Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey guys,

This is *not* a thread to concern the reality of religion but rather what motivates religious people to do "nice things".

For example: Aid workers or volunteers.

Do these people give up their time, or even their jobs, because they are deep-down good people? Or does religious motivation ultimately stem from some Ayn Rand-ish desire for self-gratification and ultimate reward in the afterlife? I thought about this to myself and wondered if it sort of skews the morality of such people... that is to say that if one only does good things because they are compelled to do so either by indirect coercion (of being sent to hell) or the seeking of paradise and the fulfilment of needs, then does that make them as selfless as a charitable person who is godless? Though, in the latter's case one could literally apply Ayn Rand's ideas on self-gratification.

Oh and since I mentioned her twice I feel it's prudent to point out that I hate Ayn Rand.

Be serious and be philisophical dakka, let's not have another thread where we slam religion.

As a Catholic, I should really help people, but I don't feel any inclination to above the irregular charity donations, and even they are down more to social reasons (for some reason you're thought of as somewhat of an evil person if you don't care, and whilst I don't care about the opinions of most people, I do care about those of a select few) than religious.

My personal feelings also play a part, but due to the very nature of the internet and the impossibility of stopping most people from making unwanted comments, I won't post them.

Best to not throw in the troll-bait...

What motivates me is the feeling that you only get one shot at life, which really hammers home the distress of being unfortunate in your birth; how falling out of one set of legs pretty much determines existence as you will know it forever (in my eyes at least). Thus those that aren't born as well-off aren't going to be able to expect much better without intervention from somewhere.

Unfortunately, a frugal realist has been growing in my mind the more the years pass by and that youthful passion toward combating injustices and such has just given way to plain apathy... So I dunno, it's a double-edged sword; on the one hand, the faithless are perhaps more compelled by the belief that the unfortunate will never find paradise, but on the other we have no real motivation to help them and no punishment awaiting us if we don't.

I used to give a monthly donation to the UN, but Uni suddenly became more important to me than Sudan. I do still entertain the desire to spend a year or so in Africa after Uni. If that sort of thing was considered obligatory in better off nations I think the world would be a better place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
However, my friend reckons that the arms trade would be a killer market and it's becoming hard to tell whether he's joking or not. Neither of us are religious.

What is a religious person? Is it simply a person that says that they belong to a religious group or is there more to it? Or less?

I honestly believe people do everything because they get something out of it, even if that something is just momentary reprieve from the guilt they invite on themselves by accepting artificial standards that have no basis in reality. Just my opinion, not meant to disrespect anyone. As to why people feel like they need the artificial standards? Fear and insecurity. Every religious debate I have comes down to "well, what if you die and go to hell?" I have no fear of an afterlife because I have no evidence an afterlife exists.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I honestly believe people do everything because they get something out of it, even if that something is just momentary reprieve from the guilt they invite on themselves by accepting artificial standards that have no basis in reality. Just my opinion, not meant to disrespect anyone. As to why people feel like they need the artificial standards? Fear and insecurity. Every religious debate I have comes down to "well, what if you die and go to hell?" I have no fear of an afterlife because I have no evidence an afterlife exists.

Besides apparently having been in very few decent debates about religious questions, it seems that you are arguing that morality or ethics don't actually exist (artificial standards). That is an incredibly simplistic stance to take. Morals and ethics are not imaginary friends belonging religious people. If that isn't what you meant you should clarify, as that is essentially the point you are representing.

The same thing that motivates non-religious person to do nice things, plus a bit of selfishness added in (as usually they believe they'll get something out of it in the end).

Not everyone who does nice things does them out of selfishness. But selfishness is a good motivator for humans, whom are evolved from animals whom developed in a world where selfishness is generally beneficial.

There is usually an element of self interest in most good deeds. Whether we gain joy and satisfaction from helping, or recognize that our society as a whole works better and more enjoyably when we help each other, and that's to our benefit too.

Pretty much every moral and ethical principle has sound, rational, beneficial reasons behind it. Being dishonest or selfish may be attractive in the short term, but rarely make sense or are advantageous or satisfying in the long term. Evolutionarily speaking, some of our big advantages over every other species are our abilities to communicate, work together, and trust one another.

I try to do the right thing for the reasons above, and to make myself a better person and one worthy of honor and respect. The gods and the honored dead give us examples to live up to, and show us the way, but I don't fear punishment. I believe punishment is a motivation unworthy of an adult human being.

Mannahnin stole my words. I try to follow the new testament as much as I can (I'm only human). I hope to reach a point where a good deed is a reaction that doesn't take a choice in my mind. My biggest issue is forgiving people I really want to hate, Like hitler and Klansmen. I mean what if Hitler repented and got into heaven, and was the model soul there. Could people let that go? What about seeing the guy that raped and murdered you and years later got saved. Even if there is no God or the happy happy peace Religion I follow is wrong and I burn in the bottom of hell itself. I'd still do good deeds.

Ahtman wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I honestly believe people do everything because they get something out of it, even if that something is just momentary reprieve from the guilt they invite on themselves by accepting artificial standards that have no basis in reality. Just my opinion, not meant to disrespect anyone. As to why people feel like they need the artificial standards? Fear and insecurity. Every religious debate I have comes down to "well, what if you die and go to hell?" I have no fear of an afterlife because I have no evidence an afterlife exists.

Besides apparently having been in very few decent debates about religious questions, it seems that you are arguing that morality or ethics don't actually exist (artificial standards). That is an incredibly simplistic stance to take. Morals and ethics are not imaginary friends belonging religious people. If that isn't what you meant you should clarify, as that is essentially the point you are representing.

Prove to me that they exist, and, if they do, what the magic gold standard is. That's not to say that I think morality or ethics are bad things or if we didn't pretend they existed that our society could even function for 20 minutes, I'm just saying the moment you try to define a belief like that you then develop an expectation for everyone around you. History is full of examples of one guy saying that everyone else should be "as good" as they are and causing more harm than good. Again, I have personal standards and lines I don't want to cross and believe everyone else should, but it's hard to prove anything too terribly specific (don't take my stuff, don't rape me, those kind of things standing based on "common sense"). And by "artificial standards" I was more referring to rules like how masturbation is evil, how people who are attracted shouldn't act on it unless they have matching parts according to someone else, how playing dungeons and dragons opens the door to demons stealing your soul and how you magically owe people in suits 10% of your income or else you're disobeying god.

No offence, but it sounds like whether or not you consider a standard "artificial" is entirely based on whether or not you agree with it.

Cannerus, I suggest reading a book on Ethics. My Freshman-level course many years ago used Jacques Thiroux's Humanitarian Ethics. I see the 9th edition of one of his texts is available on Amazon for less than $5.

http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Practice-Jacques-P-Thiroux/dp/0132302136

Your comments about religious teachings or tenets unrelated to "good works" are off topic for this thread, and kind of come off as a bit of a rude non-sequitur.

Well, most mission trips to help others I am involved in are about helping others because that's what we are called to do. To show the world that Christianity is about helping each other. We believe that by helping others we can show them the way to Jesus. By setting an example of selflessness.

But how is it selflessness if your only helping them to get them to see your God as the right one?

As for me? I don't tell help, couldn't be buggered.

Because there is no gain garnered.

Orkeosaurus wrote:No offence, but it sounds like whether or not you consider a standard "artificial" is entirely based on whether or not you agree with it.

I was more referring to things that go against our basic nature, or survival instinct especially. If I feel attracted to someone, it's because my body wants to do things with them. If I'm hungry, it's because I want food. Religion often says what you naturally desire is bad or sinful, as opposed to what you should do even though it's built-in and that's the part I really have issue with.

@Man: I've read a few but the issue I've seen is that your just supposed to take ethics on their own merit... cuz. I'm not trying to sound offensive, I'm just using real life examples to clarify what I meant. I'll try to stick more to the topic for future postings. I'll gladly take a few more suggestions for books and I'll keep an eye for that one.

@Slave: I gain nothing by blowing up the world, yet I could still do it and it wouldn't be good. If we get technical, scripture never even says "not gaining" is a positive thing. It even says giving your life is pointless unless you "have love" and that there's no greater gift than giving your life for a friend (specifically someone you already know). I'm very open to being wrong about this, but the idea of giving for it's own sake isn't supported by scripture.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Because there is no gain garnered.

Well, the immortal soul gains a ticket to heaven, no?


As for Cannerus, I don't see much that's offensive in what you say... it might be a bit edgy and people are within their rights to call it an "unqualified" opinion, it's not exactly an untapped school of thought.

I may have had a bit of a revelation. What people are really saying when they say they "gain nothing" is that they're trading physical, tangible benefits for intangible benefits of some sort (be they emotional, spiritual, etc.). It's considered generally noble because they're trading what is seen for what is unseen or may not really exist, thereby affirming belief. It's impossible to have something occur without something else happening (cause and effect) and therefore impossible to do something without having a change occur in you (which can be interpreted as positive because you willingly chose to do it in the first place). If you go old-school Catholic monk you could say you're purposely going to find ways to take pleasure out of stuff to eliminate what you gain, but ultimately that is self abuse and no doctor would call you the better for it.

Hopefully this comes out clear I can clarify if need be.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I may have had a bit of a revelation. What people are really saying when they say they "gain nothing" is that they're trading physical, tangible benefits for intangible benefits of some sort (be they emotional, spiritual, etc.). It's considered generally noble because they're trading what is seen for what is unseen or may not really exist, thereby affirming belief. It's impossible to have something occur without something else happening (cause and effect) and therefore impossible to do something without having a change occur in you (which can be interpreted as positive because you willingly chose to do it in the first place). If you go old-school Catholic monk you could say you're purposely going to find ways to take pleasure out of stuff to eliminate what you gain, but ultimately that is self abuse and no doctor would call you the better for it.

Hopefully this comes out clear I can clarify if need be.

I just poked my cat, It had no effect.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I may have had a bit of a revelation. What people are really saying when they say they "gain nothing" is that they're trading physical, tangible benefits for intangible benefits of some sort (be they emotional, spiritual, etc.). It's considered generally noble because they're trading what is seen for what is unseen or may not really exist, thereby affirming belief. It's impossible to have something occur without something else happening (cause and effect) and therefore impossible to do something without having a change occur in you (which can be interpreted as positive because you willingly chose to do it in the first place). If you go old-school Catholic monk you could say you're purposely going to find ways to take pleasure out of stuff to eliminate what you gain, but ultimately that is self abuse and no doctor would call you the better for it.

Hopefully this comes out clear I can clarify if need be.

The first part of your statement must apply to most everyone religious or not.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Prove to me that they exist, and, if they do, what the magic gold standard is.

They exist because we act as though they do. Whether or not those actions are based on objective standards is an entirely different matter.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
I'm just saying the moment you try to define a belief like that you then develop an expectation for everyone around you.

Not immediately. One can have a moral code that doesn't require others to adhere to it.

Everyone does "nice" things for some benefit to themselves. These benefits vary greatly and I don't think you can say any groups do it for one reason. Some of these will be feeling a sense of duty, some people do it because they are trying to get into heaven (or some similar alterative), others do it because it makes them feel good and some just do it because they are told to.

I agree with Cannerus. No one ever does anything selfless, altruism doesn't exist. You may be trading something physical for something that others can't see and measure but no one does things for no reason. There may seem like nothing is gained but giving to people stimulates your brain to be happy. Some people are more affected than others so some people are more altruistic. They aren't nicer people they are just getting something back that is impossible to measure.

Why should it matter if good deeds are done altruistically?

Isn't it more important that they are simply done?

I would go one step further to say that, as no one does anything without vested self interest, those who genuinely "want to make the world a better place" for no reason whatsoever, are at best getting the feelgood tinglies out of it, and at worst doing it in hopes that others will follow by example. No matter which way you look at it, it's the ends that count, not the motives.

Monster Rain wrote:Why should it matter if good deeds are done altruistically?

Isn't it more important that they are simply done?

It depends on what the person doing the deeds is aiming for. Let's A is going through financial crisis. He goes to B asking for a loan. B agrees to give him a loan, but depending on B's internal thoughts the objective good (helping someone in need) can be used as a springboard for objective evil. There are 3 general mindsets B could have had:

1] Give the money as a gift, releasing A from the duty of renumeration. If doing it for love of his ego, it'd be less of good act and more of an okay act.

2]Give the money as a loan, charging low or normal interest. If doing it for love of money, it'd be less of good act and more of an okay act or even a bad act depending on how much he loves money vs feels apathy towards A's suffering.

3]Give the money as a loan, charging outrageous interest or constantly blackmailing A. Changed to an evil act.

In short, good act + good intention=good deed, normal act + normal intention=normal deed, add evil/bad to any of the two components and you've got evil/bad.

~~Yzz

But you've changed the nature of the deed itself. As you say, 3 is not a good act.

If the deed is indeed a good one, is the exact motive for it all that important?

Monster Rain wrote:Why should it matter if good deeds are done altruistically?

Isn't it more important that they are simply done?

Depends what you view as good honestly. Some would say giving the homeless guy 5 bucks to eat is a good act. Others would say you're just encouraging him to not pick himself up and work for it. It all comes down to personal conviction more than anything. Do what you think makes the world a better place for whatever reason you deem appropriate and hope for the best is ultimately all anyone can do.

Mannahnin wrote:But you've changed the nature of the deed itself. As you say, 3 is not a good act.

Helping someone in need=Good act.
Forcing the one you helped into virtual servitude=Evil Act.
So B was doing a good deed to do an evil deed. He did a good act knowing that he could perform an evil act later (evil motivation).

Mannahnin wrote:If the deed is indeed a good one, is the exact motive for it all that important?

Yes. A fast food worker and a nice old lady might give both give food to a homeless person, but one is just doing his job and getting money for it while the other is giving out of her generosity. The worker has a normal motive and what he's doing isn't noteworthy, the lady has a good motive and what she's doing is noteworthy.
But if the "nice" old lady is giving out food just so that she gets some cred among her community...She's doing the same thing as the worker, exchanging a service (food) for material gain (popularity/praise).

~~Yzz

Yzz wrote:
Yes. A fast food worker and a nice old lady might give both give food to a homeless person, but one is just doing his job and getting money for it while the other is giving out of her generosity. The worker has a normal motive and what he's doing isn't noteworthy, the lady has a good motive and what she's doing is noteworthy.
But if the "nice" old lady is giving out food just so that she gets some cred among her community...She's doing the same thing as the worker, exchanging a service (food) for material gain (popularity/praise).

~~Yzz

I'm confused, are we assuming that the homeless man paid for the food in the first situation but not the second? In that case, you're comparing apples and oranges, because you're contrasting motive across different types of acts. With regard to the nice old lady, be it that she is or is not looking for something out of it, does that not change the fact that the homeless person was fed?

Further, why is wanting praise for doing something good make the deed any less good? If anything, you make a big deal about how much people praised you for making the world a better place, and maybe others will follow, looking for the same praise.

Finally, I do not believe that 'material gain' means what you think it means.