WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES TO BEHAVING MORALLY?

[HexHammer]

... I generally like people; and I wish the best for anyone who isn't exploiting or harming others. More importantly, I think we should be fair and enable everyone to flourish as their ability allows, to reward endeavour rather than privilege or violence, so as not to waste our most valuable resource.

Well said, uwot !!

The idea for this thread arose when someone asked, "Why should I be nice, and good?"

It seems that some writers here didn't get the message: that being nice pays off. Instead they are rude, insulting, and get their attention by being 'bad boys.' They come off as immature brats, but - as sjeff70 so wisely observed - they are totally unaware of how they look to others.

I think that here on the web they are known as TROLLS.

bYou, in contrast, understand. Good for you. I appreciate your fine contribution to the discussion.+

What uwot says is devestating, as it would encourage the narcissist and the psychopath to have their way, instead we need moral and ethical rules that keeps people in check.

In Denmark the crime statistic is extremely high for people with middle Eastern background, but extremely low for asian people, as asian people has a way stricter moral codex.

prof your understanding of moral and ethics are extremely outdated, and only rely on oudated books that doesn't in any way describe the modern society we live in.

Maybe prof can explain following vids and thereby contradict my understanding of him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuxOrCoYnV0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfH6I0ScbOA

[uwot]

....and then there are occasions when the thing to do is be cruel simply because the person you are addressing is a blithering half-wit. Good morning, Mr Hammer.

What uwot says is devestating, as it would encourage the narcissist and the psychopath to have their way, instead we need moral and ethical rules that keeps people in check.

Here's what you do, Mr Hammer: quote something I have written and explain, using logic and reason, why it would have the results you suggest.

[HexHammer]

....and then there are occasions when the thing to do is be cruel simply because the person you are addressing is a blithering half-wit. Good morning, Mr Hammer.

What uwot says is devestating, as it would encourage the narcissist and the psychopath to have their way, instead we need moral and ethical rules that keeps people in check.

Here's what you do, Mr Hammer: quote something I have written and explain, using logic and reason, why it would have the results you suggest.

What you should have done, is to ask me to elaborate.


[Edited by iMod]

[uwot]

Very well, Mr Hammer: elaborate!

[HexHammer]

uwot could you be so kind to tell me excatly what you don't understand of my former post?

[Edited by iMod]

[uwot]

uwot could you be so kind to tell me excatly what you don't understand of my former post?

Well, I gather you don't think much of my intellect and you feel that rather than be prescriptive, I should ask you to elaborate on the following point of yours:

What uwot says is devestating, as it would encourage the narcissist and the psychopath to have their way, instead we need moral and ethical rules that keeps people in check.

Happy to do so, Mr Hammer: could you elaborate please?

[HexHammer]

I think we should be fair and enable everyone to flourish as their ability allows

What you say has good intend, but can be heavily misinterpeted to have devestating consequenses.

Grafitti painters does excatly that, and ruin so much in their wake. Sure some intelligent community workers has appointed legal grafitti spots, but unfortunaly it's a rampart menace.

Here in Denmark we have had people who thought it was a good idea to take the concept of "freedom of speech" as far as they could and insulted the prophet mohammed of the muslim faith, that had very devestating consequenses.
We lost export oppotunities and many middleast countries have cut off trade with us, and some countries now a decade after, are a no go area where danes will be killed.

This is the exact same warning I've issued against prof's ideals, but unfortunaly some mod on this site, isn't particual good at understanding very basic philosophy, so ofc he deleted my warning.

[prof]

The question has arisen as to why we are more likely to help a well-dressed individual than someone who looks down and out?

For two hundred years at least, finishing schools and etiquette books and courses have taught that appearances count; the cliché has it: “Clothes make the man!”

It's natural to want to help those persons who look like they're helping themselves. In the prankster-video, to which you referred us on You Tube, the man in the suit looked to be working but the other guy looked like a bum that isn't even trying to better his life - by washing up and trying to find work. Both pretend to fall down suddenly in the street. Most folks come to the aid of the one who looks like a businessman, and hesitate to touch the other fellow who appears to be homeless..

In another video, which is the stunt where the very same person is dressed up to look prosperous - but just out of some coins for the moment - then he asks passers-by for some small change; and later he wears his usual clothes – for he actually is homeless - and he requests a quarter to buy a cup of coffee -- there is no reason to believe that if I gave a mere half-dollar to each of these chaps one of them would spend it thus keeping the economic gears running, while the other would not.

Why would I donate that sum to each, you might inquire? Because I – being the kind of person I am - want to be compassionate and kind – as my study of Ethics confirms I ought to be…. The fellow who looks like a businessman, touting a cell-phone, when he was, in effect, panhandling looks like he could easily come up – by some other means - with fifty cents; whereas, it is safe to assume, a homeless man could not.

Are many people today judgmental? Yes, of course. They don’t yet know their Ethics. Ignorance is rampant. That does not mean that it necessarily shall prevail. Let’s stay with the facts: Not every homeless person is a drug addict, a junkie, or an alcoholic. There are far more people on the streets today from lay-offs, due to the state of the economy, than there are people on the streets due to substance abuse issues; and if you had to sleep on a park bench eventually even your clothes would get a bit dirty. When is the last time you sat down to talk to a homeless person to ask them their story? When's the last time you felt compassion for somebody who was in a rough spot? Oh, never? I see.

To one who is morally judgmental: Stop acting like you're so much better than everybody else, looking to the rest of the world as if you were an arrogant p+++k. You have no right to judge anybody who has made a mistake in life because you, sir, are far from ideal yourself. (If a writer here believes he is perfect, he may be a narcissist himself and may want to consider seeking serious professional help.)

This may be a riff on something John F. Kennedy said, paraphrasing something Bernard Shaw wrote:

Some look at what we have in the world and ask, Why?
I look at the future we could have and ask, Why not?

.

[HexHammer]

Dear prof, try read up on modern sociology, specially that from Denmark, where all this social stuff and helping out has gone terrible wrong.

Good case studies would be:
- Carina case
- Dovne Robert (Lazy Robert)
- people on wealthfare recieve in many cases more than those who work on low wage.
- Kurlingbørn (curlingkids)

[prof]

...- people on wealthfare recieve in many cases more than those who work on low wage. - Kurlingbørn (curlingkids)

A wise rabbi once told this story. It's an old story but it has relevance here: The workers work in the vineyard, they work all day in the hot sun, twelve hours. The master of the vineyard goes out from time to time – time to time – remember that -to the square where the loafers are lying in the sun. He goes to the men and says, “Why don’t you work?” They say, “Nobody has hired us.” So he hires them for work in the vineyard, and he does so all day long; even a few minutes before the end of the day he goes out and asks a few loafers to come in, They sit around a little, doing a little work, and at last the bell rings and everybody goes to the cashier’s window.

And the cashier gives everyone a dollar. Everyone, those who have worked ten minutes,
those who have worked 30 minutes, those who have worked an hour, those who have worked two
hours, three hours, and those who have worked twelve hours in the hot sun. Those who have worked
all that day get mad, of course, and say to the master of the vineyard, “Sir, that isn’t fair. We work
all day in the hot sun and get a dollar, and these loafers come in for ten minutes in the shade and get
a dollar too.” Says the lord of the vineyard, “What’s it to you? What have we agreed?” “Well,” they
say, “a dollar.”

“Did you get your dollar?” “Yes.” “Well, then, what do you want from me? What’s
it to you? Does it make you worse off that I am good? Many are called, few are chosen. The first will
be last and the last will be first.”

.......something to think about.....

Then, there is the experience of the Hawthorne Experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect

[prof]

Here is how Robert S. Hartman, in a talk to business leaders, described the experiment conducted at Hawthorne Electric Co.:

"You might think that infinite arithmetic is important only for mathematics; but it is important also in industry.
You remember the Hawthorne experiment of the Western ‘Electric Company. In that experiment a
group of girls was taken out of the factory and experimented upon. They got better working
conditions, and productivity increased. They got worse working conditions, and productivity
increased. They got better lighting, productivity increased; they got worse lighting, productivity
increased. They got rest periods, mid-morning lunches, shortened work week, productivity increased.
They got no rest period, no mid-morning lunches, a lengthened work week; productivity increased.
No matter what was, done, productivity increased. Roethlisberger and Dickson, who wrote up the
experiment in their book Management and the Worker, shook their heads, and wondered what kind
of logic was at work. Any particular thing we do, they concluded, is unimportant, the only important
thing is the attention we give them and the cooperation they give us. And this was exactly right.
What was mobilized was intrinsic valuation: “stores of latent energy and productive cooperation”
were uncovered.

In intrinsic valuation, where the human being is seen in its infinity, the only thing that can happen
is addition. Once these girls were given intrinsic human attention everything that happened was
addition. The finite arithmetic of subtraction simply did not apply. It is only one logic of three which
applies to the industrial organization. Roethlisberger and Dickson call it the specialist logic of
efficiency. It is systemic in our terminology; the second is the logic of social relations, extrinsic; and
the third, the logic of human relations, intrinsic. The authors are especially clear on the “limitations
of specialist logic:”

“Each of these specialists is assigned a specific function and occupies a certain position in
the total company structure. In performing his function the specialist tends to select from the
total work situation only those aspects for which he is functionally responsible. The engineer
is likely to be oriented to engineering problems and not to the total organization as such. The
cost accountant is oriented primarily to those aspects of the total situation which can be
included under the symbols of cost.

The same is true with all other specialist groups. Each expert tends to appraise the work situation in terms of his specialty, which means that some part of the total situation is left out.
As a consequence, the total group situation. is never
accurately represented as a functioning whole and the specific relations which obtain between
the various. specialist functions and the total organization are frequently ignored or
inaccurately stated. Some of these specialist agencies fail to take systematic account of the
social organization, particularly that part of the social organization which is informal. This
means that the control which is exercised by management tends to be based upon an
incomplete analysis of the entire situation, and unless that part which is ignored is intuitively
understood and taken into account by management the control exercised is likely to be
inadequate.”

A contributing factor to this inadequacy of systemic control is that the specialist becomes
emotionally involved in his rules and makes a fetish out of them, that is, starts to value them
intrinsically rather than the people."

[HexHammer]

...- people on wealthfare recieve in many cases more than those who work on low wage. - Kurlingbørn (curlingkids)

A wise rabbi once told this story. It's an old story but it has relevance here: The workers work in the vineyard, they work all day in the hot sun, twelve hours. The master of the vineyard goes out from time to time – time to time – remember that -to the square where the loafers are lying in the sun. He goes to the men and says, “Why don’t you work?” They say, “Nobody has hired us.” So he hires them for work in the vineyard, and he does so all day long; even a few minutes before the end of the day he goes out and asks a few loafers to come in, They sit around a little, doing a little work, and at last the bell rings and everybody goes to the cashier’s window.

And the cashier gives everyone a dollar. Everyone, those who have worked ten minutes,
those who have worked 30 minutes, those who have worked an hour, those who have worked two
hours, three hours, and those who have worked twelve hours in the hot sun. Those who have worked
all that day get mad, of course, and say to the master of the vineyard, “Sir, that isn’t fair. We work
all day in the hot sun and get a dollar, and these loafers come in for ten minutes in the shade and get
a dollar too.” Says the lord of the vineyard, “What’s it to you? What have we agreed?” “Well,” they
say, “a dollar.”

“Did you get your dollar?” “Yes.” “Well, then, what do you want from me? What’s
it to you? Does it make you worse off that I am good? Many are called, few are chosen. The first will
be last and the last will be first.”

.......something to think about.....

Then, there is the experience of the Hawthorne Experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect

That's a nice parrot speech, but your basis of comparison is utterly wrong.

People in the vinyard are free to work elsewhere where the pay is better.

If people are grossly discriminated in pay, the motivation is devestated, like what happend in communist countries.

So what you are saying, don't bother working so hard, trying to start your own buisness, just quit and go on wealthfare, then you get money for free, leeching on society ................that's a completely retarded ideology!!!

Your friend is a blatant retard, even more tragic that he's a rabbi and will preach his stupidities for the masses. What he has in mind with this story, is that it doesn't matter what one is paid serving the Jehova. This is very poorly translated to real life, where people get obese, because they want to be nice to themselves and their loved ones, ending up spoiling them with too much food and soft drinks, resulting in diabetes, which in the end is very fatal.

You have learned nothing, and will learn nothing.

[Sappho de Miranda]

What are the advantages of behaving morally?

Well that depends on what is meant by moral. If behaving morally means simply goodness, then it is advantageous because it feels good to be good.

But morality is far more complex than that... goodness doesn't always come into play.

Justice seems to be the moral measure nowadays... to to be Just does not always feel good, nor fair given considerations in play if treated equally.

So perhaps the advantage of behaving 'morally' by what ever moral code implied within the question has the advantage of social control.

But is social control a good thing?

[uwot]

I think we should be fair and enable everyone to flourish as their ability allows

What you say has good intend, but can be heavily misinterpeted to have devestating consequenses.

Well, like Karl Popper said: "It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood."

Grafitti painters does excatly that, and ruin so much in their wake. Sure some intelligent community workers has appointed legal grafitti spots, but unfortunaly it's a rampart menace.

Allow me to elaborate: the context I had in mind was education. Despite the efforts of many dedicated professionals in underfunded facilities, it is demonstrably the case that children perform better at well resourced schools. In the UK there have been efforts to ensure that everyone gets the same education. The national curriculum was introduced by Margaret Thatcher and was laughably promoted as creating a level playing field; quite apart from the inequality of resources, it remains the case that who you know is at least as important to your career prospects as what you know. The number of heads of government, the armed forces and church who went to fee paying (ie 'Public' schools in the UK, Eton, Harrow and so on, 'Private' schools in the US) is disproportionate. If a child is born into those circles, they will move in those circles. Similarly, doctors, lawyers, bankers are disproportionately the children of doctors, lawyers and bankers. It is also the case that people living on council estates with little prospect of muscling in on the good jobs are disproportionately the children of people who live on council estates. I don't believe for one moment that such people are responsible for all the graffiti (they are certainly not responsible for starting wars), but they have very little opportunity to express themselves, and what you can only see as vandalism, in some cases will be their attempt to do so.
There is talent and energy that is wasted, because people for whom the system works are afraid to change it, they are conservative. With a bit of imagination, people who have been taught how to control their own destiny could share that power with others still struggling. The irony is that right wing nuts will demand 'competition', except from people who may be smarter, more creative, but poorer than them.

Here in Denmark we have had people who thought it was a good idea to take the concept of "freedom of speech" as far as they could and insulted the prophet mohammed of the muslim faith, that had very devestating consequenses.
We lost export oppotunities and many middleast countries have cut off trade with us, and some countries now a decade after, are a no go area where danes will be killed.

So you think you should not exercise free speech in case people are nasty to you. Given the manner in which you exercise your freedom of speech against anonymous contributors, it is clearly not causing offence that bothers you, it is the fear of the consequences; that is called cowardice, Mr Hammer.

[HexHammer]

uwot, it's futile to reason with you, why you get back on ignore.

You really don't understand very simple problems, and will always give a bad viewpoint that doen't really relate to the points made.

Karl Popper clearly didn't understand the concept of knowledge, experience and intellect.