Daily Literature Quotes

[Tenacity]

There was never any potential advantage to me. I knew flat out what the consequences were going to be but I did it anyway because, guess what? I felt like it. And to answer your question, just because I'm religious does not mean I have any motives behind my kindness. I'm not the most religious person out there and I never think to myself "hey what can I do today that will make me a morally good person?" That's not something I do. If someone asks me for money I give it to them. Simple as that. Why does there have to be any advantage or motive behind it? Being a morally good person has nothing to do with this, or maybe it has everything to do with this because this is inherently a battle between evolution and religion, a circular argument with no true answer. So you can try to prove me wrong all you want but we're at a stalemate that cannot be breached.

That's called deceit. Doing something nice with an ulterior motive that is unclear at the presentation of the original intiation or soon after is keeping something from someone which is wrong. So while the compliment itself might not be mean, the fact that you haven't actually stated outright or at least made the intention clear in the first few exchanges is qualifying as deceit, which is wrong.

Hm… you know, I'll be honest, I'm not sure. Here's why. Firstly, I've never been in the situation so I can't give my proper reaction. Secondly, where I've been raised, it's second nature to say thank you and be polite like that. I believe I would try to be more careful about it around them but seeing as I just automatically respond in that way, it would be very difficult. However, I would not completely shut myself off from humanity even if the person wasn't around since that's not how I think and work. You said it yourself, humans are social creatures. Despite being effectively a slave to my peers, I enjoy being around other people. However, more often than not, I have found that the kindness that I share is hardly returned and my continual expression of it is based from my birth, raising, and past experiences, all factors than cannot be controlled nor used as motivation because, at best, you can claim that I was brainwashed, which, in effect, I was. In which case, if I was brainwashed then I would gain no advantage from any action I have ever done since none of my actions are my own but the decisions that are made others.

I just want to clear the air first, before I begin my point. The most important thing is this - I've no intention to prove you wrong, nor do I particularly care for proving you wrong. The reason I get into these discussions isn't to win internet points, but to see how my own beliefs stand up to reality. By having these conversations, one day I might come across a point or a piece of evidence that causes me to doubt my own beliefs. This is a good thing. I have these conversations because I find them interesting, and because I hope both parties walk away from the conversation as better people.

The second point I want to clear up is the religion part. I never mentioned religion anywhere in my posts, although I can see why it would be relevant as many people believe religion to be the basis of morality (which is demonstrably untrue, as evidenced by the scores of morally decent atheists). I also do not think evolution and religion are in conflict, unless you deny that evolution is fact because of your religion.

If someone asks you for money, you give it to them, no matter what? Why?

Deceit is when you present a false side of yourself to someone. The example I gave you wasn't necessarily deceit. If I gave an insincere compliment to you, that would be deceit. Deceit has nothing to do with intentions.

I'm not asking for a reaction necessarily, I'm asking for what you think the right thing to do is. I have been in the situation, and my first reaction was to do as my friend wanted, because I didn't want them to be sad (which would risk our friendship). If you say you'll do what your friend wants, you're ultimately putting your own worth beneath that person's feelings because doing so is harmful to you. If you believe all people are equal, such a behaviour is contradictory to that belief. If, however, you say you won't do what your friend wants, your friend can easily claim that you are being selfish. For this reason I don't see the word 'selfish' as a word with any moral weight anymore. It's morally neutral. It was selfish of me to take a shower this morning - no one benefitted but me. That doesn't mean the act of the shower was immoral, but just because it's not immoral doesn't mean it's not selfish.

I guess my point ultimately is that I don't see humanity as an inherently bad thing just because we can be selfish. It's not our selfish intentions that matter but the outcomes of our actions, because outcomes are the only thing that truly shape the world.

We've all been 'brainwashed' if that's how you want to put it. Some of us just get luckier than others, it seems.

EDIT: I realise I haven't really gave an opinion on the Wilde quote at hand here. I'll just say that I think what he's saying is true for goals that end upon achievement, but goals that require constant work to maintain (such as health, wealth, happiness, etc.) do not result in tragedy. So he's both right and wrong in a sense. Interestingly the latter type of goals are often the ones held most highly in society.