You Sad Pathetic Man...

[Econoline]

I don't think such universally expressed and believed principles as "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow" (Hillel) or "As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise" (Jesus) or "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself" (Confucius) or “As you would have people do to you, do to them; and what you dislike to be done to you, don't do to them" (Muhammad) require the existence of a God in order to discover or to understand.

[MajGenl.Meade]

My point is that a bird building a nest is doing something meaningful.

But is it? Does the bird think it is meaningful or do you think it is meaningful? I think there's often a confusion of usefulness or purpose with "meaning".

Obviously either I don't explain myself properly or my brain is in left field (no votes please!). If I may recap - the argument is made that life itself has "meaning" for some folks, even though they believe that death is the ultimate and final end for all.

I certainly do not dispute that statement - they feel a sense of "meaning" and it's not for me to dispute how they feel. 'They'll say about me when I'm gone, I moved the world just one step on' -they've done X number of good things to help others. Is it condescension to say that I admire that ethic; that many most or all such people may make better contributions than I do? My question is not "are they right?" - because for them they are right. I can see that.

What I have difficulty with though is the issue of value which is a vital component of 'meaning'. For something to have meaning it must have a value - positive or negative. Without value it has no meaning. A good act must be better than a bad act; it must be better than no act at all. When people (including me) are satisfied that their life has "meaning", they are not claiming to have happily done evil deeds. They regard their contribution as "good", "helpful", "kind", "progressive" and so on.

But what makes a "good" deed better than a "bad" deed"? Why are goodness, helpfulness, kindness and so forth better than their opposites?

The choices I think are:

a) because it is more useful to more people to be nice to each other - that is, it is purely utilitarian. Or "I like the results and so do X number of other people who agree with me" (I mean no offense by stating it baldly; it seems to me to be the ultimate meaning of the argument even if we don't mean it to sound that way)

b) because there is in the "good" an intrinsic value of worth regardless of how any individual person feels about it (as oldr put it, a universal)

...and Econo, I believe that two of the statements you quote are negative and commend no helpful, meaningful or positive action (Hillel and Confucius). Mohamed's is merely him reworking what (he regarded as a prophet) Jesus said. Jesus is the only one who recommends positive action - doing something for others that you would like them to do to you (whether they do or not is immaterial). And he thought the existence of God was exactly central to all of life, including understanding why one should do what he said.

I don't think that our discussing it is going to solve such things but I'd like to understand how others think that meaning (value) is assigned to acts. It's either each of us or some other than us. I think

Meade

[oldr_n_wsr]

others think that meaning (value) is assigned to acts

I am thinking along the lines of each situation is unique and it's value, while it shouldn't be compared to other "good deeds", we will always "rate" what we did.

That is, until one is confronted with multiple situations all at once and one can only tend to one of them, leaving the others to wither on the vine.

How does one rate deeds, I am thinking along the lines of what deed did the greatest good. But that's open to more value judgements

[Econoline]

...and Econo, I believe that two of the statements you quote are negative and commend no helpful, meaningful or positive action (Hillel and Confucius). Mohamed's is merely him reworking what (he regarded as a prophet) Jesus said. Jesus is the only one who recommends positive action - doing something for others that you would like them to do to you (whether they do or not is immaterial).

Okay then....

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." – Lao Tse (~6th century B.C.E.)

"O King, dharma is the best quality to have, wealth the medium and desire (kāma) the lowest. Hence, (keeping these in mind), by self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself." - The Mahābhārata (~8th/9th century B.C.E.)

"Recognize that your neighbor feels as you do, and keep in mind your own dislikes." - Ecclesiasticus 31:15 (~200 B.C.E.)

"Comparing oneself to others in such terms as 'Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I,' he should neither kill nor cause others to kill." - Sutta Nipata 705 (Buddhism, ~5th century B.C.E.)

"Be excellent to each other." - Bill and Ted (~prehistoric B.C.E./2688 C.E.)

"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated." - Sutrakritanga 1.11.33 (Jainism, ~7th century B.C.E.)

And it seems (at least to me) a rather simple logical leap from the negative to the positive form of the Golden Rule, once you start thinking in terms of applying your own preferences to other beings. For instance, if one accepts the Confucian principle "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself" it would be easy to see that Not having water when I'm thirsty is something that one would not choose for oneself. The principle that the negative of a negative is a positive does not require theology.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Thanks Econo - I like that!

[MajGenl.Meade]

My honest answer? I don't care. God is a myth.

Well I was assuming that was a given for you and Sean and some others. I was hoping not to have one of those "God" arguments. Given that there is no God (for the sake of the discussion), then can you 'splain to me if 'Meaning' (which is a value judgement, I believe) is intrinsic or extrinsic.

Is the "right thing" right because the thing in itself is right - or because X+1 number of persons agree that it is right?

Are x-10 number of people who disagree "wrong"?

It wasn't really a question about your disbelief in God. Just an attempt to get an answer to the basic question of how things are without any "god"

I thought you do care whether things have meaning or not - else why do anything?

Meade

[Joe Guy]

Is the "right thing" right because the thing in itself is right - or because X+1 number of persons agree that it is right?

Are x-10 number of people who disagree "wrong"?

You are looking too deeply and too far for something that is right in front of you, Grasshopper.

Nature shows us that all that is right is not necessarily unanimously agreed upon. When the lion eats the lamb it is right even though you believe the lamb may have had value in its wool or companionship.

The wind blows in many directions and knows not from whence it came.

Amen.

[dales]

The wind blows in many directions and knows not from whence it came.

~ The Phantom Windbreaker

[MajGenl.Meade]

Nature shows us that all that is right is not necessarily unanimously agreed upon

Oh OK, so you are saying (surely?) that things are "right" regardless of what people think? They have an intrinsic value and meaning even when no-one thinks so?

(Hey it is 'Philosophy and....' You'd expect some deeper thought, no?)

[Joe Guy]

Oh OK, so you are saying (surely?) that things are "right" regardless of what people think? They have an intrinsic value and meaning even when no-one thinks so?

Well, yes... maybe even if no one thinks so. What is right by nature is not something we decide.

[alice]

MajGenl.Meade

I don't think that our discussing it is going to solve such things but I'd like to understand how others think that meaning (value) is assigned to acts. It's either each of us or some other than us. I think

Well I was assuming that was a given for you and Sean and some others. I was hoping not to have one of those "God" arguments. Given that there is no God (for the sake of the discussion), then can you 'splain to me if 'Meaning' (which is a value judgement, I believe) is intrinsic or extrinsic.

Is the "right thing" right because the thing in itself is right - or because X+1 number of persons agree that it is right?

The 'meaningfulness' or otherwise that you are trying to argue, in the context that you are arguing it, only muddies the waters.

We can only use our knowledge, and our upbringing, our culture, our compassion etc to do what is 'right' in the context of our own lives.

What is more curious (I believe) is why you, on behalf of your religion, believe that there must always be a 'meaning' or a 'purpose' to everything. Why you can't accept that things can just 'be'.
I think it can demean a good act to be focussed on the meaning behind it. And by this what I am trying to convey is that if your reason - your meaning - for doing good acts is because you feel you are directed to by your religion, or you feel it will somehow help you to be in a better bargaining position with your maker when you die, then that - I think - reduces the 'value' of the good act that you have done.

That's not to say that many different religions have many different and worthy charities, and many good religious people (not just christians) devote huge great chunks of their every waking moment doing really good and worthy charitable acts.
But if the driving force - the meaning - is brownie points for their afterlife, then that's not so much coming from the heart, but instead coming from a selfish and self serving point of view.

The true measure, if there is such a thing, is whether the individuals are good of heart despite their religion. In other words, are they themselves good from the heart - would they still be good of heart and charitable etc whether or not they worshipped whichever religion they are choosing to worship.

So the 'meaning', if you must insist on one, should be along the lines of 'because I have compassion', or 'because I wanted to help', or 'because I saw this and couldn't turn away without trying to do something to alleviate/help' etc etc - not 'because of my religion' / 'because it is the teachings of my god' etc.
The "meaning" should be very "I" based - the focus should be on the individual and their goodness for goodness's sake. It should be from within.
The "meaning" should not be based on some higher authority than "I".

So I think that you are tangling the philosophy of 'doing good unto others' with the religion of it.
The argument of intrinsic or extrinsic 'rightness' in people (and in nature) is very different to the philosophy of being a good person.

As an example of what I'm trying to say, when those people ran to help the bomb victims at the Boston Marathon, did we have to question 'why' they ran to help? Did their religion, or even lack of it, come into the equation? And do we think their religious 'purpose' was at the forefront of their own minds when they ran to help? Or did we - and they - just think they were running to help because it was the 'right' thing to do?
Did it matter whether it was meaningful or meaningless, in whatever definitions you want to put when trying to interpret it from a religious standpoint? It was meaningful at the time to the people they helped, and to the people they provided temporary comfort to, and to the families of those people. It was a good thing they did, even without the helpers or victims or the families or anyone else needing to know anything about the religious persuasions of each other.

And I agree with Joe Guy :

You are looking too deeply and too far for something that is right in front of you, Grasshopper.

I also agree with:

What is right by nature is not something we decide.

...but i think that this is a different philosophical discussion, and again muddies the waters to for you (mr Meade) to try to include a discussion of it here as if it is in the same line as your querying of what is 'meaningful' in terms of good acts.

I hope that all made sense and was in tone with the discussion (Sometimes when i come in to a discussion so late I accidentally have my own tangent that's a bit out of step with what everyone's trying to say) .

PS:
Marcus Aurelius (Roman Emperor 121 - 180CE):
1/
“Live a good life.
If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by.
If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them.
If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

and
2/
“Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.”

[oldr_n_wsr]

But if the driving force - the meaning - is brownie points for their afterlife, then that's not so much coming from the heart, but instead coming from a selfish and self serving point of view.

my bold
Or, how do you act when no one is looking?

[MajGenl.Meade]

As an example of what I'm trying to say, when those people ran to help the bomb victims at the Boston Marathon, did we have to question 'why' they ran to help? Did their religion, or even lack of it, come into the equation? And do we think their religious 'purpose' was at the forefront of their own minds when they ran to help? Or did we - and they - just think they were running to help because it was the 'right' thing to do?

Thanks Alice. No, I don't question "why" they ran to help - I know why. Because it's the right thing to do. Those running to help were (in all probability) Christians, Moslems, Atheists, Buddhists, agnostics and not a one of them thought "oh my religion (or humanism or whatever) says I must".

My question is why is it the 'right' thing?

When Joe writes: "What is right by nature is not something we decide", I cannot help but see that as circular reasoning of some kind. How do we even know it is "right" unless we first decide that it is. 'Nature' decides nothing at all. Right is a moral judgement - not a measure of fitness for purpose in this discussion. Obviously a round peg is the "right" one to fit a round hole and a square peg is "wrong" but that's nothing to do with the moral life.

If OTOH (IF) Joe is defining "right" as "whatever happens" then of course he's inarguable correct - his definition excludes no thing and includes every thing. But the problem there of course is that the people who didn't help at Boston are as "right" as the people who did, and the bombers themselves are "right" because they thought they were.

The question remains (for me): what makes helping 'right' and 'bombing' wrong? Is it our deciding that - or an inate quality within the act?

Cheers
Meade

[alice]

After today I probably won't be back at the site (posting, at least) for a while - nothing to do with the forum; just the usual life stuff - I wish I had more time and envy those that do.

My question is why is it the 'right' thing?

When Joe writes: "What is right by nature is not something we decide", I cannot help but see that as circular reasoning of some kind. How do we even know it is "right" unless we first decide that it is. 'Nature' decides nothing at all. Right is a moral judgement - not a measure of fitness for purpose in this discussion. Obviously a round peg is the "right" one to fit a round hole and a square peg is "wrong" but that's nothing to do with the moral life.

If OTOH (IF) Joe is defining "right" as "whatever happens" then of course he's inarguable correct - his definition excludes no thing and includes every thing. But the problem there of course is that the people who didn't help at Boston are as "right" as the people who did, and the bombers themselves are "right" because they thought they were.

The question remains (for me): what makes helping 'right' and 'bombing' wrong? Is it our deciding that - or an innate quality within the act?

Many years ago I did psychology and sociology studies, and I remember similarly themed issues coming up in the sociology studies. It sparked a lot of debate, both verbal and written (through our assignments). We looked at it from sociological and philosophical standpoints, and within those contexts of course the religious aspect was discussed / studied. Of course we made reference to many past sociologists and philosophers who pondered these same themes - I don't remember most of them, or most of the buzz words we threw around in our discussions, but I do remember it was a fascinating discussion topic - far deeper than I had originally thought it would be.

And I see now that this is more the direction you are trying to take, and my response was therefore quite simplistic and I do apologise.
I wish I had the time to research and ponder and discuss it in the detail I think you wanted, because I think it's a good topic.

As a very quick response to reference to my example:
I think the people rushing to help, without thought = instinctive behaviour.
The people doing the bombing - they will think they were 'right' by the beliefs they had developed and the groupings they had started to associate and connect with = learned / acquired
However their actions are 'wrong' by the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of the society they are a part of, and by the laws of that society = learned / acquired.
That's essentially what I think based on my remembrances - but in focussing on my narrow example I don't think I'm really addressing the real issue you want addressed.

I think the road you are really trying to go down is one much (much) deeper and very well trodden by great and famous names from Plato to Socrates to Aristotle to ... Hobbes, Kant (and all in between - as I said, I don't remember most of them ).
I remember that the discussions of such things as intrinsic and extrinsic value, ethics and ethical principles / meta-ethics (good versus right etc), moral objectivity, universal values, cultural and moral relativities, natural laws and natural rights .... ummmm .... cultural paradigms (and some other paradigms - I can't remember) etc etc were all very heavy. I remember that there were whole dissertations and books and what have you on these themes. In the one sense we delved into it and felt that we were very deeply pondering it, but in the real sense we barely dipped our toes in the water and only studied specific passages of those great works - only enough to fulfil our assignments.
I really wish I had the time to chase up some of the works of those philosophers and sociologists and have a really good debate with you about it. I don't remember there really being an answer, as such, to the theories and ponderances that have been put forward by those past great names- I think the philosophical debate continues to this day in the higher philosophical (and to some degree, religious) circles - but it would have been a good piece of mental exercise to have 'dipped my toes in the water' with you.

I hope the above made some sort of sense, and I also hope I didn't derail the discussion between you and Joe Guy too much by bumbling in.

[Gob]

After today I probably won't be back at the site (posting, at least) for a while - nothing to do with the forum; just the usual life stuff - I wish I had more time and envy those that do.

We'll miss you Alice, come back when you can.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Alice - that's a lot of sense! And you're neither bumbling nor derailing - thank you. Echo Gob's message.

But sadly I have to add one of my own - my aunt just emailed from the UK that I'm to come at once as my mum, having been in hospital for a few weeks now, is failing. I'm flying out of SA on Emirates (oh dear) tomorrow (Friday) and although auntie says mum isn't likely to peg off in the next couple of days I am hoping to get there before she loses consciousness completely - mum, not aunt.

Anyway, I'll be out of touch for a time - happy May Day all around

Meade

[Sean]

I'm sorry to hear that Meade. Go well with my best wishes. You will be in my thoughts.

[Lord Jim]

Ditto Sean's comments, Gen'l.

[Big RR]

Indeed Meade; you will remain in my thoughts as well.

[oldr_n_wsr]

My best thoughts to you and your family.