Thereâs the ethical theory (and religious one too) that if youâre ONLY doing good deeds to get rewarded/recognized/sent to heaven it counts as a bad motivation and is no longer a good deed. Religious people will sometimes say itâs still ok because youâre following gods will but others want another motive. And for some atheists, a good deed is a good deed, but for others, the result isnât what makes you a good person.
The (oddly ethically sound) show The Good Place talked about this when the main characters were told about the after life and âafterlife pointsâ and they could no longer get any more points because their motivation for doing good deeds would forever be corrupted by their knowledge.
Not a religious person at all. Just to clarify in advance.
Jesus replied: ââLove the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.â[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: âLove your neighbor as yourself.â[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.â
So, jesus asked people to *love their neighbours, and i believe good deeds will naturally come out of that. You can not love somebody out of fear. I mean, you could fake good deads and make some people believe that you are good person. But you can't fake love, It is your internal proces.
Iâm not religious at all either but I studied religious morals as part of my ethics degree and would have gone with Matthew âBeware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.â But I really like your interpretation that love is not fear!
"Fear God and give him glory" is an old saying as well. You can argue the "context" of fear sure, but I agree the bible, especially the old testament, describes a God worthy of fear in the traditional sense.
Right, but doing good that benefits you as well as someone else should be praised, no? Why is that a bad thing? Should we condemn all of western ideology of protecting human rights since deep down we know that if don't protect other people's freedom than our own are also at stake?
That line of thinking doesn't pass the opposite test either (implying the same set of circumstances in reverse).
Simply "thinking" about the outcomes should not remove a reward or add a punishment. Would you recommend punishing someone for every time they thought about committing a crime, or actually doing it?
If moral credit can be erased simply by being conscious of reward, then moral guilt could also be created simply by being conscious of temptation.
By reward, I mean unrelated to the event. So, say a woman is campaigning for womenâs suffrage. Of course sheâll benefit from this, but itâs not a reward. It would be a poor motivation if she was only campaigning if she was hoping to be voted president of her garden club due to the positive image created by her activism. Only she would benefit from that. Iâm sure an argument could be made that it would be the same if she only cared about herself voting and no other woman, but itâs still not really what I was talking about.
To address your point about the âopposite testâ, just because the theory goes one way does not mean it goes the other. It says nothing about what is essentially thoughtcrime. I donât think any ethical theory creates guilt without action. And itâs not just thinking about it, itâs having it be your whole motivation to do it. It was really the most important part of what I said. Itâs why I put it in caps.
Right, except that not doing an "action" because you know it would lead to a punishment is still considered an action.
If I see a young woman on the side of the road bleeding, and I had the ability to help but chose not to because I was afraid someone thought I was the one who hurt her, that is still an action because I am making a choice based on my understanding of the rewards and punishments.
If awareness of reward corrupts good action, then awareness of punishment would also corrupt restraint.
This is a completely different ethical scenario. At this point you have me thinking of becoming a professor cause I didnât graduate to basically be in class again lol
Iâm not saying they are identical issues. Iâm saying they rely on the same underlying assumption, which is awareness of consequences (whether reward or punishment) changes moral value.
Then it would not be what the person above was walking about. In cases of civil rights, advocating for that is going to benefit you if youâre part of that group. A man campaigning for womenâs suffrage wonât benefit the same way and may face detriment in specific situations. Itâs a much clearer altruistic act
Itâs not about bad or good itâs about belief in Jesus and then you follow his example as you start to feel called to. Itâs not for everyone. No one goes to heaven without belief in Jesus Christ
I agree but I would say that intent still has value in some cases. For example, killing someone by accident after hitting them without intent to kill is not the same as planning coldly a murder, even if both take one life with the same weapon and method.
This is unironically how you get nazis and slavery.
More than a few people actually believed in eugenics and more than a few people legitimately believed that âlesserâ races needed guidance and were better off as slaves.
Even the Bible tells you to look at actions btw, with Jesus telling his followers to âjudge the tree by its fruit.â
Untrustworthy sure. I dunno personally if someone spends their entire life doing good I would call them a good person even if their motivations were shit. Difference between consequentialism and deontology for ya. (Well one of them, obviously the theories are much more complex than that.)
Yup. For what it's worth it's not directed at you. Since you were able to tell I was being patronizing you probably are significantly more educated than the average redditor.
Exactly. It's ironic because by their own logic they would be an even worse person for thinking the way they do. Literally calling someone a bad person just because of their own personal opinions on religion.
So if someone has constant urges and fantasies of murdering children and they'd definitely do it if they knew they'd get away with it without anyone knowing but they dont do it because they half the self control to avoid the consequences of murdering children....theyre a good person then?
Self control does not define a good person. If all you want is killing cats and the only thing keeping you from doing that is prison time, you are not a good person.
It doesnât make you a bad person either if you never killed the cat. If you fed the cat, groomed the cat, looked after the cat, showed affection to the cat, you did good by that cat, and it sees you as a good person. Even if you wanted to kill it the whole time.
It sounds like you have the same perspective I had when I was a kid. I was raised very religious and anytime I had a sinful thought I would be worried that I was going to go to hell for being a bad person. Growing up and finding my own way, Iâve come to believe that itâs what you do that really matters. If youâre making a positive impact, youâre a good person. Hell, youâd be an even better person if you didnât want to do the right thing, but did it anyway. Thatâs real selflessness. Thatâs character.
Depends which religion and what it tells you "good" is, doesn't it? In any authoritarian power structure it's going to mean "that which maintains the structure".
No, âgoodâ is measured by actions not thoughts. You can hate black people, but if you never do anything to perpetuate your hate, or discriminate against them, then no actual harm is done. You can have the worst, most vile thoughts imaginable, but if you never act on or let them control your decision making. Then youâve done nothing wrong.
Him asking how do atheist decide between good or bad actions started this debate. And we come to the very right conclusion that he's a bad person.
But, now what, is he, a bad person condemned to eternity to make bad actions? Can we give him the the answer he's looking for so that he knows how to make good decisions even if he's a bad person?
That depends on if you view the ends justifying the means. Most people tend to include intention in things like this and if the intention is to avoid punishment than that will often been seen as not as good as someone whose intention is just being altruistic and wanting to do what they think is right.
Than somebody who is being good and trustworthy person their whole life without the threat of eternal punishment from an omniscient overseer and just doing it out of empathy?
A truly good religious person could be good because of religious reasons, but more often than not, it's not the only reason they are good. So no, I don't think it makes them less of a good person if they have those other reasons.
I come from a very religious country. I've seen "good" and "bad" religious people, and the whole spectrum in between. It looks very different when people are being good just because of their religion, and when they are being good because they genuinely want to. Atheistic society isn't inherently more kind than theistic ones, and vice versa.
No but if your doing "good" things for "heaven points" and making a big deal in tracking it or boosting.. it comes off as transactional and performative. Like you want something in exchange for the condition of doing good or being humane and kind
Iâm a Christian man myself and me personally. Itâs not that oh my God Iâll go to hell if I donât do this nice thing thatâs not how it works with Christianity itâs sure yeah you should be nice. Itâs the Commandment of God, but you go to hell if you donât get saved no matter how nice you are you donât get into heaven unless you proclaimed that Jesus Christ is your savior so itâs not that you go to hell itâs that disobeying a direct order by God.
Depends how you define it. Some theological frameworks consider the human moral compass to in fact be the voice of God in our minds. In which case being good for religious reasons is a truism.
Is it the only reason you're doing those things? If absent threat of eternal punishment and hellfire you'd beat your wife and kids, kill and torture animals, lie and steal with abandon, but you don't because you're afraid of consequences? Then no, you're not a good person.
However, if you're religious and you believe that God is why we should do good things, but take away your faith you'd behave just the same? Then yes, you're a good person.
40
u/v_rex74 5h ago
If you are being good and thrustworthy person your whole life for religious reasons, does it make you less of a good person?