"To ethicists, that is a question about whether right thinking matters more than right action—that is, whether we should judge people’s goodness based on what they are doing or on why they are doing it. Most of them agree that motives matter: in a perfect world, we would all do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do. But we don’t, and Franzen repeatedly exploits the gap between what we do and why we do it—which, in fiction, is the gap between plot and character."
Here's the book,
"Crossroads." Don't you read all of Jonathan Franzen's books?
পোস্টগুলি
৩১টি মন্তব্য:
There are good people who do good things for the right reasons.
The Aristocracy hates these people and tries to tear them down for obvious reasons.
Franzen? Isn't he the IP thief? The liar?
I guess Franzen isn't an IP thief. Wrong guy.
“ Most of them agree that motives matter: in a perfect world, we would all do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do.”
This misses the risk or cost of doing the right thing. Doing the right thing almost always entails some risk or cost. How can it be the right thing to continually accrue costs without any offsetting benefit? That doesn’t seem perfect to me.
This premise is bated on rationalism (i.e., abstract ideals and categories). From a biological and evolutionary perspective, we have a mix of pre-programmed and learned behaviors that facilitate survival. Some of these are selfish and others are altruistic. All of them are context-driven and probabilistic.
No black, no white. Just ask "Does a behavior help me and my family survive and reproduce?" Evolution does not require a universal moral polarity.
Every good Christian will tell you that right faith Trump's doing good deeds: the eternal "get out of jail free" card. It's the immoral key required for good people to justify genocide.
Clients are generous.
So long as they get the tax deduction.
“It’s not who we are underneath, but what we do that defines us.”
Batman Begins
It fits well with leftist theology, which holds that believing the right things is more important than doing the right things, but only an academic could argue that decency doesn't exist because decent people tend to be happier and lead better lives.
Humans are self-interested. When "doing good" is rewarded, we will do it and more of it. If it isn't rewarded in some manner, then we won't. One of the benefits of Christianity is that the rewards are spiritual in nature- the rewards for doing good and the penalties for doing bad transcend our mortality. I think we will regret losing this as I think it played no small role in the development of our civilization. We are quickly descending into a low trust society, and such societies stagnate and regress over time.
Don't you read all of Jonathan Franzen's books?
I don't, but for good reasons...
should judge people’s goodness based on what they are doing or on why they are doing it
The Christian view on this is that why you do things does matter but only God can know what's in someone's heart and "by their fruits you will know them."
The world Franzen sees is not my world. I am not in the audience Franzen writes for.
It seems like more literary novels are avoiding contemporary times, and for good reason. The writers and their beliefs are part of the Establishment, the Permanent Managerial Class, the comfy class. Their belief and attitudes are seriously degrading American culture and their support for segregation and censorship attack the country's founding principals and its ability to reform itself.
Instead, Franzen retreats to 1971, where he can safely attack the Establishment that no longer exists.
Intentions matter less than actions, simply because actions have consequences in reality, while intentions reside only inside the skull of their owner. All the good intentions in the world never mowed a single blade of grass, while communism in action has killed 100,000,000 and counting.
I don't take to that awful combination of self-pity and aggrandization, so no.
"Does real goodness even exist, or is it always compromised by the dividends it pays to the do-gooder?"
More often than not, the word "real" is deployed as an honorific, rather than a strict claim about ontology. To try to answer that question in a systematic way would require differentiating between real in a metaphysical, epistemological, conceptual, or speculative sense.
First real goodness does exist. Even if someone gains from the doing of good, in many cases the gain is less than the alternative. Sacrificing one's life for a loved one, donating time, or rescuing a friend at 2 in the morning. These have some benefits, but if your want to argue that we are incapable of doing anything unless we value the results more than the cost, then the word good has no meaning and it is pointless to debate the issue.
Is right thinking better than right action? No.
All good comes from right thinking (if you discount the positive results of purely random, accidental or even intended negatives which one can chalk up to serendipity.) If we define good as that which was intended, rather than unintended positive fortune, then for there to be good, it has to be intended. However, not all right thinking results in good. Road to hell, and all that. The initiatives of many a politician have examples of "right" thinking generating results that are clearly not good.
Has Franzen never met a sincere Christian?
Calories are calories. They don't lose or gain utility by virtue of the person delivering them. I would suggest that the metric considered by what it costs the doer. The guy who gets paid to deliver is one thing; the guy who uses his own vehicle and his own gas is another.
But, so what?
You can compliment the second guy, but the calories are the same.
Calories are calories. They don't lose or gain utility by virtue of the person delivering them. I would suggest that the metric considered by what it costs the doer. The guy who gets paid to deliver is one thing; the guy who uses his own vehicle and his own gas is another.
But, so what?
You can compliment the second guy, but the calories are the same.
No. Altruistic good does not exist. Never has, never will.
"To ethicists, that is a question about whether right thinking matters more than right action—that is, whether we should judge people’s goodness based on what they are doing or on why they are doing it. Most of them agree that motives matter:"
I have little regard for "ethicists". In this case, if someone does "right", why should I care about his motive? For that matter, how can I know his motive?
Somewhat like Breaking Bad? Maybe kind of a Frankenstein book? where's the author's sewn together all the sociological plots - entitled brat, hypocritical minister, druggie, feminism and the suburb, decline of religion etc. and jolted it into horrifying life, i.e., called it a book about a nice family. The ethical question I see (if I accept the New Yorker account of the plot) is: what happens if your ethical standard is to follow your values except on the rare occasions when it really matters? Are you good 99.99% of the time? or never?
Attributed to Lincoln: When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad.
Ike once said that he never tried to figure out a man's motives, only whether the man's ideas had merit or not.
Today, "Ethicists" are just another brand of self-important philosophizer.
Don't you read all of Jonathan Franzen's books?
Who?
(RMc checks Amazon.com)
Naah.
"Does real goodness even exist, or is it always compromised by the dividends it pays to the do-gooder?"
"To ethicists, that is a question about whether right thinking matters more than right action—that is, whether we should judge people’s goodness based on what they are doing or on why they are doing it. Most of them agree that motives matter: in a perfect world, we would all do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do. But we don’t"
Are these people three year olds?
Every single thing you do, you do because of the "dividends" it provides you. Do you refrain from stealing even when no one can catch you? Then it's probably because being "not a thief" is more important to you than getting that thing you could steal.
99% of teh time, "Motives" are meaningless bullshit. What matters is results.
Did you in fact make the world a better place?
Yes? Then we should celebrate you and your actions.
No? Then we shoudln't.
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" is a long standing statement for good reason.
Howard said...
Every good Christian will tell you that right faith Trump's doing good deeds: the eternal "get out of jail free" card. It's the immoral key required for good people to justify genocide.
How would you know, Howard? You couldn't figure out if someone was a "good Christian" if you tried.
But I do love the projection. Lefties gave Bill Clinton a pass on rape and sexual harassment, because he appointed SC members who would force all America to leave abortion legal.
Conservatives judge Trump by whether or not his actions made America and Americans better off. For the most part, they did. And for that, being sane, we're willing to ignore what he says.
Because only a total nutcase cares more about what someone says, than what they do, and what the results are of what they do
let's go to the next level
Ignore the 'dividends it pays to the do-gooder'
Let's say, hypothetically, just for an argument, that you're spending your time and money helping crippled possums; ones that couldn't possibly make it in nature...
is that 'real goodness'?
What about the scavengers that were counting on living off those possums dead bodies?
What about the old people that you're NOT helping, because you're treating the possum 'like he would an elderly family member..'
There's a finite level of resources in your wallet (and, in the world as a whole)
resources used up "rehabbing" vermin, are resources that CAN'T be used for something else.
The same is true (of course,) for resources used for 'climate change awareness' or CRT awareness, or ANYTHING... ANY thing you spend resources on, means resources that CAN'T be used for something else.
I first heard a Randian make this argument my sophomore year of college. It took me a few years to figure out what is wrong with it. While motives are always mixed and neither Jewish nor Christian theologians have ever denied it, it is true by very simple self-examination that real altruism at some level exists. You can certainly tell when you are being worse and more selfish. Therefore, it must follow, as the night follows the day, that there are times when one is less selfish and thus more altruistic. To twist oneself in knots to try and show that those other people aren't being good really, not really, really, really is simply evasive, and perhaps childish.
Goodness and truth go hand in hand.
It's not about "doing" good or "thinking" good, it is about BEING good. That is, it is about conforming to truth.
Franzen turned out to be right about the neocons and Bush's Iraq War.
But I'm sure he's found many more things to be wrong about since then.
Assistant Village Idiot said...
To twist oneself in knots to try and show that those other people aren't being good really, not really, really, really is simply evasive, and perhaps childish.
I think you miss the point. You are a person that values "not being a thief" over $10,000. That's a good thing, and that can mark you as a "good" person.
You are a parent who values your children's welfare over your personal comfort. You are a good parent, and I value you more than a bad parent who doesn't do that.
Statement:
Everyone acts based upon their own personal "utility matrix", and always acts to "make their life better" according to that matrix.
Corollary:
The people you want to be around are the ones who have "utility matrices" that make the world a better place for the rest of us, too. Those are what we call "good people".
Being honest with yourself doesn't then give you the right to be a dick to others
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন