|
| Thread: Homeless People |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · NEXT» |
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
posted January 11, 2007 02:12 PM |
|
Edited by pandora at 21:00, 11 Jan 2007.
|
Homeless People
Do you like to help homeless people?
Do you agree with the helping of the homeless people?
Do you help them to be nice or just to make yourself feel better, or both?
{edit by Pandora - just fixed the spelling error in the subject line}
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted January 11, 2007 02:14 PM |
|
|
Depends.
Some play it off to look homeless to get more money out of us when in actual thier rich.
Others use the money for Booze or drugs.
Otherwise yea why not.
Many cases where it's not thier faults on why thier in that kind of predictament.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted January 11, 2007 02:16 PM |
|
|
Well I like to help homeless people because I am trying to be good, and help them out a little.
Maybe going down to the food shelter and providing them with some food.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
posted January 11, 2007 02:24 PM |
|
|
The Nature of Good
just so that people know how the whole thing started:
mvassilev wrote:
Quote:
I don't believe that I am the most important person in the universe. I believe that I am the most important person in the universe for me. Everyone, whether consiously or unconsiously, believes this. For example, take the person that aids the poor every day. He does this to feel good. His helping others of his species (something written in human genes) makes him "feel good", and he feels encouraged to do it again, to bring pleasure to himself. Remember that, often, to benefit yourself, you often have to benefit others.
william replied:
Quote:
I can disagree with your helping of the poor.
Often if I help the poor, I don't want to make myself feel good, I want to make the poor feel good.
Rather useless thing you said there imo.
mvassilev replied:
Quote:
Why do you want the poor to feel good? There could be 2 reasons.
1. You help the poor so they become more likely to survive (and climb out of poverty). Then they might help you when you're in trouble. It's like an unreliable insurance.
2. You do it, as you say, to make the poor feel good. Thus, you are bettering the general situation of the human race. This is coded within human genes, to help the species survive. By evolution, people have evolved to where it feels good for them to help the spiecies survive. Thus, you do it because of that.
william wrote:
Quote:
I don't like the way you think Mvassilev.
I do it cos I like to be nice and help those that are unfortunate.
I don't do it cos I want them to help me when I need help, I do it cos I like to be nice and help them.
Do you get it now?
mvassilev replied:
Quote:
Indeed. You like to be nice. You like to be nice (to the poor). You fulfill your genetic programming. You like to help them. It feels good for you to help them. You like it
william replied:
Quote:
Wrong, I like to be nice because I want to help them, if it was genetic then my dad would have done it, so would my mum.
Jeez Mvassilev, stop arguing here, you obviously don't get the meaning of just generally being nice.
I am not nice all the time, I just like doing that kind of stuff, if it makes thme feel bad or not.
Aculias commented:
Quote:
Whats wrong with that?
I dont see any problem with it?
Round 1 - Fight
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted January 11, 2007 03:07 PM |
|
|
Basically, William, you've been responding to Mvass's "The sky is blue" with "No! It's blue!".
You should decide between disagreeing and stating what the other person just said, but phrasing it differently.
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
|
MightyMage
Honorable
Legendary Hero
of INSANITY and DELICIOUSNESS
|
|
posted January 11, 2007 06:20 PM |
|
|
Wha...we still have homeless people? Oh my...wow. I thought we had a bake sale for them or something. 
On a more serious note (as I don't want to be the mod who was caught spamming in a no spam zone) I am part of an organization called the Jaycees. Some of you may have heard of it due to the fact that it is a worldwide organization:
United States Jaycees
Japanese Jaycees
United Kingdom Jaycees
Just to cite a few
The name derives from the letters J and C (obviously) which stood for the Junior Chamber of Commerce. The idea was originally intended to bring businesses together and train people to become leaders in their community. Today they still do this alongside helping the less fortunate and holding fundraisers. Every Christmas we put together gift baskets for select families and also hold a shopping trip for low income families with children. Throughout the year we also take part in a program called Meals on Wheels where we deliver food (such as cereal, soup, powderd milk, etc.) to senior citizens and the disabled. During the winter months we give blankets and clothes to homeless people that could not get into shelters.
I could go on about some of the other things but I'll get to the point of this post. I find nothing wrong with what Mvasilev said. It's true (and I think it's a good thing) that many of us feel good doing good for others. I for one am not going to help others and all the while hate doing it or feel grumpy about it. If I hated it I wouldn't do it in the first place. I think William in misunderstanding what Mvass is saying when he sees the words "written in our genetic code". I'm guessing here but I believe William is interpiting it as we only help others for the sole purpose of making ourselves feel good. Now I don't know if that's what Mvass was getting at or not but I saw it the way I described above. Sure I do it to feel good. I enjoy seeing a smile on the face of someone who didn't know how they were going to be able to pay their bills and give their children a Christmas. Yes, it makes me feel good. I don't do it for that sole purpose alone. Helping others isn't like sex (and I think that's how William is interpeting Mvass) where you do good just to get off. Sorry if that sounded vulgur but I think it gets my point across. When I help others such as the homeless, I do it because I know in my heart that it's the right thing to do and because I want someone else to be able to feel good as I do.
____________
Though I must still bow
in awe for the awesomeness that is
MightyMage. For he is all I could ever
want to be! - OhforfSake
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 11, 2007 06:31 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 18:35, 11 Jan 2007.
|
I wouldn't put too much stock in what mvassilev has to say about motives for actions. Perhaps he is right about the motives for HIS actions, in which case I feel sorry for him, because he will lead a very lonely life if all his actions are motivated by his own personal benefit. But when he tries to extend his wharped viewpoint to try to generalize about the motives of every else's actions, he is just plain wrong. Period.
If I help someone, I don't do it for myself (though I don't deny that some people give to charity partially for their own benefit). Sometimes people do good things just because it's the right thing to do. It's the same reason many people don't commit crimes. The reason that I do not kill and steal and rape is not because I'm afraid of the consequences. The reason that I do not kill and steal and rape is because I believe that they are wrong. If it was perfectly legal to kill and steal, I could not envision myself doing so. Many WOULD, it's true. But not me. How I stand to lose or gain from the action doesn't even really come into play. Morals have nothing to do with risks and rewards. They are two completely different matters which influence MOST peoples' actions.
It's just such a stupid argument I don't even know why we're bothering to discuss it.
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
|
posted January 11, 2007 06:56 PM |
|
|
Corribus...
since you are so adamant about this, let me ask you a simple question, before saying whether i agree or not...
you say we help others because it is the right thing to do... and i ask you, WHY is it the right thing to do? ...who or what defines that? ...some would argue that helping those too weak to help themselves is the wrong thing to do
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 11, 2007 07:33 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 19:35, 11 Jan 2007.
|
Quote:
since you are so adamant about this, let me ask you a simple question, before saying whether i agree or not...
you say we help others because it is the right thing to do... and i ask you, WHY is it the right thing to do? ...who or what defines that? ...some would argue that helping those too weak to help themselves is the wrong thing to do
Well that's fine, too. I'm saying according to my moral principles, it's the right thing to do. If, according to you, it's NOT, then that's ok, too. The point is, that many of our actions are governed by our morals, whatever they are, and not necessarily by our evaluation of what is good for us and what is not, as mvassilev maintains. If you decide NOT to give to someone, for the reasons you stated, it is a decision that is not necessarily being made because you stand to gain from it. Sometimes decisions are made from BOTH factors (moral and practical) - if you can do something that is good for you AND morally right (as judged by you), so much the better. But the idea that actions are taken ONLY because they benefit you is just dumb.
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted January 11, 2007 07:43 PM |
|
|
Mvassilev does not imply that people help others to achieve material benefits or bodily pleasures or any other nonsense, which is how you seem to interpret the abovementioned view.
What he's been pointing at is that every human action is taken with the intention of personal gain at a much wider definition. Sure, if I feed a starving man then it is possible that he'll eventually become a millionaire and offer an impressive token of apreciation, however unlikely. The usual motives behind taking such action also fits the definition though. Perhaps you enjoy helping people, thus making yourself feel good about having done so. Perhaps you feel it is the right thing and you help the man because you feel the need to do what is right. You are motivated by the satisfaction of having done what you felt was right.
Medieval hermits would abandon humanity and inflict pain upon themselves in the hope of a better afterlife.
Everything you do is done to achieve something. Whether it is a big screen tv or a warm fuzzy feeling deep inside is of no importance.
On a lighter note, here's a different example.
Action: giving everyone pancakes.
Person A does the action to see the smiles on the faces of all the pancake eaters in the room.
Person B does the action because if everyone gets pancakes, then that means person B gets some - person B likes pancakes.
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 11, 2007 08:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You are motivated by the satisfaction of having done what you felt was right.
That's not how I see it at all. I am motivated because it's the right thing to do. It's a moral judgement.
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted January 11, 2007 09:03 PM |
|
|
Then through doing so, you avoid a moral hangover, which is how some people refer to an attack of guilty conscience shortly after doing something they felt they shouldn't.
Avoiding such pain (and pain can be classified as loss) adds up to a net positive.
You wouldn't do this "right thing" if you would know that it'd bring you nothing but regret. But because you see it as "the right thing" and feel the necessity to do it, you sustain your innocence and virtue.
Non-material gain is not always simple enjoyment.
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 11, 2007 10:40 PM |
|
|
Thanks, Woock. You're exactly right in interpreting my viewpoint. I don't know what else I can add.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
|
posted January 11, 2007 10:55 PM |
|
|
basically...
what woock said... on a less serious note, this topic was brought up in an episode of Friends...
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted January 12, 2007 12:15 AM |
|
|
WHy is it the right thang to do Lith?
It is in a religious since.
Would Jesus help the poor?
Of course he would.
He is a kind man.
Now being a human being if you watched someone starve someone who has not eaten in days.
Would you just stand there & walk away or would you give them somethang so they wont die?
Examples all over similar & you need to ask yourself what is right n your own self.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 12, 2007 12:22 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 00:40, 12 Jan 2007.
|
Quote:
Then through doing so, you avoid a moral hangover, which is how some people refer to an attack of guilty conscience shortly after doing something they felt they shouldn't.
Avoiding such pain (and pain can be classified as loss) adds up to a net positive.
You wouldn't do this "right thing" if you would know that it'd bring you nothing but regret. But because you see it as "the right thing" and feel the necessity to do it, you sustain your innocence and virtue.
Non-material gain is not always simple enjoyment.
Hmm, so basically what you are saying, if I read correctly, is that people do "good" things, such as giving money to charity, because they avoid the guilt they would feel if they otherwise did nothing. That seems like just a poor way to defend the contention that every act a person takes is taken to benefit the self in some manner.
The obvious problem with such an argument is that you are essentially defining a positive in terms of the lack of a negative. Aside from the fact that it's a rather pessimistic outlook on human motives, it's also mathematically incorrect logic. Just because something is not negative, does not make it positive. Avoiding a negative does not necessarily result in a positive - it could result in ZERO. Sure, NOT doing a good action MAY make you feel guilty and thus it MIGHT negatively impact YOU. But that does not mean that therefore doing the good action is done because it improves my situation. At the most it means it's done to avoid a negative.
Which I don't really think is the case, I'll reiterate, at all. The problem is that you oversimplify the process of choice. What you seem unable to realize is that every action involves a value judgement AND a practical judgement. "Is it right to do it?" and "Can I or should I do it?" are two questions that are made and evaluated instantaneously every time we undertake an action.
If I'm walking down the street and I see a homeless man shivering in the cold with nothing to eat, and I stop and give him 50 cents and tell him to go buy himself a cup of coffee or a donut, I certainly do not first stop and say to myself "Hmmm, I better give him some money or I'm going to feel guilty about it later." No, I give it to the guy because I first make a moral judgement that I have money and this guy doesn't; that I have warm clothes and this guy doesn't; that I have a home and job and this guy doesn't; and I feel bad for him and want to help him improve HIS life, if only just by a smidgen. I don't base a moral decision on what is good for me. I base my morals on the fact that we are all humans living on the same damn planet and if I have the means to help out a person who is a little down on his luck, then that's the right thing to do.
At the same time, my practical judgement is "50 cents is not a lot of money. I can part with it and still live." Thus I come to the conclusion that I will give the 50 cents to the guy and improve his life.
What I ultimately do is based on my moral decision and my practical one, two factors which are often at odds with one another. But I believe these two aspects of our innate decision making process are wholly separate and also based on wholly different motivations. The practical one is often selfish, an evaluation of how I can improve myself the most, or minimize the negative impact on my life, or evaluate how much I am willing to or can sacrifice to achieve something I want or judge to meet my moral expectations. But I believe the moral decision transcends such petty considerations. The moral decision and the practical decision are often at odds, because doing good unfortunately requires sacrifice. Depending on the strength of ones moral convictions, the moral choice often trumps the practical one (or, at the most, is tempered by it), or vice-versa, leading to BAD PEOPLE and GOOD PEOPLE. Since morally "good" actions (and the definition of good obviously varies from one person to the next) DO require sacrifice, you could argue that such an action actually NEGATIVELY impacts me, quite the opposite from your contention. For instance, if I give the bum 50 cents, my life is negatively impacted (at least physically), because I no longer have 50 cents to buy myself a coffee. Do I feel good about myself afterwards? Maybe, there's an undeniable emotional payoff, but does that mean the end result is a positive for me? I don't know. 50 cents versus a little self-satisfaction: how do you quantify them and come up with an overall "negative vs. positive" impact on my own life. You certainly cannot prove that it's always a net positive. And it doesn't really seem appropriate to calibrate that scale by what would happen if I did NOT perform the action. At best it's ambiguous.
Which is why I feel the contention that "all actions are taken are done so because they improve my life" is at best very oversimplified and at worst absolutely wrong.
Incidentally, what separates us from most animals is the moral side of the decision making process. When we refer to a criminal who murders a thousand people as "an animal", we do so because they either lack the ability to ask the moral question before committing a question, or they have the ability but allow the practical question to always win out. These people - like animals - DO always base their actions on what will improve their own lives the most.
A more interesting discussion I feel would be, what factors determine why some people are more willing to let moral questions guide their actions than others. Is it environment, religion, parenting, education, race, gender, biology (genes), or something else, or all of them? And more generally, WHY do humans have the capacity to make a moral judgement? Is it, as mvassilev suggested, based on some sort of evolutionary sense of societal self-preservation? I think that's over-simplistic, because if that's the case, why haven't other animals evolved the same sort of societal self-preservation? Some say it's religion, that the need for "salvation" or "life after death" motivates people to do good (the heaven theory). But again, why don't other animals care about going to heaven? What makes humans special? Is it biology? Is it our advanced brains? Or is it something more ethereal, such as the soul? Hmmm.. deep topics.
ok /end rambling
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted January 12, 2007 12:51 AM |
|
Edited by william at 01:07, 12 Jan 2007.
|
Quote:
Would Jesus help the poor?
Jesus helped the poor, and the sick with miracles, he cured the sick, cured people of leprosy and blindeness and all that.
He was a kind man ofcourse, and the son of God.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
|
posted January 12, 2007 12:59 AM |
|
|
the nature of good... continues
@Aculias:
sorry, but bringing religion into this is rather pointless, since for some of us, religion is either unimportant, something we don't believe in, or even evil... not to mention there are people that do not believe in Jesus and are still capable of such "right" deeds ...you will have to do better, next time try philosophy ...and for the love of all that you hold sacred... its "thing" not "thang"
@Corribus:
well spoken, i have to admit... but a few points... unlike math, life is not so cleancut... there is room for infinite shades of grey and zero is probably the least possible of them ...you assume many things, like most of us... things we like to believe in, but have no way of proving ...how can you prove that compassion is not something our instincts guide us to? ...and more specifically, the instinct of survival ...if you help your fellow man, society as a whole will strengthen (leaving him to his fate may do the same in a different manner, far less pleasant) ...you assume that humanity is somehow special, because we have morals ...i will not say that we do not, but you have no way of proving that, its a matter of faith, just like religion ...can you be 100% sure that if animals were able to speak they would not share ideas you could describe as moral? yes yes, a bit theatrical, but i am sure you see what i am trying to say ...in your post you elevate the "moral decision" into something almost metaphysical, something that automatically makes you a better person... in truth, your very view of the subject makes you feel better about the whole thing, which brings us back to what woock said ...keep in mind that just because you live by a certain moral code, it doesn't mean everyone else lives by it... to some, your "moral" deeds will be nothing short of small crimes and sins against their own code ...if humanity had a single unifying moral code, things would be slightly different... this is not the case
we agree on one thing though... deep topics
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 12, 2007 01:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Hmm, so basically what you are saying, if I read correctly, is that people do "good" things, such as giving money to charity, because they avoid the guilt they would feel if they otherwise did nothing. That seems like just a poor way to defend the contention that every act a person takes is taken to benefit the self in some manner.
They may not consiously avoid the guilt, but they do.
Quote:
Which I don't really think is the case, I'll reiterate, at all. The problem is that you oversimplify the process of choice. What you seem unable to realize is that every action involves a value judgement AND a practical judgement. "Is it right to do it?" and "Can I or should I do it?" are two questions that are made and evaluated instantaneously every time we undertake an action.
Of course it is. But just because something is evaluated instantaneously and subconciously doesn't mean it's not evaluated. You may not think, "Should I help that man?", but you are instantaneously processing that unasked question and answering it.
Quote:
If I'm walking down the street and I see a homeless man shivering in the cold with nothing to eat, and I stop and give him 50 cents and tell him to go buy himself a cup of coffee or a donut, I certainly do not first stop and say to myself "Hmmm, I better give him some money or I'm going to feel guilty about it later."
You immediately make that decision, without considering it. However, imagine if you didn't give him any money. You would probably feel guilty and wish you did.
Quote:
No, I give it to the guy because I first make a moral judgement that I have money and this guy doesn't; that I have warm clothes and this guy doesn't; that I have a home and job and this guy doesn't; and I feel bad for him and want to help him improve HIS life, if only just by a smidgen.
As is encoded in your humanity. You want to improve the lot of your species. Thus, you want to help.
Quote:
I don't base a moral decision on what is good for me. I base my morals on the fact that we are all humans living on the same damn planet and if I have the means to help out a person who is a little down on his luck, then that's the right thing to do.
Of course. You want to help your fellow human because he is your fellow human. He is the same (or very similar) to you. You want to help your speicies survive. This may make you feel good if you conciously make the decision to help, and it happens automatically (for you) (without making you feel good, but avoiding a guilt trip) if you make the decision subconsiously.
Quote:
The moral decision and the practical decision are often at odds, because doing good unfortunately requires sacrifice.
Many would sacrifice their lives to save a greater amount of lives, as this would, though they might not realize it, help the survival of the human race.
Quote:
Since morally "good" actions (and the definition of good obviously varies from one person to the next) DO require sacrifice, you could argue that such an action actually NEGATIVELY impacts me, quite the opposite from your contention.
There are other kinds of impact than the obvious material one. For example, if you ran into a burning orphanage, saved all of the kids, but died yourself, you would have impacted yourself negatively materially. However, if you just walked by and didn't lift a finger to help, you would feel terrible. Sometimes, a sacrifice is required for the survival of the species, this is the ultimate extent of "feel good for helping". You die, but you would have been still motivated by the same goal as you did when you helped the homeless man.
Quote:
50 cents versus a little self-satisfaction: how do you quantify them and come up with an overall "negative vs. positive" impact on my own life. You certainly cannot prove that it's always a net positive.
It isn't always a net positive. However, you still do it because you, for lack of a better word, are programmed to do it in your genetic code.
Quote:
Incidentally, what separates us from most animals is the moral side of the decision making process.
Humans are no different from animals. However, "persons" are. Humans, essentially, consider the so-called moral (until I find a better term for it) choice (I say "so-called" because I argue that morality is simply a collection of different factors of various origins, from religion (in humans) to the basic survival of the self (basic living things), the pack (wolves), or the species (humans). Of course, sometimes the actions end up hurting the species) "Persons", on the other hand, logically consider the choices and regard the benefit of the species as a factor of personal benefit.
Quote:
These people - like animals - DO always base their actions on what will improve their own lives the most.
Criminals, most often, end up hurting their lives more often than improving it. Animals do not engage in such behavior, at least not conciously. Most animals perform actions that benefit the self, sometimes at the expense of the species. Most humans act to benefit the species without concious thought, though they often harm it. "Persons" benefit the species to benefit themselves.
Quote:
A more interesting discussion I feel would be, what factors determine why some people are more willing to let moral questions guide their actions than others. Is it environment, religion, parenting, education, race, gender, biology (genes), or something else, or all of them?
Yes, this is a good question.
Quote:
And more generally, WHY do humans have the capacity to make a moral judgement?
And IS there such a thing as a purely moral judgement (a judgement that is supposedly morally right, but benefits no one)? Or are all "moral" judgements done for the benefit of the species?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
|
posted January 12, 2007 01:25 AM |
|
|
mvassilev
you will be surprised to find out that 99% of what an animal does benefits the species more than it benefits the individual ...prime example of that, wounded animals breaking away from the herd/pack not to slow the rest down, but surely sacrificing themselves ...wow, self sacrifice... thats profoundly moral
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
| |
|
|
