• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Living Skillfully: The Most Useful Lesson

Which point? You slapped two completely different points together. In one you offered a rare event.

No. I offered a single example out of the millions of possibilities where 'doing the right thing' in order to get a 'pleasure reward' competes with other more selfish urges that also give a 'pleasure reward'.

You are quibbling a single example instead of addressing the very general point.


It's extremely hard to believe that honest people would find that working for a corrupt government in any country was "the best job available." However, let's assume your imagined facts are true. Why do you assume that working for a corrupt government makes good, honest people corrupt?

Living in such a country and experiencing it first hand makes me think that.

If it's hard for you to believe that this is the case then you are very naive. People adapt to their environment after all.

You seem unable to imagine that there is a world out there that differs from your own personal experience in a wealthy, Western country with a strong legal system and a decent level of accountability.

Most of the people in the world do not live in such a place.

There are always ways to sabotage corrupt governments just as anti-Nazi German civil servants sabotaged the corrupt practices of that regime whenever they could.

Ignoring the fact that most people aren't heroes and are not willing to go against the grain at great personal cost...

These aren't anything like 'the Nazis', many/most of the countries in question are the flawed democracies that tend to be the norm in the modern world outside of the West.
 

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
If you can provide examples, I'll be better able to understand. What kind of mistakes in our past are unresolved?
what mistakes of the past have ever been really resolved?
history is record that stutters, repeating the mistakes of the past is the main theme of history.
Why do humans seem peculiarly unable to avoid repeating the same mistakes has always been a major theme explored in any history course.
 

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
Living in such a country and experiencing it first hand makes me think that.

If it's hard for you to believe that this is the case then you are very naive. People adapt to their environment after all.

You seem unable to imagine that there is a world out there that differs from your own personal experience in a wealthy, Western country with a strong legal system and a decent level of accountability.

Most of the people in the world do not live in such a place.



Ignoring the fact that most people aren't heroes and are not willing to go against the grain at great personal cost...

These aren't anything like 'the Nazis', many/most of the countries in question are the flawed democracies that tend to be the norm in the modern world outside of the West.
wasn't it stalin that was known for the quote, "the nail that stands up is the one that gets hammered down"?
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Of course it is bad on the whole, the point was that when faced with systemic corruption that you can do nothing about, it is often in your best interests to be corrupt too.

It's a no win situation. There's no point to giving in to corruption. Instead it's worse off to give in. Being a pawn in a corrupt system makes one expendable to that system. I'd rather die then sell out.

Corruption needs honest people to survive off of. It's always the case.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
what mistakes of the past have ever been really resolved?
history is record that stutters, repeating the mistakes of the past is the main theme of history.
Why do humans seem peculiarly unable to avoid repeating the same mistakes has always been a major theme explored in any history course.
While we humans haven't completely eliminated any of our failures, we have made moral progress on a wide variety of problems. Many months ago, I authored a thread on the topic.

Global Harmony is Inevitable
 

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
While we humans haven't completely eliminated any of our failures, we have made moral progress on a wide variety of problems. Many months ago, I authored a thread on the topic.

Global Harmony is Inevitable
Pentacles2_Intercloud.jpg
of course the system is "harmonizing"
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
No. I offered a single example out of the millions of possibilities where 'doing the right thing' in order to get a 'pleasure reward' competes with other more selfish urges that also give a 'pleasure reward'.

You are quibbling a single example instead of addressing the very general point.
I'll take a wild stab.

Is your point that, in most people, the gloating pleasure of stealing a lot of money competes with the pleasure of treating others with kindness?

Living in such a country and experiencing it first hand makes me think that.
Psychologists struggle to understand human nature. But you understand it well in your country because you live there. :)

It is possible, in any country, that someone might act in way that would ordinarily be immoral in order to survive or to protect the lives of others. But, from conscience we learn that intent is a factor. Thus, such acts are not immoral.
 
Last edited:
I'll take a wild stab.

Is your point that, in most people, the gloating pleasure of stealing a lot of money competes with the pleasure of treating others with kindness?

Good grief, why does it take a 'wild stab' to understand the uber-simple idea that people are constantly faced with ethical choices where they weigh up 'doing the right thing' with doing what is best for themselves, what is easiest, what is most enjoyable, what piques their curiosity, etc.

You have many competing sources of 'pleasure'.

A young child can easily understand this point, you certainly can understand it too.

Psychologists struggle to understand human nature. But you understand it well in your country because you live there. :)

Strange thing to say for someone who is certain he has humanity's future mapped out based on the debatable effects of a single cognitive process, considering it is well understood that we adapt to our environment and are socialised into it.

Again children can understand this point: "well everyone else was doing it..."

It is possible, in any country, that someone might act in way that would ordinarily be immoral in order to survive or to protect the lives of others. But, from conscience we learn that intent is a factor. Thus, such acts are not immoral.

Again you are being very naive about what happens outside your bubble. What is immoral in the West may just be considered normal elsewhere. What is 'normal' is culturally defined.

Simple factual example:

Most people in the West would consider that it is important to have a driving licence as cars are potentially deadly and should only be driven by those capable of doing so safely. They also believe that bribing government workers to circumvent laws that protect public safety is immoral.

Where I live, almost nobody obtains a driving licence legitimately. They simply pay a bribe to the official who then grants them the licence. Almost nobody feels they are doing anything wrong as it's 'just the way things work here'. Most would actually consider you an idiot, or at least a bit odd, if you went through the hassle of getting one legitimately.

When everyone games the system, playing by the rules is often seen as a sucker move. People are more frequently proud that they gamed the system effectively than they are about 'doing the right thing'.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Good grief, why does it take a 'wild stab' to understand the uber-simple idea that people are constantly faced with ethical choices where they weigh up 'doing the right thing' with doing what is best for themselves, what is easiest, what is most enjoyable, what piques their curiosity, etc.
The point made in the foregoing paragraph is easily understood. But that doesn't sound at all like the point you started with, which was "Maybe person X steals a load of money...."

The gloating pleasure someone makes from stealing a load of money cannot be confused with the good feeling one gets when acting with kindness. Furthermore, unless the thief is a sociopath, guilt and remorse will follow.

Now, let's deal with your clarified version of what you meant:

...people are constantly faced with ethical choices where they weigh up 'doing the right thing' with doing what is best for themselves, what is easiest, what is most enjoyable, what piques their curiosity, etc.

Please explain how the fact that people don't always do the right thing morally conflicts with my statement to Purex that playing the hand for the best possible result does not mandate selfishness. This is what I wrote him:

The Selfishness Paradox applies. Acting with the welfare of others foremost in our minds is rewarded by our brains with pleasure. We feel good about it. When we act purely in our selfish interests while causing harm to others, we are punished with guilt or remorse.

Is my statement false? Will "playing the hand dealt for the best result" require a selfish attitude? If you think it will, please explain.
 
Last edited:
The point made in the foregoing paragraph is easily understood. But that doesn't sound at all like the point you started with, which was "Maybe person X steals a load of money...."

The gloating pleasure someone makes from stealing a load of money cannot be confused with the good feeling one gets when acting with kindness. Furthermore, unless the thief is a sociopath, guilt and remorse will follow.

If it's easily understood why bother quibbling a single example given to support the statement that "Many other things are rewarded with pleasure"?

Anyway the pleasure one gets from stealing money is not primarily the 'gloating pleasure' it's the pleasure they can buy with the money. You seem to ascribe an almost mystical primacy to conscience rather than it simply being one of many competing motivations.

You also don't have to be a 'sociopath' to not be wracked with guilt, people are good at psychologically justifying their actions to avoid cognitive dissonance. You seem not to factor this into your theories, as illustrated by the fact you couldn't grasp the fact that living/working in an environment where corruption is the norm means that otherwise good honest people frequently engage in corrupt activities without remorse and don't feel they need to 'sabotage the regime'.

Please explain how the fact that people don't always do the right thing morally conflicts with my statement to Purex that playing the hand for the best possible result does not mandate selfishness. This is what I wrote him:

The Selfishness Paradox applies. Acting with the welfare of others foremost in our minds is rewarded by our brains with pleasure. We feel good about it. When we act purely in our selfish interests while causing harm to others, we are punished with guilt or remorse.

Is my statement false? Will "playing the hand dealt for the best result" require a selfish attitude? If you think it will, please explain.

What I said:

"Playing the best possible hand might require one to act unethically in order to achieve the best possible outcome for themselves in their environment.

The more unfavourable our environment, on average, the greater the incentive for unethical behaviour."

The remorse, if there is any at all, is often eclipsed by the rewards, especially in environments where certain forms of unethical behaviour are the norm as this often negates the 'pleasure' of doing the right thing.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
It's not a rare exception, people are constantly faced with ethical choices where they weigh up 'doing the right thing' with doing what is best for themselves, what is easiest, what is most enjoyable, what piques their curiosity, etc.



If you start working at a perpetually corrupt government agency in a developing country you will almost certainly become corrupt too.

Not only is it basically pointless to be honest as it makes no real difference to the overall level of corruption, anyone who does so will be viewed with suspicion, passed over for opportunities and possibly hounded out (or worse).

For anyone who is not exceptionally virtuous and mentally strong, playing the best hand would be going with the flow.

Anywhere where ethical norms have broken down in some way though. Corrupt organisations, conflict zones, poverty, etc.
It sounds like you're equating best with easiest.

In the scenario you're using, "If you start working at a perpetually corrupt government agency
. .", the best play for a lot of people would be to, you know, not work there, even if it meant settling for a lower quality of life.
 
Last edited:
It sounds like you're equating best with easiest.

In the scenario you're using, "If you start working at a perpetually corrupt government agency
. .", the best play for a lot of people would be to, you know, not work there, even if it meant settling for a lower quality of life.

Best is a subjective value judgement, but most people here would take the job. When you live somewhere without a social security safety net, most people would prioritise being able to provide for their family.

Also, when corruption is endemic in a society, it doesn't have the social stigma it does in other places, especially when compared to the prestige of wealth.

People generally hate corruption, but also see it as 'the way things are' so will take advantage of it when they can.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
Best is a subjective value judgement,

As are ethics, to some extent.

but most people here would take the job.

Yes but most of us would be making that decision based at least partially on things like fear, greed, laziness, any number of emotions.

If I understand the op's point correctly, the the idea is to develop the ability to take a moment and suspend emotion completely in order to look at the cards objectively.

That way you can get a clearer, more realistic idea of where you are, more accurately assess the possibilities and probabilities, and come up with the most effective strategy for proceeding.

I would imagine that in the scenario you provided, most people would be at least a little conflicted. if someone were able to suspend all of the emotions involved in that decision: greed, guilt, even love of family and the obligations that go with it, ultimately they'd be able to make that decision with a much clearer head.

In that scenario they may well decide that the best course of action is to accept the job, but they would probably be able to do so with a clearer conscience, which would make them less of a threat (conflicted people, in particular conflicted people with power, tend to be more dangerous)

somewhere without a social security safety net, most people would prioritise being able to provide for their family.

Also, when corruption is endemic in a society, it doesn't have the social stigma it does in other places, especially when compared to the prestige of wealth.

People generally hate corruption, but also see it as 'the way things are' so will take advantage of it when they can.

Yes and I'd even go so far as to say that in a lot of situations accepting the job would be the ethical thing to do.

But I also think that someone who's looked at the situation objectively, accepted their options, and made peace with their decision would be more apt to recognize and act on whatever small opportunities to do good presented themselves here and there, even within a corrupt system.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
If it's easily understood why bother quibbling a single example given to support the statement that "Many other things are rewarded with pleasure"?
The "quibble" explained why your position wasn't understood before you clarified it.

Anyway the pleasure one gets from stealing money is not primarily the 'gloating pleasure' it's the pleasure they can buy with the money. You seem to ascribe an almost mystical primacy to conscience rather than it simply being one of many competing motivations.
Your points are irrelevant to the argument I gave Purex which started our exchange.

Conscience is moral guidance. If we follow its guidance, the Selfishness Paradox applies.

You also don't have to be a 'sociopath' to not be wracked with guilt, people are good at psychologically justifying their actions to avoid cognitive dissonance. You seem not to factor this into your theories, as illustrated by the fact you couldn't grasp the fact that living/working in an environment where corruption is the norm means that otherwise good honest people frequently engage in corrupt activities without remorse and don't feel they need to 'sabotage the regime'.
It sounds as though you don't realize that there is no act, killing, stealing, lying, or any other that is always wrong. You don't even understand that whether or not one has a driver's license is not inherently a moral issue.

"Playing the best possible hand might require one to act unethically in order to achieve the best possible outcome for themselves in their environment.
Am I supposed to take your word for that? If you don't offer an example, I don't even know what you are talking about.

The more unfavourable our environment, on average, the greater the incentive for unethical behaviour."
You make that assumption based on what evidence? It is purely my guess that the more threatening the environment, the more likely that normally unethical acts would be morally justified.

The remorse, if there is any at all, is often eclipsed by the rewards, especially in environments where certain forms of unethical behaviour are the norm as this often negates the 'pleasure' of doing the right thing.
I think you're wrong. IMO, in survival situations, people often do things that, at any other time, would be immoral. But they ARE justified in those conditions.
 
Last edited:

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
Please explain how the fact that people don't always do the right thing morally conflicts with my statement to Purex that playing the hand for the best possible result does not mandate selfishness. This is what I wrote him:

The Selfishness Paradox applies. Acting with the welfare of others foremost in our minds is rewarded by our brains with pleasure. We feel good about it. When we act purely in our selfish interests while causing harm to others, we are punished with guilt or remorse.

Is my statement false? Will "playing the hand dealt for the best result" require a selfish attitude? If you think it will, please explain.
to interject
this is similar to the think globally act locally idea.... which if the individual in question has only an abstracted idea of what acting globally means then yes, they are acting selfishly, since it is their abstracted idea they are working with and not necessarily live, visceral intel, which would be required to act in a harmonious synergy, which would be optimal.
the sense of self has to extend out to envelope in some way, the other, and not in the abstract..... try flying a jet in formation with someone else, do dangerous maneuvers, and see how this abstract ideation will get you killed, and this, sense of almost mystic connection is what makes the difference between a top gun and a dead whoops.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
to interject
this is similar to the think globally act locally idea.... which if the individual in question has only an abstracted idea of what acting globally means then yes, they are acting selfishly, since it is their abstracted idea they are working with and not necessarily live, visceral intel, which would be required to act in a harmonious synergy, which would be optimal.
the sense of self has to extend out to envelope in some way, the other, and not in the abstract..... try flying a jet in formation with someone else, do dangerous maneuvers, and see how this abstract ideation will get you killed, and this, sense of almost mystic connection is what makes the difference between a top gun and a dead whoops.
However, if we assume that our brains are sending us the same signals, enabling us to discern right from wrong in all situations, then discord could only happen when we ignore the guidance for some reason.
 

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
However, if we assume that our brains are sending us the same signals, enabling us to discern right from wrong in all situations, then discord could only happen when we ignore the guidance for some reason.
that is something that needs to be confirmed, or just 'wing it'?
musicians working at getting into stride and harmonizing with each other, just playing a musical instrument, should indicate how presumptuous it is to just assume that untutored savage humans are even inclined to do so, let alone, interested or able...only a slice of the whole lot ever do any serious work in that area.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
that is something that needs to be confirmed, or just 'wing it'?
musicians working at getting into stride and harmonizing with each other, just playing a musical instrument, should indicate how presumptuous it is to just assume that untutored savage humans are even inclined to do so, let alone, interested or able...only a slice of the whole lot ever do any serious work in that area.
If its true, it won't matter whether you believe it or not. The only thing that will matter is that if the act you consider feels wrong, you don't do it.

You know, the old piece of advice: "Let conscience be your guide."
 
Top