Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

What motivates a good person?

Page 4 of 5 [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Abstract_Logic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 580
Location: Here

30 Jan 2020, 12:28 am

Fnord wrote:
magz wrote:
Fnord wrote:
magz wrote:
Ability to think of myself as a good person is a reward by itself.
Self-reward.
Why not? Satisfaction is quite a reward.
No judgement. It's a simple fact that people do good things for some kind of reward, even if that reward is self-generated.

Relieving anxiety from a pre-programmed need to "do the right thing" is another form of self-reward -- you don't so much as gain a reward as you relieve yourself of a negative feeling for not doing good. I think this negative feeling may be called 'guilt'.


I have to agree with this. I don't like to see others suffering, and I seem to instinctively react to someone who needs help, for example like immediately opening and holding a door for someone carrying a large box. But this is to avoid the negative feeling associated with ignoring them. For simple deeds like this at least, I tend to take a utilitarian/consequentialist approach in that a win-win is better than win-loss or loss-loss. If I can help someone and feel good from doing it, why should I be blamed for being self-serving? It would actually be less self-serving if I ignored them and let them struggle. I think the difference between being a good person and a sociopath is if one actually DOES feel better about letting someone struggle and DOESN'T experience any internal satisfaction from helping others.


_________________
Autistic (self-identified)
Open source, free software, and open knowledge geek
GoLang, Python, & SysAdmin aspirant
RPG enthusiast
Has OCD, social anxiety, CPTSD


Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,957
Location: Outter Quadrant

30 Jan 2020, 1:59 am

we do not do good for the good of others ,, we do not do good for the good of ourselves ,
in rudimentery concepts we do good for the survival of the species ,,, you dolts .
its bs to believe any other way....... if you were lucky enough to be raised with those concepts , it was not cause those concepts were right ot wrong ,, friggin pure courtesy on the part of your parents to help point you in a healthy direction . People actually have to be raised to be A holes to each other....
Obviously person heritage or upbringing is so spoilt ,that consideration for others in humanity has gone extinct. and yes if someone has put food in your mouth with out it costing you at any point in your life can count as spoilt.. no matter how poor financially your family was . Most people dont even consider that it is merely pure luck.. that any one individual has survived their own birth . living in a spoilt country with spoilt values .. And i write this fully realizing that practically no one here even considers child mortality rates in the entire rest of the known world. :skull: This is NOT meant as a guilt complex generating post , but merely hopefully but doubtfully , a conciousness raising post.


_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are


hurtloam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,747
Location: Eyjafjallajökull

30 Jan 2020, 2:19 am

Interesting how only one person here picked up on the fact I was hinting at a phsycopath or sociopath or someone who suffers from alexithymia.

What reward do they get?

They don't feel anything.

Their reward is passing as normal.

But inside they are empty.

Do actions speak louder than words in this case? They acted in a way they knew they should, but at the end of the day they don't have your back or care about you. They can fool you for so long. You believe they care because all their actions up to this point were seemingly supportive, but throw in a curve ball where they haven't been taught what to do and they don't come through for you.

You realise that it was all an act.

They tried as best they could to pass as normal and make you feel cared for, but at the end of the day they don't really feel it.

Are they good for knowing what is good and trying to act on that even though they couldn't trully care emotionally even if they wanted to?

Can you ever really trust them again?



Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,957
Location: Outter Quadrant

30 Jan 2020, 2:56 am

:chin: :wall:

hurtloam wrote:
Interesting how only one person here picked up on the fact I was hinting at a phsycopath or sociopath or someone who suffers from alexithymia.

What reward do they get?

They don't feel anything.

Their reward is passing as normal.

But inside they are empty.

Do actions speak louder than words in this case? They acted in a way they knew they should, but at the end of the day they don't have your back or care about you. They can fool you for so long. You believe they care because all their actions up to this point were seemingly supportive, but throw in a curve ball where they haven't been taught what to do and they don't come through for you.

You realise that it was all an act.

They tried as best they could to pass as normal and make you feel cared for, but at the end of the day they don't really feel it.

Are they good for knowing what is good and trying to act on that even though they couldn't trully care emotionally even if they wanted to?

Can you ever really trust them again?

:wall: :duh:


_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are


Amity
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,714
Location: Meandering

30 Jan 2020, 5:40 am

hurtloam wrote:
Interesting how only one person here picked up on the fact I was hinting at a phsycopath or sociopath or someone who suffers from alexithymia.

What reward do they get?

They don't feel anything.

Their reward is passing as normal.

But inside they are empty.

Do actions speak louder than words in this case? They acted in a way they knew they should, but at the end of the day they don't have your back or care about you. They can fool you for so long. You believe they care because all their actions up to this point were seemingly supportive, but throw in a curve ball where they haven't been taught what to do and they don't come through for you.

You realise that it was all an act.

They tried as best they could to pass as normal and make you feel cared for, but at the end of the day they don't really feel it.

Are they good for knowing what is good and trying to act on that even though they couldn't trully care emotionally even if they wanted to?

Can you ever really trust them again?


So emotional intent or the origin of feelings is what differentiates a good person from a not so good person,
It overrides measured actions?

Feelings and emotions alone to me, aren't a reliable guide to measure a decent person. I find that emotions bias a persons perception/judgement.
Not to mention the plethora of psychological states that interfere with perception.

Perhaps the removal of emotional intent or feelings could be a more honest way of operating? If you dont get the emotional reward but do the right things regardless, that could indicate a considered intent.
An outcome that was planned for on a rational level, is that intent of value due to the discipline needed, is it at the same level as an action based on instinctual/reactive emotion?



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

30 Jan 2020, 6:30 am

Actions, to me, usually speak louder than words.

This does not mean that I deny the usefulness and the impact of words.

It’s not so black and white. Actions are not the only things that matter, and words frequently do mean something.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

30 Jan 2020, 6:32 am

It is honest to let your emotions determine how and when you perform a good deed.



Abstract_Logic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 580
Location: Here

30 Jan 2020, 7:45 am

Fnord wrote:
magz wrote:
I think humans have evolved ethical drive in individuals for the gain of living in more cooperative societes...
Perhaps 'evolved' is not the operative word, since human children must be taught both ethical behavior and delayed gratification.

While it is fair to note that while wolves have evolved as animals that hunt cooperatively in packs, it is also fair to note that almost all of the great cats evolved as solitary hunters.


Being innate in the sense of being an evolved mechanism doesn't necessarily mean it has to be fully developed at birth. The mechanism, or 'module' in evolutionary psychology terms, is always present, seemingly with some exceptions, but it is cultivated by environmental pressures. Children still have the innate capacity for moral learning, and this capacity is "filled out", so to speak, by parents, guardians, and society at large. An example of an evolved mechanism that isn't fully developed at birth is our sexual drive. It's interesting to note and probably not entirely coincidental that our ability to understand more complex moral ideas begins in adolescence with puberty.


_________________
Autistic (self-identified)
Open source, free software, and open knowledge geek
GoLang, Python, & SysAdmin aspirant
RPG enthusiast
Has OCD, social anxiety, CPTSD


Cloudman
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 5 Oct 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 143
Location: Pittsburgh

30 Jan 2020, 7:53 am

hurtloam wrote:
I don't often have philosophical ponders to share, but I think this could be autism related.

I really struggled to think of a good title. Let me explain.

Imagine a person who has had good manners drummed into them. They know that if they see someone with a baby buggy struggling to open a door that they should hold it open for them. They see a person walking with a zimmer frame and they help them to carry their bags.

They do it because they know it is the right thing to do, but they don't feel anything. They don't really care if the person was struggling to physically open the door or carry their bags. But they were taught that such things are polite.

Sometimes they forget to do things for others. And they are annoyed that they forgot or didn't notice. The annoyance comes from knowing they didnt do what they were meant to, a sense of duty or they realise that the other person has become upset with them and they know that's a bad place to be.

They don't feel sorry, but they know that they dropped the ball and will try better. They hope they will remember next time. But they don't feel anything much about the situation.

What is more good? Being motivated by love or by compassion or simply knowing what is helpful and what good manners are and doing things out of duty?
I think both are good in the eyes of the other people you helped. sometimes it's about being able to help others even if u feel nothing that takes real strength. This strength is often overlooked and not recognized. Our perceived goodness usually comes from our actions. I can use myself as an example people just couldn't believe I had good intentions until they seen the results of my actions. They seen that I still wanted nothing more than to help even without feeling anything I broke all these notions that you need to feel like others do even if for just a second that's what brings me joy. You don't need to feel anything to be a good person just understand others fight for others. Have sympathy and compassion think of each person like your family. I think this is a strength if you embrace it.


_________________
You can think you are just an observer but your unbenounced actions say otherwise you are always a participant in some form


Abstract_Logic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 580
Location: Here

30 Jan 2020, 8:02 am

hurtloam wrote:
Interesting how only one person here picked up on the fact I was hinting at a phsycopath or sociopath or someone who suffers from alexithymia.

What reward do they get?

They don't feel anything.

Their reward is passing as normal.

But inside they are empty.

Do actions speak louder than words in this case? They acted in a way they knew they should, but at the end of the day they don't have your back or care about you. They can fool you for so long. You believe they care because all their actions up to this point were seemingly supportive, but throw in a curve ball where they haven't been taught what to do and they don't come through for you.

You realise that it was all an act.

They tried as best they could to pass as normal and make you feel cared for, but at the end of the day they don't really feel it.

Are they good for knowing what is good and trying to act on that even though they couldn't trully care emotionally even if they wanted to?

Can you ever really trust them again?


Socio- or psychopathy is the exception, not the norm. I don't know if the 'cause' of sociopathy or psychopathy is genetic. I would speculate that certain traits associated with sociopathy conferred an evolutionary advantage for our species, but even people with some of these traits are capable of remorse/guilt. What distinguishes a psychopath is their lack of remorse/guilt. They don't get internal satisfaction from helping others; they're indifferent at best and anti-social at worst. Whether this is due to a genetic defect is a highly contentious matter. But even in the case of psychopathy, there is always a difference between intention and action, although the latter are strongly influenced by the former.


_________________
Autistic (self-identified)
Open source, free software, and open knowledge geek
GoLang, Python, & SysAdmin aspirant
RPG enthusiast
Has OCD, social anxiety, CPTSD


hurtloam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,747
Location: Eyjafjallajökull

30 Jan 2020, 8:11 am

Interesting how you are interpreting my use of the word feeling.

I don't mean that they don't feel satisfaction, I'm sure they don't, I mean that they don't feel a warm fuzzy motivation such as: "I care about this person so I want to do a nice thing for them and make them smile."



hurtloam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,747
Location: Eyjafjallajökull

30 Jan 2020, 8:13 am

Cloudman wrote:
I think both are good in the eyes of the other people you helped. sometimes it's about being able to help others even if u feel nothing that takes real strength. This strength is often overlooked and not recognized. Our perceived goodness usually comes from our actions. I can use myself as an example people just couldn't believe I had good intentions until they seen the results of my actions. They seen that I still wanted nothing more than to help even without feeling anything I broke all these notions that you need to feel like others do even if for just a second that's what brings me joy. You don't need to feel anything to be a good person just understand others fight for others. Have sympathy and compassion think of each person like your family. I think this is a strength if you embrace it.


I like this answer. It's a positive perspective and helps me be a bit less judgemental about someone I know. Maybe less hurt.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

30 Jan 2020, 8:55 am

I find that many people really have that “warm, fuzzy feeling” when they help someone.

I also find that many people deny that this is so. Out of not wanting to seem vulnerable or naive.



Abstract_Logic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 580
Location: Here

30 Jan 2020, 9:57 am

hurtloam wrote:
Interesting how you are interpreting my use of the word feeling.

I don't mean that they don't feel satisfaction, I'm sure they don't, I mean that they don't feel a warm fuzzy motivation such as: "I care about this person so I want to do a nice thing for them and make them smile."


"warm fuzzy motivation" as in "I care about this person so I want to do a nice thing for them and make them smile."

Because this good deed makes us feel internally satisfied, improves/promotes our relationship with the person, which in turn promotes a (hopefully) mutual satisfaction and understanding between us, and benefits us both. This is true regardless of how convenient or not the deed is for us. It's okay to not feel like driving one's grandson 26 miles back to his house to get his PS4 controller -- it would be rare indeed if one actually got pleasure from the act of driving, dealing with traffic, and wasting that time when there are other things one would rather be doing -- but one does it because one loves one's grandson, and helping one's grandson confers a self-generated "warm fuzzy" reward. It is well known that healthy relationships require some sacrifice and compromise that one may not be immediately willing to make.


_________________
Autistic (self-identified)
Open source, free software, and open knowledge geek
GoLang, Python, & SysAdmin aspirant
RPG enthusiast
Has OCD, social anxiety, CPTSD


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

30 Jan 2020, 9:59 am

I'd have to thoroughly agree with what Abstract Logic is saying.



BenderRodriguez
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,343

30 Jan 2020, 10:43 am

Bradleigh wrote:
If the action is more important. What if you had a racist who tried to discriminate against a person of a different race, but somehow actually helped their situation. And you had someone who intended to help a person of a different race, but their actions led to something bad happening instead. Which if either of these cases is the person good or better than the other?

Do we look up to a problematic POS as a good person because against their intentions it caused good, or do we take motives in mind? I generally think in a scheme of things you need to take into consideration attempts to be informed, and probably some empathy. With the right push almost anyone can be convinced to do something messed up.


Why does it always have to be about racism? :?

If someone really wants to help another person that's being discriminated against, they should first talk to them to see what they need, instead of deciding it on their own.

A harmful action is going to have the same consequences regardless of the perpetrator's intentions and the other person is going to suffer them. People need to carefully consider how their actions are going to affect others and OMG even talk to them. A lot of misguided actions stem from ignorance and a mix of arrogance and lack of empathy that makes people think they know what's best for others.

And in my experience, a "good" person will try to fix unintentional mistakes.


_________________
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." Aldous Huxley