Sure. But not a moral effect, except as it changes your relation towards others. — Banno

Effects inform your morality.

If someone ponders privately some violent act, say against women, but does not commit the, then nothing of moral significance has occurred. But if your contemplations lead you to a misogynist attitude, then they have a moral component. — Banno

This is what you said: If somone ponders something, but doesn't commit it, then nothing of moral significance has occured. But, if you ponder something that leads you to ponder something, then they have a moral component.

This is completely incoherent.

That isn't so. Your acts have an impact on others. — Banno

I didn't say your "acts," I said only you can experience your experiences.

Your brain is all over the place.

This is completely incoherent. — Garrett Travers

My apologies; I hadn't realised you were hard of thinking. In your terms:

If somone ponders something, but doesn't commit it, then nothing of moral significance has occured. But, if you ponder something that promots an attitude that leads to immoral actions, then they have a moral component.

Your brain is all over the place. — Garrett Travers

Not mine. I did assume you capable of inference. Again, my mistake.

if you ponder something that promots an attitude that leads to immoral actions — Banno

Notice you say actions now, or, as I said, behavior?

You didn't say that. You said:

if your contemplations lead you to a misogynist attitude, they have a moral component — Banno

That's not action.

Again, your brain is all over the place. You are completely incoherent in your thoughts.

Notice you say actions now, or, as I said, behavior? — Garrett Travers

As I said, I made the error of thinking you could make an inference, and I apologise.

I won't bother you further.

No, you made the mistake of thinking that I wouldn't catch on to what you were up to. However, I did. Which is why you'll be leaving now. Ta.

Why do we do good? — TiredThinker

If it's the thought that counts, there's no need to translate that into action i.e. it's rather extravagant to do good, oui?

So, again, why (do we) do good?

What's the difference between

1. I want to give the beggar some money (think good).

and

2. I give/gave the beggar some money (do good).

?

Actions speak louder than words thoughts!

There seems to be a very good reason why there's a causal break between thoughts and actions. It acknowledges the uncertainty inherent in ethical causation (utilitarians might need to address this issue).

Kavka's toxin puzzle & thought police.

Chew on that.

So, when you are alone morality isn't a factor? — Garrett Travers

Only if what you do has impact on others. If you working alone leave nails on a deserted country road for passing cars in the night then this act can be assessed morally.

other than to make ourselves feel good — TiredThinker

If "making ourselves feel good" is the cause for doing good, then have a ball.

Also...

a) many are taught to do good for righteousness' sake -- do good because it is good
b) mirror neurons facilitate empathy

Mirror neurons are one of the most important discoveries in the last decade of neuroscience. These are a variety of visuospatial neurons which indicate fundamentally about human social interaction. ... Apart from imitation, they are responsible for myriad of other sophisticated human behavior and thought processes. — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles ›

c) we want to do good things

Another point worthy of note is the obvious one that what is good is what we ought to do, and what we ought to do is to do good...

SO, the answer to "why ought we do good?" is "because good is what we ought do".

That's an incredibly binary view of ethics. You are entirely disregarding individual morality. Morality applies to both individuals and interpersonal interactions. For example, taking simply the utilitarian approach at ethics, smoking cigarretts increases your risk of cancer, thereby decreasing overall utility. This is an unethical behavior. Doesn't have anything to do with other people, unless of course you are smoking around other people. This approach is but one of many to assess individual morality. Saying it ONLY matters if other people are involved is utterly binary and parochial. Where are coming up with this standard? Because it isn't something that's broadly accepted as the most reasonable position in philosophy.

Because it isn't something that's broadly accepted as the most reasonable position in philosophy. — Garrett Travers

That sounds like an appeal to authority and it requires demonstration. Can you show us citations for 5 philosophers who hold your position?

For example, taking simply the utilitarian approach at ethics, smoking cigarretts increases your risk of cancer, thereby decreasing overall utility. This is an unethical behavior. — Garrett Travers

I don't see how this (or other forms of self-harm) is unethical behaviour, except in how it might effect others - e.g.,using health services that others might need, etc.

No, you misunderstood, I said your assertion that morality ONLY applies to other people is not broadly accepted as even the most rudimentary of positions among moral philosophers. Not that my position is correct because it is supported by most, or any specific philosopher(s). Meaning, not an appeal to authority.

I don't see how this (or other forms of self-harm) is unethical behaviour, except in how it might effect others - e.g.,using health services that others might need, etc. — Tom Storm

That's because you didn't follow what I was saying. One only has to utilize the utilitarian ethical framework, only one among many mind you, to demonstrate that ethics/morality is not confined to interpersonal relations. YOU don't see how it is unethical, but the ethical framework provided by utilitarianism demonstrates how it is unethical, because smoking decreases utility in the form of heal for both the individual smoking, and those who he/she may be smoking around. YOU don't see how it is unethical because your concept of ethics is binary, either interpersonal, or not a domain of ethics. Do you see what I'm saying?

(nota bene: There are many, many ethical frameworks out there from which to draw your conclusions upon, depending on how compelling they are.)

He is channeling Ayn Rand, where "morality" is a personal to do list:

"Since a value is that which on acts to gain and/or keep, and the amount of possible action is the duration of one's lifespan, it is a part of one's life that one invests in everything one values. The years, months, days or hours of thought, of interest, of action devoted to a value are the currency with which one pays for the enjoyment one receives from." — Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Concepts of Consciousness

The "teleological" measuring stick is me, myself, and I.

is "because good is what we ought do". — Banno

To whom exactly we ought?

:gasp:

No, you misunderstood, I said your assertion that morality ONLY applies to other people is not broadly accepted as even the most rudimentary of positions among moral philosophers. — Garrett Travers

Maybe it is just your wording in here, but what I am attempting to say is (and it's a yardstick, not a theory) that what we call morality is the result of people interacting with other conscious creatures - this can be direct or indirect interactions.

YOU don't see how it is unethical because your concept of ethics is binary, either interpersonal, or not a domain of ethics. Do you see what I'm saying? — Garrett Travers

So your position is ternary? I should not say that 'me, myself and I' can't be in the domain of ethics - what I properly should say is that I have not yet heard convincing arguments for why it should be. I am not a utilitarian. It would be helpful if you to make the case for or provide citations for your argument.

I don't see how this (or other forms of self-harm) is unethical behaviour, except in how it might effect others - e.g.,using health services that others might need, etc. — Tom Storm

Yep.

There's perhaps in some an overhang og Christian morality, in which self-harm is frowned upon. But even that relies on one's relationship with another, in their case a supposed all-seeing god.

He is channeling Ayn Rand, where "morality" is a personal to do list: — Paine

He may well be, but that overemphasis on individualism is is rampant in neoliberal and conservative circles, it's most amusing version being the sovereign citizen.

is "because good is what we ought do".
— Banno

To whom exactly we ought? — dimosthenis9

An ill-formed question. Whomever.

Maybe it is just your wording in here, but what I am attempting to say is (and it's a yardstick, not a theory) that what we call morality is the result of people interacting with other conscious creatures - this can be direct or indirect interactions. — Tom Storm

But, it's not. Morality encompassess the behaviors I engage in privately, as I have the power to impact my life in ways both beneficial and deleterious, and because I am confined to my body and am its sole proprietor with sole responsibility over my well-being.

So your position is trinary? I should not say that 'me, myself and I' can't be in the domain of ethics - what I properly should say is that I have not yet heard convincing arguments for why it should be. I am not a utilitarian. It would be helpful if you to make the case for or provide citations for your argument. — Tom Storm

No, not trinary, multiferious. Meaning, I apply numerous standards for ethics. But, the idea that you need an argument to determine that your behaviors have an impact on your own life, and that there are ethical deliberations for approaching your own behavior, even though the idea of ethics is fundamentally the idea of how to "live the good life," that's not something I know how to address. Especially if you have no problem saying that such ethical deliberations are possible between humans. That quite literally doesn't make sense. And I don't know what you mean on the citation thing. What do I need to cite for?

We're wired to be selfish (so says evolution and other sources) — Agent Smith

We're wired to be selfish? By our selfish genes? Any act of altruism being selfish in nature in fact, because we are ordered so by our genes and memes who only want to procreate, replicate, and reproduce.

They need to reproduce (with John Agar)
They need to reproduce (with Morris Ankrum)
They need to reproduce (with Richard Basehart)
They need to reproduce (with Jackie Coogan)
They need to reproduce (with Sonny Tufts)

An ill-formed answer. So during my one and only life I ought to "whoever".
Hmm..good luck with convincing people with that.

Your question was illformed. Yes, you ought do as you ought, to whomever you meet. You seem to think you asked something more interesting, but you didn't.

Yes, you ought do as you ought, to whomever you meet. — Banno

Simply ridiculous.
And guess what? My objection isn't that we ought to do good indeed. But the excuses you give are lame. Almost theistic.

And I don't know what you mean on the citation thing. What do I need to cite for? — Garrett Travers

I've asked clearly for you to provide refences of philosophers who hold your position about the self and morality. Since you are the one who says all reasonable philosophers think this way it is only reasonable for us to see a reference or two. In my reading of James Taylor, John Rawls, Peter Singer, Martha Nussbaum and Iris Murdoch I have not encountered this. I am not saying it isn't there but please show us how it's an aspect of any inherent framework of morality.

That you and some others may hold this position is perfectly fine by me. It just won't be part of my framework unless I hear a good argument for why it should be.

Especially if you have no problem saying that such ethical deliberations are possible between humans. That quite literally doesn't make sense — Garrett Travers

Well several people here seem to agree with it so it isn't such a strange notion. Not making sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

Your last few posts have been incoherent. Wine?

There's perhaps in some an overhang og Christian morality, in which self-harm is frowned upon. But even that relies on one's relationship with another, in their case a supposed all-seeing god. — Banno

That would be my view too.

Weed.But the actual weird thing is that you find them incoherent without any boost at all.
What exactly is incoherent? That I think that we ought to do good but I disagree with the childish reasons you give for that?

Later.

We ought only to ourselves. To none else. And it's a deeply selfish thing to act good at the very end.The one who acts good receives the most at the end.
Just tell you that cause there won't be later.

I've asked clearly for you to provide refences of philosophers who hold your position about the self and morality. Since you are the one who says all reasonable philosophers think this way it is only reasonable for us to see a reference or two. In my reading of James Taylor, John Rawls, Peter Singer, Martha Nussbaum and Iris Murdoch I have not encountered this. I am not saying it isn't there but please show us how it's an aspect of any inherent framework of morality. — Tom Storm

I'm not sure what you think it is that I have asserted is my position. I argued that there are multiple frameworks of ethics that encompass more than just interpersonal behavior. The example I gave was Utilitarianism, as just a basic example. You can find how that is in the first sentence of this source on the subject: https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/utilitarianism#:~:text=Utilitarianism%20is%20an%20ethical%20theory,good%20for%20the%20greatest%20number.

That you and some others may hold this position is perfectly fine by me. It just won't be part of my framework unless I hear a good argument for why it should be. — Tom Storm

What position? That ethics applies to more than just interpersonal relations?

Well several people here seem to agree with it so it isn't such a strange notion. Not making sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. — Tom Storm

An appeal to popularity isn't an argument.

An appeal to popularity isn't an argument. — Garrett Travers

I am not arguing that my position is popular, I am arguing that others understand it so it can't be incoherent as you seem to dogmatically suggest.

What position? That ethics applies to more than just interpersonal relations? — Garrett Travers

Of course. But you know what? I don't think this is going anywhere. I think we should move on. I have made my argument and you don't agree. This is a philosophy forum. So what... :wink:

Yeah, no worries. Honestly, I think there is just too much being lost in written tex here. Plus, ethics is a pretty broad and deep topic with many, many frameworks to play with, so I doubt we'd be coming to conclusions that are compatible. If you and I were talking with one another in person, I think we'd be able to make out what's being asserted much better. Thanks for the chat!

-G