A New Day

[Guest]

Ethics and morality is something that has troubled me for a long time. Not acting good, but knowing what is good has troubled me. Consequentialism is opposed to rights and duty. Deontology is opposed to maximizing the good. Virtue ethics is without power.

This search for truth has left me exhausted and depressed.

But I think I have come upon the truth: what is right is love and what is good is happiness. I have no grand arguments for why this is true, I have no rhetoric. All I can say is that God is Love, that all beings are the children of God, and life without God is insignificant.

These three duties are my simple morals:
Love the Lord your God.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
Always do good.

(Note: do not take this as a manifesto of Christian dogmatism, I still don't believe in a theistic God)

[Happy Camper]

*tacklehugs Kirby*

I concur! ^^

Although I sometimes have a weird perception of God. Because I translate God into creation, nature, and science. Even math. Everything works together cohesively and I get into moods where I can just stare at lady bugs or dandelions for hours. Everything is so big and at the same time everything is so detailed. I think admiration for existence is one of the primary ways I like to love God. And even just using the brain you have and appreciating the connections you have.

Most people don't think of me like this. Because I have pretty severe depression along with other mental problems. Where I just can't appreciate or love anything. But I don't like to think that my depression lense is any clearer than my so called "rose-colored glasses". Love and truth. Love.

[xcriteria]

That sounds sorta along the lines of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonism -- "The word eudaimonism comes from the Greek word for happiness (eudaimonia), and refers to any conception of ethics that puts human happiness and the complete life of the individual at the center of ethical concern."

[Rebelnerd]

but what if what causes happiness for one person causes unhappines for another? or if something that causes a person to feel happy is still bad for them, like drugs or stuff like that? if ethics are based on happiness, and everyone has a different view of what happiness is, then how can they really exist?

[habla]

i don't beleive in god. the weak beleive in god. oh no, we are all going to die tomorow, "oh it's god will, let us die."

fucking stupid if ya ask me

[Guest]

Rebelnerd Wrote:what if what causes happiness for one person causes unhappines for another

We must approach it with understanding. These situations must be taken case by case, in some it may be right to proceed, others it may not.

Rebelnerd Wrote:if something that causes a person to feel happy is still bad for them, like drugs or stuff like that?

Then they shouldn't do it. Things that are bad for you will cause you unhappiness later. Under this definition, not all things declared as bad habits are bad. Drugs aren't bad if not abused. If you accept yourself then obesity may not be.

Rebelnerd Wrote:if ethics are based on happiness, and everyone has a different view of what happiness is, then how can they really exist?

There is a difference between the right and the good. What is right is love, what is good is happiness. Act with love to create happiness. Agape is the same throughout all people, even though perceptions of happiness can differ.

xcriteria Wrote:That sounds sorta along the lines of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonism

I do value eudaimonia more than akrasia. I was walking to school one day and I realized the folly of seeking happiness without reference to the good life. We have a short span in this material body and we should try to create a happy life not just emotion.

I do not agree that morality is completely self centered. "Love your neighbor as yourself" implies that you should love yourself, but also love all others. You cannot love others if you do not love yourself.

habla Wrote:the weak beleive in god

I wouldn't be so sure. This is a false stereotype along the lines of the immoral atheist.

habla Wrote:i don't beleive in god

As I said, I don't believe in a theistic god AKA an omnipotent being. Here's a quote from something I'm working on:

"My description of God is this, Deus Caritas Est: God is Love. This love is not just emotion but a force that always exists and permeates the entire universe. This is the love that all souls return to when they die. This love is the Power, the pure Power and Love that all mystics have sought. But this power is not omnipotent because it is not a being, just a pure omni-benevolent energy."

[Happy Camper]

I don't do RPGs a lot but the one I do happen to be a part of on Matrix Online... My hovercraft happens to be the Eudai. We named it after that greek philosophy that was pointed out. ^^

Love isn't necessarilly happiness though. It certainly has a tendency to lead to happiness but love is not doing whatever makes everybody happy. An important line to draw.

As for God being for the weak, I am so sick of that argument. It makes it hard to be accepting of athiests. And I don't like it when people make it difficult for me to help understand them. I can put myself in a position to understand how a person would come to the conclusion that there is no god. But I won't stand for them insisting that their position and worldview is somehow superior to my worldview. Especially without a long argument bullet point by bullet point. I think respecting all worldviews is the best thing we can do.

[Guest]

Quote:love is not doing whatever makes everybody happy.

It depends what type of love. There are loves of friendships, football, and beer. There are loves of romance and drama. There is a love of helping people.

When I say love, I mean an all embracing love. This love (agape) is not just emotion but an act of courage. It is an act of defiance in the face of fear, hate, and suffering. This love tries to create happiness among all people. Not just transient and temporal happiness, but also inner peace, the joy of good deeds, and experience with the divine.

In the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul of Tarsus describes love:

1 Corinthians 13 (NIV) Wrote:Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

The Christ-man himself does too:

Quote:Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your father in heaven

From Sikhism:

Quote:Those who beat you with fists,
Do not pay them in the same coin,
But go to their house and kiss their feet.

[Happy Camper]

I agree with you there. Agape love is what I tend to think of when I think of love. I tell many people I love them. I sort of have to specify when it comes to romantic relationships. And it's actually created some confusion... But either way.

I see it as a sort of extension of compassion, a helping hand, and while I connect love with joy I don't always see it connect with happiness. Because joy and happiness are two distinctly different things in my mind. Like...being complimented makes me happy. Or watching a really good movie makes me happy. But accomplishment, service, and intentionally enjoying the small everyday things in life gives me joy. There are many instances where I am joyful and anything but happy. There's even more instances where I'm sort of happy but nowhere near joyful.

I associate love with joy, not necessarilly happiness. Happiness is almost a political thing. Joy is when you feel fullfillment and take delight in life rather than feel critical of it.

[Guest]

I see happiness as a grouping of related feelings. Joy, bliss, pleasure, and general happiness are in that group. I see compassion as an extension of love. Love is the drive behind goodness, compassion is drive behind good actions. We need to love people and want to help them. The love makes us want to help people, the compassion makes us aware that people need helping.

Compassion: a sense of shared suffering.

[habla]

Kirby Wrote:Compassion: a sense of shared suffering.

how is suffering related to compasion?

[Guest]

You feel compassion when you see people suffering. It motivates you to help.

[habla]

Kirby Wrote:You feel compassion when you see people suffering. It motivates you to help.

nvr thought of it like that

[SoulRiser]

... you ALL rock..

Seriously, that made a lot of sense, and you guys put it in words better than I think I could

[Rebelnerd]

Kirby Wrote:You feel compassion when you see people suffering. It motivates you to help.

not everyone. some people don't feel that, and get labeled sociopaths. but it still shows that morals are relative. you can't base a set of ethics on a human emotion if not all humans feel it.

[Guest]

Yes I can and I do. People may not have the ability to feel compassion in the body they have at the moment, but that doesn't mean they never will.

Also because Deus Caritas Est, we should have love and compassion.

[Happy Camper]

To not show compassion when appropriate probably has something to do with different brain chemistry. Everyone can get calloused from life experience or they can try and be cool in not feeling anything. But to really not feel any compassion gets you labeled as a sociopath for a reason.

You're fighting awfully hard to fight something that comes pretty natural among the majority. It's not like it's a set of rules that you have to abide by yourself (except for the law I suppose). It's mostly just culture. Why I get pissy with culture a lot, I don't mind a moral system at all. They're not completely absolute but they sort of almost are.

[Rebelnerd]

but even if its a result of abnormal brain chemistry, who's to say that the majority is any more "good" than the sociopath? if he doesn't feel compassion, for whatever reason, then he doesn't feel it. it doesn't make him any less of a human.

[Guest]

Nobody said that a person that can't feel compassion isn't a person.

[Happy Camper]

Her humanity isn't in question but her mental health most certainly is.

[Rebelnerd]

see, that's what i mean. who gets to decide what minds are "healthy" and whish ones aren't? as long as the "condition" isn't actually harming them, then can you really consider it a disease just because they're different? i thought this site was against that sort of thing. its much easier to say "free thought for all!" when the people you're trying to free agree with you.

[Guest]

Quote:who gets to decide what minds are "healthy" and whish ones aren't?

We have no choice not to. But just because someone is mentally unhealthy doesn't mean we should treat them like shit or stick them in an asylum. These people need our compassion. Love is not coercive or manipulative. You can't justify forceful imprisonment with love.

[Conack]

Just as a silent observer.

You make very well thought through posts Kirby - I'd like to congratulate and thank you for your valuable input all over the forum. It's very impressive.

[Guest]

Thanks.

[xcriteria]

Yeah, I second that, Conack.