Discrimination against Atheists

[jotabe]

And exactly how does it belittle their good acts?

[eriador]

I would much rather have my good deeds attributed to myself, not to a mysterious, supernatural being, so in that way it is somewhat belittling.

[jotabe]

So, i assume that you, without any need for education or teaching, right as you were born, would be able to do good deeds?

[eriador]

No, but I don't think that God is integral to being able to do good deeds.

[jotabe]

You don't, but i do. Within my faith, that's simple logics: good deeds come from love, and all love comes from God.

[fawkes]

There is an argument in philosophy that says all charity is based on a sense of greed. The charitable man wants his neighbors to admire how charitable he is, and never gives more than he has to, in order to keep their admiration. The man says he gives to the less fortunate because it is his duty by God, but his motives are less than noble.

This conversation just reminded me of this. I'd like to think people are charitable because they sincerely want to help their fellow man.

[jotabe]

At least most of them do. Not many people would be willing to be generous only to have others to speak well of them. Most of the people i know who do good, they do it because it's what there is within their hearts.

[Jebus]

I have a question, for those on either side of this argument.

I was raised in a Christian church. I was saved and also baptised. After over a decade of being in the church, I'm not really involved anymore. I don't go to services nor seek out other Christians. You could say I'm not a "practicing" protestant, nor a very religious person. I probably perform more of the practices related to Buddhism than Christianity (meditation, martial arts, etc). What's my status?

I would say because you do not reject God you would go to heaven.

Well I don't reject God, but I don't necessarily accept him either, so am I gonna enjoy everlasting bliss or will I be smoten down to hell for all eternity for my "sin"?

[jotabe]

Jeebs, you should know the answer...
Or would you think that your avatar icon would grant you anything but eternal damnation?

[Jebus]

If God truly is perfect then he has a healthy sense of humour and will appreciate the oddness of it.

[eriador]

You don't, but i do. Within my faith, that's simple logics: good deeds come from love, and all love comes from God.

Haven't we been over this?

[hive_king]

The problem with the idea that people do good deeds out of greed is that many people make anonymous donations. If no one knows you donated, it voids the argument.

good deeds come from love, and all love comes from God.

Wrong. Good deeds can come from duty, from honor, or even from negative emotions like dislike. (I don't want X to win, so I'm going to help Y in instead.)

And what do you have backing up at all the statement that all love comes from God?

[Eaquae Legit]

They'll argue that you're greedy for the feeling of having "done good."

[eriador]

I think that we're missing a fundamental question:

"What is a 'good' deed?"

[hive_king]

A good deed is something that benefits another person or people.

[AnthonyByakko]

And... why is that good? Shouldn't that person have been able to do what was needed for themselves? Couldn't you have spent that time/energy/money on a better purpose?

[hive_king]

Maybe they weren't able to do the deed themselves, though. Perhaps they lacked the ability, like opening the door for someone on crutches.

[Rei]

I would suggest that it is good because it means giving another a higher priority than oneself. Which suggests that we define good as any instance of altruistic behaviour.

[AnthonyByakko]

Altruism is an unattainable ideal, and only suitable as cover for another idealogy.

If you want to do "good", that's just fine. But at some level there is, and must, be a personal, rationally-self-interested reason. Altruism is self-sacrifice - and that's a BAD thing folks. God didn't put you on the earth to be sacrificed. You're here to enjoy, learn about and explore the universe he gave you; to grow and experience reality with the means he provided. You have a responsibility to yourself to live, for you and for all loved ones. To "do good" by helping others is not altruism, but a rationally self-interested means with the goal of improving the society you live in.

[hive_king]

So you wouldn't open the door for someone on crutches? After all, you have nothing to gain from it.

[Rei]

There's a reason I did not say "altruism". I did not say it for the very deliberate reason that it is a very extreme state and is more or less unattainable. This does not mean that things can not be altruisitc. Anytime you do opt to do something that places someone else before yourself you are doing something that is altruistic. And this, by the vast majority of the world from what I can tell from the cultures I have had contact with, is considered good and right.

[AnthonyByakko]

H_K, there's a reason I didn't respond to your post in the first place.

[hive_king]

And why is that? The problem with your self-interested philosophy is that there are no provisions to make sure that the "least of you", the physically disabled, the mentally disabled, young orphans, the elderly, and the extremely unfortunate when there is no familial recourse. You said, "You have a responsibility to yourself to live, for you and for all loved ones." There are some that fall through the cracks in those philosophies.

[AnthonyByakko]

There are some that fall through the cracks in every ideal, philosophy, party, program, etc. As for the reason I don't respond to your queries? I don't like you.

[hive_king]

So you are totally alright with a society that lets those people who fall through the cracks without any institutions to gaurentee that those people have their basic needs met?

[AnthonyByakko]

Now what did I just tell you?

[Eaquae Legit]

Is there anything that can be done within the enlightened self-interest framework to minimise the number of people who would fall through the cracks?

(Side note, I hadn't realised you were still warned. It's been well over a month, so I'll fix that.)

[AnthonyByakko]

Of course. Now, it isn't a simple matter, not by any stretch of the imagination - but it's painfully obvious that our current society, though with much handwringing and angst, has been unable to stem the tide. Even in our marginally capitalistic society, there are those who, either by circumstance or by personal action, "fall through the cracks" as you say. Unfortunately, that term encompasses a great deal many different types of people, and there is no catch-all - in any ideal - to solve the problem. The best that can be done is to, within the framework of our free, constitutional society, provide the means for people's life, liberty, and pursuit of their own happiness.

The first step would be to break down this group of people, because different problems need different solutions. There are many causes for a person to become "lost" to society; addiction, unemployment, a disability, etc. The solutions all have one thing in common, however - they all begin with money. Money is not, as oft cited, the root of all evil. In fact, the creation of wealth might be one of the most moral things a person could do with their time. Money is a means by which we measure goods and services - it does not intrinsic value of its own, sans this concept. Honestly, to help addiction, the best thing people could do is to legalize certain substances. How many people might refrain from seeking help, knowing that the substance they are addicted to is illegal - and they would be subsequently subject to the punishments for it? It's the same concept as prostitution - a prosititute won't go to the police if a john or a pimp abuses her, because she'd get in trouble as well. But I digress. The legalization issue would create a great deal of money - not only the 10+ billion dollars spent on prohibition, but the innumerable man-hours spent by local/state/and federal law enforcement agents - all of whom need to be payed. This is not even including the hours and money for the court system to deal with the issue as well. I think some people might be confusing 'self-interest' with 'interest only in self.' Because having drug addicts and homeless people on your streets is in NO ONE'S best interest. A more laissez-faire society as well, would increase job creation and decrease unemployment - meaning more people will have jobs and thus not only be paying taxes (the money thing again) but will be buying things as well - even more taxes, but more importantly, more wealth-creation for those who provide the products/services they buy. Which means more jobs again. Which means less people without insurance. In an ideal society, obviously everyone who was capable of working for their own living would do so - of course, we don't live in an ideal society, so like you said - we can "minimise", and provide recourse for those who wish to do so, but are unable. Like the disabled, as has been mentioned - There are about 7 million mentally disabled adults in the U.S.. If you had taken the 300 billion dollars for the Iraq war (just the recent appropriation), every single mentally disabled person would have gotten over 40 thousand dollars. That's more than I make in a year. And we spend billions more on tons of other crap that could better be spent elsewhere. People also forget that Americans are the most charitable people in the world - this is neither altruism nor is it contrary to rational self-interest - again, a person's socety is an important factor for their own interests. Americans shattered charity records again last year, and in a society where more people were working, less people weren't, and more money was put back into society, those "cracks" would be smaller and smaller. You can't save everyone - and not everyone wants to be saved - but the solution is not to hamstring society with notions like socialism and welfare.

[Eaquae Legit]

Just checking, here, trying to understand and all.

Would it be acceptable, then, if the Iraq war weren't occurring, to spend those tax dollars on homes/services for those mentally disabled adults? And how would that be different than a welfare approach?

(And because we all know I worry at the issue like a dog with a bone), what happens to a group like the mentally disabled, where their value to society at large is materially small? What I think I'm trying to ask is what happens to a group when society sees no benefit to itself in giving charity to that group?

[AnthonyByakko]

If there were no Iraq war? Hell yes. Not only would the economy not be in the s***** (EDIT: I wrote "sh*tter, but with the filter it came out s***), but our relations (and subsequently, trade) with other nations would be improved (increasing wealth). I would be all for spending that money on something more worthwhile - like services for those who "fall through the cracks." Like I said, taking care of that problem would improve society as a whole, and as a rationally self-interested person, I understand that what is good for my society is (in this instance) good for me.

The factors are all highly interwoven as well. With legalization (I keep coming back to it like you do with the disability issue, but it's one of those strings that effects a lot of others), there would be millions less people in jails (reducing wealth), and working, and paying taxes, and buying things (increasing wealth)- all good for society.

Even without any charitable influence, the amount of money that would be in local, state and federal coffers if there was some kind of inconceivable capitalist takeover of government would exceed the need.

[Firegirl]

AnthonyByakko wrote "Altruism is an unattainable ideal, and only suitable as cover for another idealogy.

If you want to do "good", that's just fine. But at some level there is, and must, be a personal, rationally-self-interested reason. Altruism is self-sacrifice - and that's a BAD thing folks. God didn't put you on the earth to be sacrificed. You're here to enjoy, learn about and explore the universe he gave you; to grow and experience reality with the means he provided. You have a responsibility to yourself to live, for you and for all loved ones. To "do good" by helping others is not altruism, but a rationally self-interested means with the goal of improving the society you live in."

Altrusism exists not as the extreme version that hovers over all like a Platonic Form (the idea of it being unattainable), but in more moderate amounts that using self-sacrifice in small instances, the individual is living more fully physically, spiritually, and psychologically. Also one of the definitions of love is meeting other peoples' needs, which sometimes requires altrusism. AnthonyByakko, you are twisting the idea of self-sacrifice into a selfish narcissistic self-gratification that is motivated not by the higher concepts and emotions in life, rather it's motivated a purely psychological greed. That is really confusing the ideas of and reversing the concepts of Good versus Bad for the individual and the society. What basis do you have to say that self-sacrifice is Bad? IN A Majority of instances self-sacrifice is done for the benefit of loved ones and absolute strangers (i.e. the love of humanity). Granted there are sometimes conflicting emotional motives for the actual sacrificing self, yet what it boils down to is that others benefit from an individual's actions, which is an impulse part of living a full life.

[AnthonyByakko]

AnthonyByakko wrote "Altruism is an unattainable ideal, and only suitable as cover for another idealogy.

If you want to do "good", that's just fine. But at some level there is, and must, be a personal, rationally-self-interested reason. Altruism is self-sacrifice - and that's a BAD thing folks. God didn't put you on the earth to be sacrificed. You're here to enjoy, learn about and explore the universe he gave you; to grow and experience reality with the means he provided. You have a responsibility to yourself to live, for you and for all loved ones. To "do good" by helping others is not altruism, but a rationally self-interested means with the goal of improving the society you live in."

Altrusism exists not as the extreme version that hovers over all like a Platonic Form (the idea of it being unattainable), but in more moderate amounts that using self-sacrifice in small instances, the individual is living more fully physically, spiritually, and psychologically. Also one of the definitions of love is meeting other peoples' needs, which sometimes requires altrusism. AnthonyByakko, you are twisting the idea of self-sacrifice into a selfish narcissistic self-gratification that is motivated not by the higher concepts and emotions in life, rather it's motivated a purely psychological greed. That is really confusing the ideas of and reversing the concepts of Good versus Bad for the individual and the society. What basis do you have to say that self-sacrifice is Bad? IN A Majority of instances self-sacrifice is done for the benefit of loved ones and absolute strangers (i.e. the love of humanity). Granted there are sometimes conflicting emotional motives for the actual sacrificing self, yet what it boils down to is that others benefit from an individual's actions, which is an impulse part of living a full life.

tl;dr.

[jotabe]

Well, i simply have to reject the basis of your moral system, that free-willing self-sacrificing actions are bad.

[AnthonyByakko]

K.

[Firegirl]

AnthonyByakko wrote "Altruism is an unattainable ideal, and only suitable as cover for another idealogy.

tl;dr.

Great, maybe it would have had more impact if it was actually read, eh AB?

So I will reiterate. Altrusism exists not as the extreme version that hovers over all like a Platonic Form (the idea of it being unattainable), but in more moderate amounts that using self-sacrifice in small instances, the individual is living more fully physically, spiritually, and psychologically. Also one of the definitions of love is meeting other peoples' needs, which sometimes requires altrusism. AnthonyByakko, you are twisting the idea of self-sacrifice into a selfish narcissistic self-gratification that is motivated not by the higher concepts and emotions in life, rather it's motivated a purely psychological greed. That is really confusing the ideas of and reversing the concepts of Good versus Bad for the individual and the society. What basis do you have to say that self-sacrifice is Bad? IN A Majority of instances self-sacrifice is done for the benefit of loved ones and absolute strangers (i.e. the love of humanity). Granted there are sometimes conflicting emotional motives for the actual sacrificing self, yet what it boils down to is that others benefit from an individual's actions, which is an impulse part of living a full life.