God Says

Silent Song said:
wrong.

do good for love of God and for the sake of mankind, do good in accordance with Him, and in his glory, and not your own. then you might get into heaven, but heaven isn't the point.

Sounds pretty selfish, actually.
Gee, I better do "good" otherwise I won't earn God's love. Or the love of my brother (mankind).

And there's no need to even discuss heavens of eternal happiness, etc.
 
SoundMaster said:
Sounds pretty selfish, actually.
Gee, I better do "good" otherwise I won't earn God's love. Or the love of my brother (mankind).

And there's no need to even discuss heavens of eternal happiness, etc.
incorrect. according to Christianity God loves you even if you are an asshole. he created humanity and loves humanity and all his other creations. simply doing "good" is not enough, as i have already stated.

you are correct in stating there is no need to discuss heaven, it is besides the point.

Gallantry, if one believes in the benefit of action, one acts. it does not matter if absolute selflessness is possible, as long as the intentions are selfless and the act beneficial. i am arguing that while one cannot attain absolute altruism, there is a vital need for altruistic thinking and action in this world.
 
I would argue that all that matters is whether the act is beneficial - that the intent is irrelevant. What's really up for debate is whether instilling a belief in selflessness causes a person to act beneficially or not beneficially.
 
Gallantry over Docility said:
I would argue that all that matters is whether the act is beneficial - that the intent is irrelevant. What's really up for debate is whether instilling a belief in selflessness causes a person to act beneficially or not beneficially.
intent cannot be irrelevant. no.

if i treat you well, shelter and clothe you, but with the intent that someday you will become a soldier for my cause and needlessly die, that is not good intent with beneficial action. that is not selfless because i would be acting for my OWN benefit instead of yours. you would be misled into thinking i am kind. it is deception.

the intent is what matters the most in these benficial actions, Gallantry.
 
Silent Song said:
incorrect. according to Christianity God loves you even if you are an asshole. he created humanity and loves humanity and all his other creations. simply doing "good" is not enough, as i have already stated.

you are correct in stating there is no need to discuss heaven, it is besides the point.

Gallantry, if one believes in the benefit of action, one acts. it does not matter if absolute selflessness is possible, as long as the intentions are selfless and the act beneficial. i am arguing that while one cannot attain absolute altruism, there is a vital need for altruistic thinking and action in this world.

I just don't understand why you lock yourself in the box of saying that it is impossible to be selfless entirely. I believe you can be.
 
Silent Song said:
intent cannot be irrelevant. no.

if i treat you well, shelter and clothe you, but with the intent that someday you will become a soldier for my cause and needlessly die, that is not good intent with beneficial action. that is not selfless because i would be acting for my OWN benefit instead of yours. you would be misled into thinking i am kind. it is deception.

the intent is what matters the most in these benficial actions, Gallantry.

You may be right actually. Having given it some thought, intent and action aren't really separable - the latter is largely a product of the former. I actually think our disagreements on this are solely going to end up being value judgments (as per usual ;)).
 
indeed.

forced action is not intent and therefore void... the question at hand is when YOUR thoughts are selfless or not, and if those justify action in a selfless manner according to YOUR intent, and if that is possible. if someone forces you to act, that is selfless since you act not of your own will, but it is not YOUR intent... altruism is selflessness through will.
 
It's nearly impossible to be *forced* to do anything, mind you. If you're forced at gunpoint for example, your intent is to avoid dying and thus you are doing the action with selfish intent.
 
Is it the word "selfish" that is the culprit here? Where do we draw the line? Is acting for the purpose of rational self-interest or self-preservation actually selfish? Or pursuing vices of greed, etc. at the expense of others? What is selfish?

All I know is, if I help an old lady across the street, I'm not doing it to get into Heaven or win God's love. I'm doing it because it feels right. And that's as nebulous as it is.

I fear it's value judgment with me as well.
 
Silent Song said:
indeed.

forced action is not intent and therefore void... the question at hand is when YOUR thoughts are selfless or not, and if those justify action in a selfless manner according to YOUR intent, and if that is possible. if someone forces you to act, that is selfless since you act not of your own will, but it is not YOUR intent... altruism is selflessness through will.


while this seems like a trifling discussion, yes -- there are instances of people doing things for the benefit of someone or some persons that they do not actually like, and doing it without receiving accolades. If we all think really hard, hardly really, I'm sure we can fathom instances when we have either gotten someone to do something for us or have done something for someone else that inconvenienced one person in some way.

whether or not the self can be extracted from the being that is a self being, and at the instance of that self being self acting, seems a redundant question.
 
Silent Song said:
true, it only applies above if someone takes control of your mind, thus decisions made are not your own... mostly hypothetical

Though every mind is partially a product of forced external influence, anyway.
 
I agree with GoD in this case. I can't think of any un"selfish" reason that would allow a person to be forced to do something.
 
anonymousnick2001 said:
I agree with GoD in this case. I can't think of any un"selfish" reason that would allow a person to be forced to do something.

Unless they were an ideologue, in which case self/world is not a significant division.