There is not one single act of “Goodness” or “Selflessness” that you can perform, even the self-sacrifice of your life to save another, that you can then bring here and argue…
…which would not immediately nullify its Moral Content.
In attempting to prove that you have done Good, or that you are capable of doing Good, nullifies whatever you think can possibly be(come) Good.
Thus Goodness is a convenient moral contrivance built upon Political Leveraging and “Social Justice”.
In actuality, there is no “Justice” that you can truly prove or argue, without nullifying it. Because if it were “Good”, then it would go Unspoken and there would never be a need to “Prove it”.
Urwrongx1000: There is not one single act of “Goodness” or “Selflessness” that you can perform, even the self-sacrifice of your life to save another, that you can then bring here and argue…
…which would not immediately nullify its Moral Content.
K: This thread/post is a hot mess… ok, so what does it mean that
“argue… which would not immediately nullify its moral content.”
what does that even mean? why does “arguing” a point, nullifies its
moral content?
UR: In attempting to prove that you have done Good, or that you are capable of doing Good, nullifies whatever you think can possibly be(come) Good.
K: how does attempting to prove one had done “good”… “nullifies” whatever
you think can become good…I don’t see any type of connection from one
statement to the other statement…
UR: Thus Goodness is a convenient moral contrivance built upon Political Leveraging and “Social Justice”.
K: this is another confused statement… “goodness” and we have no idea what
that is, is somehow a “moral contrivance” another confused statement because
all manmade “Moral theories” are a “moral contrivance” by their very nature…
and suddenly we have political leveraging and “social justice”… thrown in…
again, a lack of connection between goodness and “political leveraging”
and this means what exactly? I don’t know what “political leveraging”
is? and what is the connection between “goodness” and “social justice?”
UR: In actuality, there is no “Justice” that you can truly prove or argue, without nullifying it. Because if it were “Good”, then it would go Unspoken and there would never be a need to “Prove it”.
[/quote]
K: and now we have another concept, “Justice”. So, we now have 4 theories/
Justice/goodness/ social justice/political leveraging
all left with no explanation as to what they actually mean…
and their connection to each other…and what does ‘‘nullifying’’
mean? as I said, this post is a hot mess
K; I wonder whatever happened to goodness? I guessed we
moved on to ‘‘social justice’’ Now is ‘‘social justice’’ the same
as ‘‘JUSTICE’’… as you never define either one, we don’t know…
and now we have more undefined idea’s, Metaphysical,
Objective, subjective and then opinion…
how about telling us what these means in relation to your idea’s?
you throw out a lot of idea’s without connecting any of them…
or you didn’t create a unified theory of sorts that might explain what
you are talking about…
I think that is your not-Good principle. There is very often - almost always - a need to let others know what your intentions are - in general terms. It is a sin to allow people to think that you are doing something bad if you are in fact doing something good (“avoid the appearance of evil”).
To boast on your good deeds would be sinful because boasting is sin (trying too hard to impress others). Not providing enough evidence of the act being true is also a sin (misleading people into thinking that you are lying). Some people take any mention of a good deed as a boast - as you say - but that is actually THEIR sin.
I imagine these days it is intentionally made difficult to say anything positive about yourself (especially if you are not politically favored) - but it is still a sin not to (assuming the act is true). When society creates such no-win situations - dark days follow - as we are experiencing right now.
Being overly concerned about the judgements of people who so clearly have poor judgement - is yet another sin.
It begs-the-question, necessarily, about what is Good, what is an Act of Goodness, and is Goodness possible. The crux of the matter, is in defending the position of Good, implies that the person doing so knows the difference between Good and Evil. It’s easy to defend Goodness when it’s self-serving. In that case, it’s based on Selfishness, and cannot be counted as Good. Good, hypothetically, is about being Selfless.
Therefore, it’s not up to the person acting Good, attempting to do Good, to Judge (basis of Justice) whether he-himself was Right(eous)—rather it is up to everybody-else.
The Unspoken aspect of (moral) Goodness is also equally important. People don’t need to go around boasting and bragging about the Good deeds of an individual (like Christ), rather they would attempt to emulate and copy the moral nature of the Do-Gooder. And that would inspire others. And that inspiration would be the critical motivation of Goodness.
I’ll have to re-write it for the Kindergarten class, so that you can understand Kropotkin.
Here’s a teaser:
Social-Justice is usually Evil, and especially the “social justice” that YOU believe in. Because it’s built on lies, and fed to stupid people, for the political whims of the Lords you serve unknowingly.
K: ummm, as you haven’t defined social-justice, who knows if I believe in
it or not… as for being built on lies, who knows, you haven’t told us what
it means…now you might say, Kropotkin, just look it up, but that doesn’t tell
me anything because that definition may or may not be right or wrong…
so we are on the same playing field, tell me, what does “social justice”
mean to you?
If you’re saying that the very act of trying to prove that your decisions are good necessarily means that they aren’t good, then I wholeheartedly disagree.
That’s an anti-dialectics stance, isn’t it? The statement basically implies that we should never ever discuss with other people those of our beliefs that pertain to our decisions. By doing that, you essentially rid yourself of one of the (very important) ways to correct your mistakes.
The problem with boasting is that it’s an effort to convince others that you’re great by bypassing their reason. It’s the method of persuasion that it employs that is the problem.
K: ummm, as you haven’t defined social-justice, who knows if I believe in
it or not… as for being built on lies, who knows, you haven’t told us what
it means…now you might say, Kropotkin, just look it up, but that doesn’t tell
me anything because that definition may or may not be right or wrong…
so we are on the same playing field, tell me, what does “social justice”
mean to you?
K; Still waiting for a definition for ‘‘Social Justice’’ so I can
begin to understand it.
I still think he was talking about people trying to gain extra credit for being more virtuous. Trying to prove your theory or argument to be correct - that is a very different thing. I agree that people should take the effort to defend the correctness of something they have said (assuming they weren’t just making it up and then defending their ego). I don’t read that to be what he was talking about.
When it comes to boasting on your virtue - I think Ur is right - boasting (pride) cancels virtue but begs the question of how much revealing or defending amounts to boasting (by definition an issue of public pride).
Informing the public is not in itself being prideful. Trying to gain too much prestige from a positive - is a negative.
In the case of Mr Trump - he constantly boasts on his successes (way too much in my opinion - doesn’t know when to shut up). In politics and in advertising perhaps that is necessary (because so very many people in those fields do it - successfully). If it is truly necessary to win the battles - then it really isn’t boasting (just annoying). Imagine if he never spoke of any accomplishments - his adversaries would smear him as being totally ineffective (which they still try to do anyway).
Having an outside advocate or public defender helps with that situation - someone else to defend your virtue instead of trying to guess how much is too much - but if you are on your own - then you just have to make a guess - inform without trying too hard to please those who hate being pleased. I’m sure Mr Trump was raised very accustom to never having advocate friends - and obviously has trouble discerning friends from foes due to that - so he feels the need to go too far in defending himself.
I don’t see how that differs from my interpretation. Basically, he is talking about the effort to convince others that what you did in the past is good.
Not merely your theory or argument but specifically your belief that something you did in the past is good.
He said “In attempting to prove that you have done Good”.
He also said:
Here, he seems to be saying that if you have to prove that something is good or just that it is necessarily bad or unjust. The underlying premise is that what is good and just is obvious to everyone, meaning, there is no disagreement about it, and thus, no need for persuasion.
The other possibility is that he’s trying, but not exactly succeeding, to say that if you’re spending more time “telling” (i.e. declaring that you’re right) rather than “showing” (verbally, via arguments; or physically, via actions and achievements) that there’s a good chance that you aren’t what you’re saying you are.
_
I gave clothes and shoes away to charity, early this week… I am the epitome of good.
I also help at soup kitchens a coupla times throughout the year… go me.
But on a serious note… doing good deeds doesn’t take much effort, just some time. I would hazard a guess, that all people have done at least one good deed minimum in their life.
As these pertain to the OP, no single instance can be given as “Morally Good” rather than politically-motivated Partisanship. You might claim that “Human Equality” is automatically morally good, but most average-level Philosophers can dispute and refute that argument quickly and simply. It is not “automatically” morally good, and furthermore, may in fact be morally evil, especially by the means which “Equality” is applied to real-life sociological examples and societies. For example, what degree of Japanese society should be swarmed with foreign immigrants, and how “Equal” ought those immigrants be treated?
Selfishness is necessary, in the case of the mother who must feed herself before she can feed her infant. There might be some cases where selfishness nets an “overall good” for larger communities, but generally, it does seem “automatically not good”.
And I’d like to look into the matter of “Judging Goodness (of others)”. It’s difficult. If somebody cannot use him/herself as a standard of Moral Goodness, then how do people even intuit the difference between Good/Evil??
