MaxInDHouse:

If you send your girl child to school spending your hard earn money to see her through her education but another man got her pregnant in her SS2 Class, is that what you sow?

That is a good question and one can as well ask "If there is a just and all powerful God, why does he allow bad things to happen to good people?"

Making people to see what you're seeing takes a lot of patience and humility on your part as each person wants to prove they're intelligent couple with the fact that many will outrightly criticize you even though they know it makes sense. That's why we need a SUPREME BEING that everyone will revere and fear.

No we don't, we only need to "fear" the law of cause and effect.

He is gathering those He has EDUCATED about His future plans and using them to educate others who are ready to REASON.

OK, who are these people?

His future plan is to make sure that all evildoers are cut off from the earth so that only good people will inherit the earth and live forever on it!

Where will he put all the evildoers then?

MaxInDHouse:


You are talking about when you're alone in your own world without having to do anything with others, in that case whatever you sow is what you will reap but in this case you have to COHABIT with others around you who also feel like doing whatever pleases them.
So what you sow is of no relevance anymore because those around you may choose to vandalize your plantation rendering your effort futile.
That's why we need a SUPREME BEING.
Remember the illustration of traffic?
It can only work if everyone is law abiding but in the case where some deliberately choose to ignore the traffic laws then the lives of everyone including those obeying the rules are not safe.
That's why we need a SUPREME BEING.

What you supposed to ask is:
What the SUPREME BEING is doing presently to help us have a better future?

@bolded
You're taking my seed analogy too literally, there is nothing/nobody that can interrupt the workings of the law of cause and effect. There is nobody or spirit or supreme being that can prevent me from experiencing the reciprocal effect of the good or bad I do.

Now if people really see this, understand it and live by it, we wouldn't need legal laws but people don't, that's why we need legal laws to create some semblance of peace among ourselves.

Oda, what is the Supreme being doing presently to help us have a better future?

budaatum:

Indeed, not all stories are good, and that's the beauty of the book in question. A story very early in it introduces one to knowledge of good and evil so one can use one's own mind to discern between the two.

As for you knowing already, thank the gods that you do, but the pure morality you've introduced here includes considering not only your needs but the needs of others too, and some are not as privileged as you are and so might benefit from the learning.

Also, considering most around you worship the god in said book, knowing their gods would help you understand them better, and understanding others helps one be more moral towards them even if they don't deserve it.

Do note, other books are available. Just that this particular book is much more easily available than most.

Good points.

While it may be "just nice to be good for goodness sake", you'd still need to ensure people see this way since no one is born to even know what's good in the first place. You wouldn't say ordinary please and thank you if you were not taught to, same as most people would not necessarily be good if they are not taught or compelled to be good. So you'd either need to educate people to be good or compel them to be good, both of which any responsible society would do by educating its people and adopting laws to punish transgressors.

It's definitely good to compel at first but we would have to move past that to educating them. Just as it is good to compel your kids to brush their teeth but still need to educate them on why they should brush their teeth, that is more sustainable.
[/quote]

MaxInDHouse:


So it's the fear of those in authority that often makes people comply with rules even though they know such rules are for their own good.

That's why we need the SUPREME BEING when talking about MORALS!

Let me explain how I believe this works.

So you have an uncultivated land around your house, you can plant whatever you want. You can plant fruit trees, flower, weed, poisonous plant etc and the ground will support its growth without any question.

In my OP I said I believe in the law of sowing and reaping which means for every deed (action) its reciprocal effect is bound to come back, this law tends to our deeds as the soil tends to seed, giving us its harvest sooner or later.

So, with this law in place, you don't need a Supreme being to tell you what is right or wrong. You only need to know whatever you put out will come back to you, so if I want to reap good I will plant good and if I want to reap evil, I will make sure I plant evil. Nobody is judging.

The only reason I tell people to plant good is because I know people will want to reap good and you can't plant evil hoping to reap good, it doesn't work like that just as you can't plant weed and hope flowers to bloom around your house.

So, we don't need a Supreme being to give out morals(dos and don'ts).

MaxInDHouse:


You know there are law enforcement agents to deal with traffic offenders that's why you feel safe driving, in a place where there is civil war in fact you will be scared taking the safest road.
WHY?
Because rebels and other militants may drive anyhow as there is no constituted authority to handle the case of traffic offenders.
So the supreme authority is what makes you feel safe driving on the road!

You're correct, but I will word it differently.

The reason I feel safe driving on the road is because there is punishment for reckless driving and nobody wants to be punished so I can trust or assume people will drive safely.
But if there is civil war and no agents to arrest offenders then I can assume people may not drive safely so I wouldn't feel safe driving.

budaatum:

It's a book with many stories for one to contemplate and learn from.

That's true, but not all stories there are good, one should learn to discern, but if I can discern between good and bad already why should I read it??

You likely mean learning morality by seeing further than one's own selfish needs, though it's not what I think you mean but what it might mean to me since I can only read my mind.

You're correct

To be "capable" means to understand the need and to know how to, though I'd balk at your "this is what we should all be doing", you plan to force or indoctrinate or teach humanity to be doing.

I'm not trying to force anybody, it's just nice to be good for goodness sake and if one chooses to be moral for selfish reasons, that's cool also, atleast it will still accomplish our ideal (living peacefully among ourselves).

I don't want to preach Jesus to people and neither am I a Christian. But in the dearth of Plato and Aristotle and Marcus Aurelius et al, reading the easy available Christian and Muslim books would be a step in teaching humanity to be doing, in my opinion. We just might learn to sacrifice for others in so doing, and we'd at least learn to read.

A welcome bonus.

budaatum:


even moreso due to the Bible being in the education of many.

How so? Indulge me, what do you think I mean by Moral mandala?

Or do you not think we'd be a bit more selfish if Jesus is not preached to some?

Why wound you want to preach Jesus to people?? By the way, I'm not a Christian.

budaatum:


It is not the businessman in me that cures you, but a combination of a lot of other things too, like my joy and pride in healing you, and the favour of the gods and the money I'd obviously make. And you thinking it's the business and not all those other things is just uninsightful and shows your desire to pigeonhole me and my motivations.

I was once told by a doctor with a hospital to go where I could get free healthcare. If his motivation was his business, I would have been long dead.

This man... Oda, it is the business and all those other things.

budaatum:


Like I shouldn't expect fame or be viewed as a good person or get favour from god or earn lots of money when I heal you with the knowledge I acquired through years of expensive study so I can build the hospital in which I cured you?

Why would I bother if I did not expect all the above and more? Was my education free too, and did I build the hospital for free?

If you don't want me to profit from curing you, please go to the hospital that was built without the expectations I have since I'm not the only hospital, you'd hope. For I am not that dumb to not know and expect to profit and fame and favour from humans from curing you, and whatever the gods add is very welcome.

As I said you're simply a business man and there is nothing wrong with that.

budaatum:


I'd charge you of course, and make myself wealthy in the process, and that might even have been the underlying end to my means of building the hospital, but I'm certain you'd not consider me bad therefore, since you wouldn't expect me not to pay the staff I hired to help cure you, and pay for the investment in my education that enables me to cure you and build a hospital to cure you in.

If you built the hospital for the sole purpose of building wealth, then you're neither good nor bad (so far people get the treatment they paid for), you're just a business man just like if I sell you a bag of rice and get paid, I'm neither good nor bad, I'm just doing business.

triplechoice:
Ok. But do you agree that the concept of moral mandala is not practicable.

It is hard but it's practicable.

It's hard to continue with that for long without getting disinterested at some point or struggling to continue. You need some form of motivation to propel you forward .

It seems you do not understand the concept of moral mandala well. It doesn't mean there is no motivation for doing good but that the motivation is humanity orientated and not self orientated. Let me give examples of moral mandala.

1. I'm wealthy, I noticed people in my village are suffering from poor health due to no access to pure source of water. I decide to improve their living condition by building hospital and provide pure source of water.

In the above scenario, I have a motivation but the motivation is directed at them (improve their living condition) and not directed at me (to gain fame or be viewed as a good person, or to gain favour from God etc).

2. A house is burning, you rushed inside to save a child inside.
Saving the child is your motivation and not becoming a hero.

"No matter what motivates you "should not have been interpreted by you to mean motivation is not relevant .

I have not said motivation is not important or relevant . Infact ,I emphasised it's relevance in kick-starting and sustaining ones drive in doing good . That's what I said .
Please go back and read again .

My bad

triplechoice:


I don't practice any religion but won't because of that condemn or judge harshly anyone doing good because of a God.

I'm not condemning or judging anyone harshly for doing good because of God, I believe it's better than doing bad because of God.

And if you read OP well you will see where I said I wish I do not believe in law of sowing and reaping so as to practice moral mandala much more. This means I still do good with the intention of reaping good in mind. I just find the concept of moral mandala such more appealing.

Good is good no matter what motivates you to do it .

I do not believe this, as a Spiritist I believe in afterlife, law of sowing and reaping and channeled messages through mediums. All messages channelled through medium agree that what motivates an action is much more relevant than the action itself in the life beyond.

MaxInDHouse:


The traffic laws were set by those who are SUPREME that's why there is punishment for offenders.
So how do we come to agreement on who is supreme regarding morals?

We do not agree on the traffic law because it was set by those who are supreme but because the reciprocal effect of the law will accomplish our ideal which is to drive safely on the road.

If the "SUPREME" decides to remove traffic light from junctions and tell us all to drive however we want, do you think we would all agree because they are "SUPREME"? No! why?
Because the reciprocal effect of such decision will not accomplish our ideal (driving save on the road).

@triplechoice

No. They didn't destroy the good they did at first . They only discontinued doing good due to lack of motivation from realising they wont benefit anything if they continue .

This only applies to the second guy, the first guy has already bought the charger, had given it to her so the good is already completed, but he went back and nullify the good.

Your reaction to your friends action is subjective . You cannot see that any good can come from it in the end hence you judge them wrongly . It's possible it leads to marriage . Who knows ?

I don't understand what you mean here.

Their reaction after, not before, the girl rejected them is also subjective . I neither support that kind of behaviour , or encourage it.Not everyone reacts that way .

I'm happy you don't support such behaviour.

So, I think it's safe to say ,your friends are no gentlement from the way they behaved later ,but however, they actually tried to do some good as a means to an end, and that good was never destroyed . The lady enjoyed it if only temporarily

My friends are actually the ladies telling me of their unpleasant experience with guys.

triplechoice:
Don't forget that the rich man in your context is also a politician . In other words ,the context is politics and the rich man is who? a politician .

So ,he did no wrong at all to build an hospital for the people in order to motivate them to vote for him . The rules behind the game of politics allows for that kind of behaviour ,and on the personal level we all engage in that kind of politics which is normal :To marry a woman or man ,you must play politics ,if not ,you remain single .

In politics ,people are only motivated to vote for you if you first of all demonstrate what you can do in the present moment , or capable of doing later after you win the election. The electorates won't vote for you for voting sake .You must make promises or better still do something first they can enjoy to encourage them. That's it. . It's to motivate the electorates to vote for him . It's not wrong and at least the people are benefiting something and may continue to benefit after the election if he wins .
And you 're getting it wrong .The peope are not the means to an end ,but the hospital itself ,without which they won't vote for him .

So we can both agree there are two ways to use "Good"
- As a mean to an end (the politician)
- As an end in itself.

The question of which is better remain subjective.

To me, the first "good" is like replacing all flowers on earth with plastic flowers, the earth will still look beautiful but it wouldn't be an alive beauty, it will be a pancake beauty, a cosmetic.

MaxInDHouse:


So how can we all agree on morality since we want to live as a society?

Just as we all agree on our traffic law.

MaxInDHouse:
The late Nobel Prize-winning biologist Jacques Monod stated: “Man knows at last that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe from which he emerged by chance. His destiny is nowhere spelled out, nor is his duty.”

A similar thought is expressed by Oxford professor of chemistry Peter William Atkins, who declares: “I regard the existence of this extraordinary universe as having a wonderful, awesome grandeur. It hangs there in all its glory, wholly and completely useless.”


MORALITY comes from a purposeful reasoning so if someone feels his life has no meaning nor purpose how do you think such a person can value morality?

"Life doesn't have an inherent purpose but it is an opportunity to create purpose,"
Roy T. Bennett

You are walking down the road, you saw a snake on your path, there is a stick laying on the ground, you picked it to scare the snake away.
Prior to you using the stick, it has no purpose but you gave it a purpose.

Prior to emergence of human as self conscious beings, life doesn't have a purpose (animals don't give life any purpose) but human can give life a purpose even if it doesn't have an inherent purpose.

So, if someone feels his life has no purpose or meaning, he can create one and such a person has to value morality if he wants to live in human society. If he can manage to leave the earth and live on the moon then he doesn't have to care or value morality.

LordReed:


That is a different question altogether though.

Do you realise that our legal system takes motivation into account if it could be established. For example shooting someone due to self defense or accidental discharge.

LordReed:


The good actions didn't change, the characters took additional bad actions.

But they wouldn't have taken the additional bad actions if the first actions were taken with good intention.

Blitzerz:


Google who championed the abolition of slavery.?



So let me ask you.
Is euthanasia good?
Or bad?
Also is abortion after sex good or evil?

Answer for yourself.

I can't answer whether euthanasia is good or bad, as for abortion, I believe it is bad and should be avoided by avoiding unwanted pregnancies.

LordReed:


How am I supposed to know this before I make a choice? I will read their minds?

Also what I prefer is irrelevant to the question which is does the good being done change because of the doer's motivations?

@bolded
I will reply you by pasting my reply to triplechoice that I asked you to read earlier showing that sometimes the good being done change if the motive is not right.

You see, motive is very important because if a good is used as a means to an end and the end is not realised, people tend to destroy the good. Let me give two examples.

These happened to two of my friends.

1. The laptop charger of a friend got spoilt so it became stressful to charge her laptop because she has to wait for others to finish charging and the light was not stable.
This guy offered (she didn't ask him to) to buy her a charger with the intention that through that she will agree to his advances.
When the guy got rejected again after buying the charger, he angrily collected the charger back and destroyed it to spite her.

2. She was out on the street, it was about to rain. A guy offered to give her a lift but with the intention of getting her number. After driving for some minutes, it starts to rain, one thing lead to another, he asked for her number, she declined, and can you guess what the guy did? He dropped her on the road while it was still raining.

Those guys used the "good" as a means to an end but when the end was not achieved they destroyed the good.

Anjinsan:

Nice one on morality for its own sake. Also I now know about the sand mandala, thanks.

On Marcus Aurelius, we can't factually talk about his level of morality.

All we have is his journal - Mediation - more like a musing to himself, trying to clarify and deepen his ideals.

On Mother Theresa of Calcutta, the depth of dirt that woman went in bringing relief to many, even with heaven as the prize, many won't do it. Motive is best known by the doer.

Also, the Stoics aren't atheist. In mediation, Marcus Aurelius, often makes mention of the divine. Often rendered as gods, God, nature. Also, after reading the Meditation the take away won't be that he doesn't believe in an afterlife. Same in the Discourse of Epictetus, Same with the letters of Seneca.


With Love.

But you agree the god of the stoic is not the same as religious god. Their god is more of an Einstein god and like you rightly mentioned they sometimes refer to it is nature.

And I don't undermine the work done by mother Teresa for humanity.

Blitzerz:


False.
If so, the word wont even be in the dictionary





Who decides?
This part of your submission calls for a need to revisit history.
When the early civilizations were building the foundations of government, they didnt just decide.
They consulted spirituality.
From Rome, to Egypt, Babylon etc

They didnt just decide.
The earliest british laws were gotten from the bible etc.



Here is how I will answer this;

If a man gives you [b]consent to take his life,
Will you go ahead?[/b]

If you cant then you are pretending based on the above

So they consulted the bible before they abolish slavery??

@bolded
Remember in my reply to you, I didn't mention consent but effect.
To answer your question, have you heard of Euthanasia? In case you haven't Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending the life of a person or animal to relieve suffering, typically in cases of severe illness, pain, or incurable conditions.

LordReed:


How would he know I didn't treat him like a person after I gave him succor?

Why are we even discussing this, it is a no brainer that the intention that prompted a giving is as important as what was given.

Let's assume your business is failing, which of these friends would you accept help from (assuming you know their intentions).

1. Sees it as an opportunity he can later use to boast in your face that he was the one that saved you from bankruptcy.
2. Wanted to help because he valued your friendship and doesn't want to see you bankrupt.

LordReed:


The more pertinent question is would the beggar care about why I gave the money? Of course not.

He would not care but he wound prefer you had treated him as a person.

And it is more than that, see my reply to triplechoice above

triplechoice:

Exactly .

You see, motive is very important because if a good is used as a means to an end and the end is not realised, people tend to destroy the good. Let me give two examples.

These happened to two of my friends.

1. The laptop charger of a friend got spoilt so it became stressful to charge her laptop because she has to wait for others to finish charging and the light was not stable.
This guy offered (she didn't ask him to) to buy her a charger with the intention that through that she will agree to his advances.
When the guy got rejected again after buying the charger, he angrily collected the charger back and destroyed it to spite her.

2. She was out on the street, it was about to rain. A guy offered to give her a lift but with the intention of getting her number. After driving for some minutes, it starts to rain, one thing lead to another, he asked for her number, she declined, and can you guess what the guy did? He dropped her on the road while it was still raining.

Those guys used the "good" as a means to an end but when the end was not achieved they destroyed the good.

LordReed:


This is my position as well. I find I am less bothered by why people do good things than that they do it at all. Your motivations for doing good will not make you superior or inferior to some other person who has a different motivation.

This is not about feeling superior or inferior, it's about making the good an end in itself and not as a means to an end.

Would you rather give money to a hungry beggar on the street because you don't him to go hungry (at least for the moment) or would you rather give because, then you can post it on your page and it will boost your fame and followers?
Of course, either way the beggar will not go hungry but which motive do you think he would prefer it rather be?

triplechoice:

Please be clear about the bolded .

What I mean by that in the context of the example is that the rich man ought to build the hospital or charity organisation simply for the improved health and living condition the people will get, that is making the people the end.
Rather than taking those actions as a stepping stone on the way to his end (political power or fame), that is making the people the means to an end.

Blitzerz:


Who defines what is good?
Thats the question

Lesbianism and homosexuality is now "good" in some countries.
Does that make it good here?

T

Nobody defines good or bad, it is the effect from the action that does (whether it meets our ideal or not).

For example, we've the ideal of building a peaceful and loving society, now, we decide to make theft lawful, will the effect from making theft lawful meets/accomplish our ideal? No, therefore theft is bad.

Lesbianism and homosexuality is now "good" because the countries do not see any effect from it that undermines their ideal.

What effects do you think come from homosexuality that threaten our ideal to build a peaceful and loving society?

correctguy101:


Erm..

It's simply humans being whatever they choose to be.

Atheist or Theist, a crazy human is a crazy human. A murderous madperson will be just that, no matter the label he fancies to call himself.

Humans can do and be anything and everything. Crazy set of creatures that they... smh

Exactly, but most people (especially theists) are hung up with the labels.

triplechoice:
Whatever reason one finds for doing good doesn't matter . What matters is that we are good to those around us because at the end of the day it benefits us more, whether moral mandala or God.



Not many persons will bother to confirm first the motivation behind any act of kindness shown to them before showing gratitude.

It's more important to focus on the good in doing good and receiving it from whoever, than on the motive behind it. Any other thing is for the purist to debate on.

And it's your personal opinion that mother Theresa is what you described her to be . The thousands of people ,who benefited from her act of kindness, rate her differently and that's because they received real life saving help from her and not just the reason behind the help .

A good person is a good person wherever you find him.

@bolded

Of course a rich man could build hospital and charity organisation with the wrong motive (maybe fame or political ambition) and people will still be better off with it than without it.
But it will be much better for the people to be the end rather than a mean to an end.

As a said earlier, I'm not sure about mother Teresa's intention.

Yes, this is another topic on atheism vs morality, but this is looking at it from another angle which I haven't seen here yet (maybe there is).

Most theists view atheists has animals not on leash, some here even call them Satanists, they're seen as people that will do any evil so long it satisfies their selfish desire. most theists will summarize atheists "morality" as:
"I will fu*ck you up if it profits me"

Let me at this juncture list the levels of morality in ascending order.

1. I will F you up because I can, it's fun (psychopathic).
2. I will F you up if it satisfies my desire for wealth, power, fame etc (Selfish).
3. I will F you up only if you F me up first (Revenge).
4. I will not F you up even if you F me up first but I will not be beneficial to you.
5. Not only will I not F you up even if you F me up first, I will be beneficial to you if the opportunity comes my way.
6. Not only will I not F you up even if you F me up first, I will go out of my way to help you if you need help.

Let me give an example to make this clear.

You are happily married to a gorgeous wife you loved dearly with two adorable kids and you have a good friend who you view as your BFF.

Well, it turns out your gorgeous wife and BFF have been having an affair for years and your adorable kids are actually not yours but your BFF's. Now, since the secret is out already, your wife(with the kids of course) moved in with your friend and they lived happily without feeling any remorse for what they've done, leaving you hanging.

As fate will have it, some months later, an opportunity comes your way in which you can choose any of three options (A, B or C).

If you choose A (Level 3)
- It will completely bankrupt your friend, and it will take years (if ever) to recover.
- It takes the very least amount of effort.
- It can not to traced back to you unless you decide to tell them (your friend and ex wife) to spite them.

If you choose B (Level 4)
- Choosing option B is letting the opportunity pass by ie not making use of the opportunity.

If you choose C (Level 5)
- It will make your friend rich.
- You will have to take some actions (nothing tedious) to make this work.
- They will not know you were the one that orchestrated their wealth, they will not even ever believe you if you tell them.

Now, how will an atheist justify not picking option A (revenge)?
How will he justify picking B or C (especially C)?

As a Spiritist, I can justify picking option C, how?
I believe in the law of cause and effect (sowing and reaping). I believe the Universe is set up in such a way that their is no way you will do evil and not have it come back to you sooner or later and likewise good.

So I can reason thus;
-My friend and ex wife had sowed a seed of bad and sooner or later they will reap the harvest.
-If I choose option A, I'm also sowing a bad seed and sooner or later I will also reap the harvest.
-If I choose option B, I am letting pass by a great opportunity to sow a good seed.
-If I choose option C, I will be sowing a good seed and I will reap the harvest sooner or later.

It may very well be that there is no such law as the law of sowing and reaping (I believe there is) but that is not the point here, the point is what kind of society would we have if large number of people believe this and live by it.

Are there reasons atheists can give to justify moving up the morality scale above from level 3 to 4, 5 and 6.

SAND MANDALA
In Tibet Buddhism, the monks produce a form of art called Sand Mandala. They use varying colored sand to produce highly detailed, beautiful and intricate geometric patterns.
They often spend days even weeks to produce this mandala because it takes a lot of skill and patience to produce.

After the Mandala is completed, they admirer it for some minutes, then they dismantle it without showing it off, taking a picture or video(as memorabilia). They do this to remind themselves of the impermanence nature of all things and not to get attached to anything.

MORAL MANDALA
Moral mandala is to be moral not because a God said so or for the fear of hell or the greed for heaven but to be moral for morality sake, to be moral because humans are capable of it and if humanity is to survive for long this is what we should all be doing.

The concept of moral mandala invites us to drop our selfish, business like, Fear -Greed morality for a selfless morality for humanity's sake.

A philosophical school of thought that has been using this concept of moral mandala since ancient Greece is Stoicism.
Stoics like Zeno, Seneca, Marcur Aurelius etc spent more than half of their life developing their morality and ethics even though they do not believe in afterlife or karma.

So what is the point of all the hardwork they put into developing and becoming a better human being if when they're dead it is over, they're deleted forever (the beautiful and highly detailed mandala is dismantled)?

To them, the individual self is the mandala and they thrive the create the individual self as a beautiful mandala as they possible can not for their sake (because the individual life will be over soon) but as an example for humanity, an example of the great moral state humanity can reach if we could just drop our selfishness.

This is why I admire the morality of Marcus Aurelius (a Stoic) more than the morality of mother Theresa (catholic). Marcus Aurelius is moral for humanity's sake while mother Theresa is (not sure) moral for heaven's sake.
And to be moral for humanity's sake is the purest kind of morality because it is devoid of self.

I sometimes wish I do not believe in afterlife or karma to access this selfless kind of morality, to be good because it's good for humanity and not for personal gain. So I tend to focus on the now happiness of the person recieving the good than the reciprocal effect of the good being done.

In conclusion, an atheist can not only be moral but has more access than a theist to a purer form of morality if he/she views his/her life as an opportunity to make a beautiful mandala for humanity's sake.