jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (42 posts)

Let's discuss the Obligation to Benevolence.

  1. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 7 years ago

    Mostly I think that when people are confronted with the OTB, their first thought is that it is the same as the Golden Rule.

    However, there are 'critical' differences in how one approaches The Obligation to Benevolence. 

    For those who don't know much about it; let's reason where 'morals' are derived from. 

    This is not a religious discourse and does require a bit of 'critical' thinking that I can only assume by observation that many wont feel comfortable with stepping out of their comfort zone to examine our motives as humans and our moral obligations and why we even have them, how they seeped into our thoughts and became what they are to us... obligations.

    I am pretty certain that everyone is familiar with The Golden Rule.  If not, in short "Do unto others as you would have done unto you".

    The Obligation to Benevolence is similar in wording but requires a little more thought and self examination in areas such as:

    empathy
    apathy
    sympathy
    reason
    feeling
    vengeance
    revenge



    and in short... very short. "How would you feel if someone did that to you?" 

    So we can use 'murder' as a starting point in the discussion on how we even arrived to understand 'benevolence'. 

    So I can ask three questions.  The first two are direct questions.  The third is to be answered introspectively.

    1. According to the Golden Rule: Why is it not okay to murder?
    2. According to The OTB: Why is it not okay to murder?
    3. Is it my moral obligation to be a benevolent being despite any loss I might encounter?


    Hope to have some really interesting discussion.

    1. ddoingit1 profile image56
      ddoingit1posted 7 years ago in reply to this
  2. goldenpath profile image73
    goldenpathposted 7 years ago

    Golden Rule:
    Even with suicide thoughts the thought of someone killing you is not only chilling but lonely.  Even in our darkest hour we cling to hope.  Hope is the reason we even have a darkest hour.  So murder is undesireable because we would not like it done to us even under the most extreme of personal circumstances.

    Obligation To Benevolence:
    We have the ability to forsee pain or the intentional inhibition of another one's life.  We do not desire this for ourselves as it impedes upon our liberty to live, pursue happiness, be independent and to be happy.

    I hope I understood the question.  Great question by the way.  Thinking up a question like that would probably give me a cardiac arrest. Thanks for allowing me to put some thought into it.

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      One more question.

      The unforseen pain you mentioned.  ( I mean nothing person by the question but I think it is a good one)

      Is murder really undesirable because we feel empathy for the departed or empathy for the living?

      I could say that; because death is a natural circumstance and everyone will die somehow and at some point that is unforseen.  Why is murder not considered a natural part of the human condition?

      Is it because there is someone or something tangible that you can hold accountable and take your aggressions out on that makes murder undesirable?

      Hope that question made sense.

      1. goldenpath profile image73
        goldenpathposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The Belevolence as you stated was "How would you feel if someone did that to you?"  In relation to that question we anticipate or feel that pain of murder and normally do not desire that feeling upon ourselves as it would stall our liberty and progression of hope in life by the hand of someone else.  Our empathy, in my opinion right now, would not be for the living or the dead but rather that our freedom to live, hope and expand in this life has been halted through a decision not of our own.  In other words, and in short, our mortal fate has been decided for us and we don't like it very much therefore murder is not a desired option.

        1. profile image0
          sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          WoW!  I like you!

          So you are saying we are clung to an emotion of anticipation.  Not so much our present desires but our future.  In some way saying that our instincts to survive serve as an 'emotional negotiation'. 

          So to survive, we have an obligation to being benevolent beings.  So much so that personal interest (Golden Rule) may conflict thus we are obligated, we do at times have to do what we do not want to do in order to survive. 

          So why benevolence?

          1. goldenpath profile image73
            goldenpathposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I must admit.  After reading our conversation a couple times I believe I am developing a migrane.  Just kidding.  I completely agree with all your comment, however, I don't see the conflict between the Belevolence and the Golden.  It probably just escaped me while reading the conversation.  Yes, though, I believe that to survive as an individual and as a civil society we need to be benevolent beings.  In so doing we may be better equipped to understand and live the Golden Rule.

            1. profile image0
              sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I suppose it is more like, 'why we would chose benevolence over will'?  I can see why you see no conflict between the two because you are a benevolent being so the golden rule seems natural and not in conflict. 

              But like I said to Sue earlier.  According to the GR.  I could want someone to punch me so I can punch them back.  wink

              Let me restate the question. 

              Why do you chose benevolence?

              1. goldenpath profile image73
                goldenpathposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I am a very honest person.  Do you really want me to answer this question???

                1. profile image0
                  sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  No, I think I know your answer.  smile

  3. Sue Adams profile image92
    Sue Adamsposted 7 years ago

    You are laying it on a bit heavy Sandra but people always accuse me of doing the same thing. For that reason I'll try to answer your three questions:

    1. According to the Golden Rule: Why is it not okay to murder?
    Because you wouldn't like someone else to murder you.

    2. According to The OTB: Why is it not okay to murder?
    Because
    a) One is obliged by law not to murder anyone and
    b) because society couldn't run if we ignored benevolence.

    3. Is it my moral obligation to be a benevolent being despite any loss I might encounter?

    Yes, as long as the encountered loss doesn't harm me too much.

    Even the most obligated person to benevolence has to sometimes put the breaks on when the demands made on his or her compassion are excessive.
    In other words you have to be kind but if people take advantage of your generosity then the OTB ceases to exist.

    At that point the Golden Rule comes into effect and I quietly walk away instead of attack. smile

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Sue,

      I wanted to address you specifically on this.  Now that you have come up with an answer.  I want you to think about where 'moral obligations', and ethics comes from. 

      For the second part of you answer.  I am asking you.  Why can't society run if we ignored benevolence? 

      Then I will get back to the third part of your answer.

      1. Sue Adams profile image92
        Sue Adamsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        1. Where do where 'moral obligations', and ethics comes from?
        Moral obligations and ethics come from education, experience and history. Although these vary in different parts of the world, but fundamental values are global.

        What do most people want? Peace, harmony, sunshine, enough food, adequate shelter, something exciting and joyful to do and a few people to love and be loved by.


        2. Why can't society run if we ignored benevolence?
        It's like road traffic. No-one wants to get killed so we take driving tests and stick to the rules. Of course accidents happen but on the whole, because we respect each other's need to survive we are polite, well behaved and cautious about each other.

        1. profile image0
          sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Okay, going back to the OP.

          I said that some people confuse the OTB with TGR, in that the Golden Rule has already been widely accepted... this is after the fact.

          Now, of course we can understand pretty easily how education, history, etc. etc. etc. teach us about ethics and morals but what I am trying to get us to think critically about is; before history became history, what was going on?  Before the law became law, what happened?

          And why is the Obligation to Benevolence instead of Obligation to the Golden Rule?

          Let me ask it like this way.

          Would you cheat on your spouse? 
          When one cheats... consider what both sides are feeling.

          On the one hand applying the GR to the cheating partner would suggest that he would like to be understood.  He/she would request or at least in some way hope that their partner would understand why it even happened.

          The one cheated on is hurt, angry and unable to think straight.  The reaction is not good, or the feeling is not good. (generally speaking)

          Now, let's say the one who was cheated on, does the same.  What do you think the other one who had already cheated is going to feel? 

          Probably the same way, hurt, angry... not a good feeling, right?

          Now, we can conclude that cheating or infidelity doesn't make either person feel good. 

          Are we certain where the emotion stemmed from to begin with?

          Let's list all the possible reasons.  And let's include 'to benevolence'.

          1. Sue Adams profile image92
            Sue Adamsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            In your particular example, infidelity is regarded bad because it evokes bad emotions but why? Because society strives to support the "family unit".
            The problem here is that we are being sexually aroused by the media and advertising which makes it very difficult to remain faithful.

            1. profile image0
              sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              It wasn't really what I was getting at.

              What I was trying to get at is 'why' infidelity became a moral woe in the first place. 

              Forget about the morals we have already been taught.

              I am trying to imagine that infidelity never happened yet... or maybe it happened a lot but there were no irrational emotional objections to it, you just did it cause you needed to do it.

              I could only assume that it went on just fine for centuries without any ill will.  Maybe for this questions I am asking what came first, control or love?

              1. Sue Adams profile image92
                Sue Adamsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Sandra, you are a true phylosopher. I like the way you insist on getting back to basics.
                Well, Cromagnon man probably mated like monkeys do in the jungle. Then much later Christianity said that sex was dirty. Today many cultures allow men to have several wives. During the sixties, before aids, having sex with all your friends was cool. Where did the current notion of infidelity begin? I honestly don't know and it keeps changing.

                Maybe change is the key. Change and diversity.
                I should go to sleep it's very late in my neck of the woods.
                This was by far the longuest time I've ever spent on a thread and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Thank you for your initial post Sandra. Very thought provoking. I'll come back mañana if you're still around.

        2. profile image0
          sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          And what do we do to get it? 


          PS. loving talking with you btw. smile

      2. Sue Adams profile image92
        Sue Adamsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Well, are we keeping you nice and busy Sandra? You said you'd get back to me on your 3rd Question.

        1. profile image0
          sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry, just sorting through some thoughts here.  Will continue in just a while. smile 

          tongue smart ass! lol  kidding smile

    2. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I asked you "So you believe that human emotions are irrational but when reasoned after the fact, we start start to interpret moral codes and ethics based on rational reasoning for the emotional and physical safety of 'everyone'?"

      You replied, "correct".

      So what would obligate us to being kind? 

      I could say that according to the GR, I would want someone to punch me in the face just so I could punch them back. lol

  4. Milla Mahno profile image54
    Milla Mahnoposted 7 years ago

    Hey sis, screw everybody and do as YOU feel like doing, that's the answer smile

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Hey Milla!  Long time to see beautiful!  I feel like doing this right now. I figure I could get enlightened myself if I ask enough questions. My brain gets bored asking myself these questions.  Might as well ask others too. 

      Love you and miss you bunches! xo

  5. Milla Mahno profile image54
    Milla Mahnoposted 7 years ago

    Then you are on the right track wink Miss you heaps, too ♥

  6. drej2522 profile image85
    drej2522posted 7 years ago

    If I'm understanding this correctly, and please stop me if I'm not, Obligation To Benevolence is a rational response to a situation and the Golden Rule is more of an emotional response based on moral code??? Or is it the other way around?

    If this is the case, I would have side with benevolence because rational thought is the lone attribute that separates us from animals. If everything was based on an emotional response, then what would be the reason for living (as a human) in the first place?

    On the other hand, there are people who argue that animals don't experience emotion, or at least not to the same level, and it is the ability to 'feel' that separates us. I disagree with this aspect and 'feel' that emotion is more of a natural occurrence for all animals including humans (flight or fight response, etc. etc.)

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Not really but maybe this will help. 

      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/

  7. ddoingit1 profile image56
    ddoingit1posted 7 years ago

    Benevolence the mirror of beaity among bretheren, an worshiper among men among women among all living testiments of tolerance among the solidarity with fortress of tolerance of the guided lifting of souls, beyond the world we will know thus being the multy ligustic teireny of hipocracy, for the children of Islam are not the disaster of faith is believing in the histry benevolence of the abide by the golden rule of 10

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      By this your golden rule insist that if it so pleases the doer, then murder shall be benevolent to your cause.

      There is nothing moral, appealing, useful, tasteful or uplifting about your statement at all.

      Tolerance is a vice and a virtue. 

      For the desired outcome of the Golden Rule to even maintain a principal of goodness a person has to first obligate themselves to benevolence. Otherwise the Golden Rule is selfish by all means and does not justify or establish any moral code or ethical code of conduct.

 
working