesn't mean that the popular opinion becomes the universal truth for everyone.

The idea is certered upon the premise that there is no one universal truth but several equal perspective truths.

Quote:
How can you do that? What if the reasons I tell you are lies? What if I'm deceiving myself and I tell you those self-deceptions? What if there are several reasons about an action, and some are good and some are bad - but I only let you know about the good ones?
Then I will percieve what you are telling me to be good or bad by comparing it to my own defintions of the terms and determine whether your action and the reasoning behind your action was just or not.

Quote:
We can only know so much, and analyzing what someone says is important - but looking at the consequences of actions, and particularly the deliberateness of those actions are much more crucial in my opinion
But to a homeless man who rapes a woman and gets 16 years in better conditions than a homeless life it isn't much of a punishment - is it? Or what about the "crazy" homeless man who rapes a woman and doesn't even view his actions to be wrong? To him his actions were justifiable - to him, he isn't crazy.. Do you get the point I'm trying to make here?

It's all relative.
__________________
"Porn is a zoo of exotic animals that becomes boring upon ownership." -Nersesian

Last edited by Manic_Skafe; 08-13-2004 at 11:13 PM..
Manic_Skafe is offline  
Old 08-14-2004, 08:08 AM   #33 (permalink)
* * *
 
Quote:
But to a homeless man who rapes a woman and gets 16 years in better conditions than a homeless life it isn't much of a punishment - is it?
Assuming that the goal of imprisonment is punishment and not public protection. I know that you're saying that you'd like to escape the trap of the limitation on the possible amounts of meaning for symbols - I just don't think that it is escaped easily.

As I often say when giving advice about failing relationships, "Potential is just potential, that doesn't mean anything truly can or will come of it."

And my other point is that there is a major problem with essentialism. Like with your rapist example: we can't determine exactly why he's doing what he's doing - we make inferences and guesses that can often be wildly uninformed. By trying to understand motives as the basis of decision-making, I think we open ourselves to misinterpretation.

Paying attention to consequences provides us with a decision-making platform that involves less guesswork (usually). So, for your rapist example. We can't tell if he's crazy, if he knew what he was doing was harmful - but, we know that rapists often rape again, so, for the protection of society he should be taken off of the streets. He can then be taken to a psychologist, possibly medicated and put in therapy, or simply locked away where he can't hurt people. Society, and this rapist, are better off because of it - is that bad? From that standpoint, it isn't nearly the guessing game as determining motives would be.
__________________
Innominate.
wilbjammin is offline  
Old 08-16-2004, 03:32 AM   #34 (permalink)
Delicious
 
Reese's Avatar
 
Ok, I was just reading this:

Quote:
Matt 23:5 "But all their works they do to be seen by men."
Quote:
Matt23:12 "whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted"
Matthew 23 deals with motive alot.
Quote:
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation."
Sure the person may have felt better now that someone has done something good for them, but they were selling you something that you should have got for free.

Read it here: http://www.bible-history.com/pharise...Matthew_23.htm
__________________
“It is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick” - Dave Barry
Reese is offline  
Old 08-16-2004, 04:19 AM   #35 (permalink)
Oh dear God he breeded
 
Seer666's Avatar
 
Location: Arizona
Quote:
Originally Posted by StormBerlin
I did a quick search and didn't find anything. Just a quick question:

Do motives determine the validity of actions?

Like, if you saw a little kid drowning in a river and you knew his father was rich and would offer a reward and that is your only motive for saving him, does your good deed still count to you? What about God?
Alright, how about this take? You see the kid drowning in a river and you stand there and let him drown, because you kNOW that kid is Hitler and you know what he will be come? If the deed still pure? "Purity" of motive is meaningless. The only thing that matters is do you think what you are doing is right in the end, and are you willing to take responsiblity for your action, or lack there of. Do what you feel is right, do what what you feel is just, and understand that what you do will not always look good to others. About the best you can do. And thoughts of God should never motivate and action. If you are doing something just to earn brownie points in the afterlife, you are doing them for the wrong reason.
__________________
Bad spellers of the world untie!!!

I am the one you warned me of

I seem to have misplaced the bullet with your name on it, but I have a whole box addressed to occupant.
Seer666 is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 11:09 PM   #36 (permalink)
Upright
 
Location: Highlands of Scotland
if u need to gain by doing a good deed before u do it then ur an imo a sick person. If u see someone in the street that needs help and think, damn i cant help ill be late for work, then that is ur choice but to the majority of people you would be an example of the ill of this world. same if u thought to urself, well im not going to gain by helping, thats ur CHOICE but ur still the kind of person this world as a whole doesnt need. If u see a person needing help and think, damn they need help, then u are worthy of being called a Human Being.
Zdragva is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 11:17 PM   #37 (permalink)
Upright
 
Location: Highlands of Scotland
guys why should an after life affect ur actions, thats just an example of yet selfish actions, you believe that by doing good you will be rewarded, just after u die instead of during ur life. what we should aspire to be is the best we can. I was born with gift of being a Human, i dont want to disgrace the gift of intelligence etc. by going about thinking about gain all the time. sure there are those people who say, well u only live once, and as urself why should anyone else matter? and to be honest others dont, really, what matter is the thought, the ideal, the principle behind being a human being. it might be slefish to try and bring a sense of decency to us as a whole but i see us as a miracle, really, god or no god, we should each try and attain that which we know nothing of, to be humane. i dont know what being a human being is ultimatly about yeah i can still try and achieve the best for me, and by doing that i havetried to achieve the best a human (this human) could and i bring a collective betterness to us as a whole, thats what i believe anyway. Mankind, human beings whatever, we must strive to be the best, not to help grannies, but to be everything being human is truly about. you know what the epitome of being human is, we all do really. even if we cant word it. deep within ourselves there is something about us that is great, we know this regardless of the social quicksand we have surrounded ourselves in. even if we go extinct soon, within 100 years, if we try to be the best humans or we try to furthar the philosephy of humanity then it will all be ok.
Zdragva is offline  
 

Tags
motives, pure

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:21 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360