So I was pondering this briefly...

[CallMeViolet]

I was thinking about what drives some people to do good things. Some people say it's just because they want to. Good; you feel good for doing the right thing, and you should. that's your gain for being a good person; being aware you're not an asshole..

now what about the theory people do good things only so they can get in return.. that's not always bad. look at relationships; I'm not gonna put work into being with someone if I'm not getting anything back; but I wouldn't give a homeless person a sandwich and expect chips later... but still even if you did, you still sandwiched... who's to say later though you wouldn't be in a position where you could in rightly expect your chips... but you're not entitled to the chips..

Now when it comes to "god" it becomes tricky... since "god" holds the threat of hell over your head for doing immoral things is it really being a good person if you're forced to be? If there was no hell or other punishments would most religious people be able to be so "moral". Can you say it's the same to be a good person when you're not hurting anyone because you're afraid of what will happen after you've lived your life.

I don't need an imaginary monster to threaten me into behaving.

[higginsp]

By 'doing good' what exactly do you mean? Do you mean being charitable? Being other-centric? Selfless in the colloquial sense?

 

Based on what you wrote, I'll assume you mean something along those lines. I don't think it's useful or practical, however, to try to ascribe to every individual person an overriding motive for their charitable actions. This isn't exactly earth-shattering, but there are quite literally countless reasons for doing 'good' things. At the most fundamental, it is the value judgments one has made and the corresponding position of those in his/her value hierarchy that serves as the motive for any particular action made.

[CallMeViolet]

Yeah I didn't think it was all that ground breaking. Lol It just came to mind. Good like not harm people intentionally for gain. Really I think that's pretty much all that being "good" can consist of when so many have different standards for being "good". You're right I'm to vague. Totally working on it. Though why is it crazy to assume people have reasons for doing things? Why would you do something without purpose?

[higginsp]

Oh, I wasn't saying your thoughts were un-groundbreaking -- I was referring to mine, hah.

 

I don't think it's crazy at all to assume people have reasons for doing things. Of course, people have reasons for doing things. My point was that it's likely unproductive to try to formulate a general theory for why people do or don't do this or that because the reasons are almost certainly many. 

[hannahbanana]

I think a lot of it has to do with empathy:

You want to be treated well - you want people to be "good" to you. You feel bad when people are mean to you, because that's detrimental to you either physically or emotionally.

Having empathy makes it possible for you to make the connection that since YOU feel better when people do good things for you, then OTHER people must also feel better when people do good things for them. Conversely, you can also feel their pain when bad things happen to them. So you do good things to people to sort of share in the good feelings that come to them, or to avoid feeling the bad feelings that others get when bad things are done to them.

It makes sense to me, since most people in the world who consistently do bad things have very stunted capacities for empathy, or are entirely sociopathic altogether.

[CallMeViolet]

Lol ha! Everyone here is rebreaking grounds?! Well yes I suppose it doesn't make a difference besides the fact it kind of makes it unclear if someone is only helping you because they feel they have to. Kind of makes it a little strange... "So thanks for the obligation?" You see what I mean? Although I guess it's really the same with the reward element; though you aren't being part of someone's delusions.

It's fine that someone feels "good" through empathy because it's pretty logical to assume you should feel "good" for doing "good" things verse believing you're going to heaven when you die.

[Triumph]

The non-religious explanation is that positive behavior "good", is the result of the evolution of biology and culture to imprint preferential attitudes on the individual. 

 

Example: two women, each have a child, take turns caring for both children.  This allows each mother to have a turn to go off alone and perform more dangerous chores without jeopardizing her child's safety.  They display virtue and empathy in caring for each others child as if their own. 

 

The problem I have with the evolutionary explanation it doesn't explain the negative behaviors.  There is no good evolutionary explanation for a parent enjoying their own child's suffer, something all to common.  As most of FDR listeners seem to know, parents can be pretty fucking evil.  At best true evil can be explained away as genetically defective.

 

Religions can explain this one a little better before turning into philosophical shit heaps. That's part of the reason I haven't completely eliminated the possibility of god, but that is another subject. 

[NeoCortex]

Plants, animals, humans.. they all play endless games of prisoner's dilemma . This part of game theory helps you understand why ''doing good'' is actually a viable survival strategy.Tit for tat  seems to have become an ESS, evolutionary stable system.  The selfish gene by Richard Dawkins is a great read on this subject. It explains how altruism is bio-economically viable.

[Brentb]

I think you're referring to aesthetic values.

 

It isn't morally good to give a man a sandwich unless you owe him a sandwich. If people are giving away sandwiches, it's largely because they value a relief from feeling guilty, or they want to live in a world where everyone has food to eat and they think that is best accomplished by giving food to strangers.

 

People do those kinds of things to honor what they value.

 

I think a moral good would be preventing the initiation of force against someone, like stopping someone from being raped or simply paying someone what you owe them.

[NotDarkYet]

Reasons to do good, off the top of my head:

 

-  Direct reciprocity (expect good from that person)

-  General reciprocity (someday I may be in a position like that, and I hope someone will help)

-  Mirror neurons (I like seeing people happy, it makes me feel bad when I see people in pain)

-  Social points (Other people will like me more if they see me being good)

 

I suspect that when people say, "I do good because I want to go to heaven", they lack the self-knowlege to recognize it's actually some mix of all of the above.

 

And only a truly horrible person does good for the reward of Heaven alone.  Yuck. 

[Frosty]

There's a good episode of Friends where Phoebe and Joey clash on the idea of there being no selfless good deeds because if you do something good for someone else then it makes you feel good and that's a motivator for doing it. or at least a benefit.

 

I don't know if that's really true or not, I've not thought deeply enough about this before, but I'm definitely skeptical of the idea that people do things purely out of the goodness of their heart, people respond to incentives and feeling good about things you've done is a big incentive.

[CallMeViolet]

Well why is it people even perceive it as negative even if it is driven from selfishness if nobody is being harmed?

[NeoCortex]

Well why is it people even perceive it as negative even if it is driven from selfishness if nobody is being harmed?

 

Maybe it is because they feel guilty for not doing it them self? Or am I misunderstanding your question?

[hannahbanana]

Well why is it people even perceive it as negative even if it is driven from selfishness if nobody is being harmed?

I think that the negative connotation of "selfishness" was created as a form of control. If you were living in a bad time and wanted a better life, the people/government/religion in charge probably thought it would be a good idea to tell them that being "selfish" like that was bad, and that they should be happy with whatever things they had. That way it would keep people passive, since for them to speak up about the poor conditions they were living in would be called selfish and bad.

There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting good things for yourself. It would be masochism to say otherwise. So I don't see why it's "bad" to say that you like people or do good things for others because it causes some benefit for you, except as some remnant of the past where it was (and still is) ingrained in people that they shouldn't ask for more than what they have.

[mangodrink]

A religious person's motivation to do 'good' is largely punitive in nature. They are kind/charitable to others because that is what God expects from them and if you don't act in that manner then you're going against one of his edicts where the end of that road of punishment is always going to be eternal damnation, so it's probably best to just do as he says. Sounds a bit like a parent/child 'do as i say otherwise you get the belt' type of relationship where you're just going to do whatever they tell you to do to ensure your own safety.But does the motivation of the person ultimately really matter? If a Christian and an atheist each give $100 to a homeless shelter, is one more valid than the other because of the differing motivations behind the act? The end result is the same - the shelter gets the money and someone is helped and the mindset of the person never even comes into play. So, the good is still being accomplished regardless of why they did it in the first place, so in that vein a religious person could still accomplish good things because they are affecting reality in a real, tangible way even if a voice in their head told them to do it. Not sure where I'm going with this. I'm about five deep right now.

[CallMeViolet]

Mangodrink: yeah I think it does; because I wonder if they would if they didn't feel forced; are they mad about doing it; do they feel obligated. Sure I would accept it but I would think on it a bit. 

 Someone gave me $40 because they said god told them to... I'm all, sweet god money! But is this guy crazy... Yes yes he was...

[cynicist]

I don't know if that's really true or not, I've not thought deeply enough about this before, but I'm definitely skeptical of the idea that people do things purely out of the goodness of their heart, people respond to incentives and feeling good about things you've done is a big incentive.

 

This is altruism, a.k.a. self-sacrifice, a.k.a. religious, guilt-trippy nonsense. That's the only way that feeling good about doing good could be construed into something bad. This idea that you should give to others without regard to your own status is a great tool used by evil people to take everything from you.

 

But does the motivation of the person ultimately really matter? If a Christian and an atheist each give $100 to a homeless shelter, is one more valid than the other because of the differing motivations behind the act? The end result is the same - the shelter gets the money and someone is helped and the mindset of the person never even comes into play. 

 

Is someone who is being taxed to pay for a shelter equally as charitable as someone who donates freely? When someone tells me that they do good stuff because they can go to hell otherwise, I'm pretty horrified. No wonder people don't trust each other; Most of them are only 'good' because they have to be...

[Blackfish64]

All people are good only because they have to be.  If we don't build shelters, make clothing, plant crops and harvest them, among other good things we must do, we're finished. 

 

If the universe existed in which all I had to do was pluck whatever I needed for my survival out of thin air and I had to do nothing all day, I would choose to live in that universe, and proceed to do what I wanted to do all day, instead of doing "good" to help myself and others in my survival.  Instead, I would lay around and dream all day long, write stories, play my guitar, and make fun with every pretty girl I could find.  I'd have one hundred children or more.  Life would be beautiful... if only we didn't have to spend so much of our time doing good.   

 

We have to do good.  We must do good.  Or we will perish.  Doing good is essential to our survival.  Sometimes doing evil is essential to our survival, too, as in self-defense, for example.  We may have to maim or kill another human being in order to remain alive.   The important thing is knowing what is going to give us maximum bang for our effort and sticking to it.  Which is why, when posed the age old question, "Is man inherently good or inherently evil?"  To which I answer, 'Man is inherently good and inherently evil both, and for good reason.' 

 

No, we don't have to live if we don't want to.  But if we do, doing good is a must. 

 

Helping your fellow man of your own free will is a good thing.  It's a good thing because it helps him help you.  It helps both of us help ourselves.  It gives you an opportunity to put another potential good person in your corner.  It only makes good horse sense. 

 

I help the beggar with a sandwich and a five dollar bill because it gets him off my sidewalk and gets him raking leaves in my front yard instead of cluttering up the place with his misery.  If he doesn't want to do good in exchange, I will send him somewhere else, off my block.  Good riddance.  In other words, I might have to do bad, to do evil, to be rude and condescending to him in order to make him go away, if that's what I want.

  

Yes, I am good and do good only because I have to.  Admittedly, proudly so.  I am better at it than most people and they are often jealous of my generosity and my goodness and make fun of me for it.  I give when I feel like it to whom I feel like it, and do it out of the goodness of my own mind and heart, and I don't feel one bit guilty for having done it or not done it.  No one pressures me into feeling guilty for having done good -- or evil.  If I've done something bad, or good, there was a reason for it.  What reason?  My reason.  

 

I broke the man's collar bone, rendering him helpless,  then turned him over to government officers because I caught him in the act of raping the girl and I wanted the rape to stop.  Some would argue that I didn't do a bad thing.  But I did.  Look again.  Violence isn't a good thing.  It isn't good when you do it, nor is it good when it's done to you.  But we use violence as a tool to stop violence.  In doing so, your mind changes, your biology changes, you become violent.  You become not good.  Therapy may be necessary to heal the wound I have inflicted upon myself.  That is the other, terrible part about violence that no one ever talks about... the fact that doing it or it being done to you is equally damaging.   Some people who have done violence for their own good have never recovered, and perpetuated the violence.  They discover the tool, and refuse to put it down.  It's too easy, so they have discovered.  But some, like myself, understand what's happened and go back to being good, doing good, and staying that way.    

 

It's all up to you.  It's your choice.  Do good or not.  Do good or do evil to save your own life or to get through life.  It's our choice to make at any given moment in any given situation.  Doing good has better, longer lasting benefits than doing evil.  Doing good makes sense almost all the time.  Doing evil makes no sense most of the time.  Doing good is a long-term investment.  Doing evil is, most of the time, at best, useless.  Yes, you will make mistakes from time to time.  Do the best you can.  It's just common sense.