I've decided that Uriel is right after all. People, by and large, are hedonists. But I don't just mean the prostitutes and tax collectors; I also mean the lady who helps out every week at the homeless shelter, and the boy scout who helps that lady cross the street. Ask somebody who does these "good" deeds why they do them, and you will, nine times out of ten, get a response similar to "I like helping people." People who do good deeds inevitably feel good about doing them; people who do bad deeds inevitably feel guilty about doing them. This does not, of course, prove that these consequences are why people choose to do good deeds and not bad ones, but once we accumulate a certain amount of purely circumstantial evidence, it would be foolish to ignore it.
Now I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing. Certainly the homeless person doesn't care why that lady helps them every week, and that lady doesn't care why the boy scout helps her across the street. Our motives do not affect the consequences of our actions upon society. I think it does, however, affect the inherent goodness of those actions. A good deed done out of fear of guilt or out of desire to feel good about doing it is no more a good deed than a criminal sentenced to community service. It has good effects; it is not a good deed. It is, in essence, hedonism. And a hedonistic act that helps society is no less hedonistic because of that.
Through mechanisms such as guilt, we are programmed to do these "good" acts not out of selflessness, but out of our own selfish desires. I'm not arguing that guilt is a bad thing - our society depends upon said mechanisms to remain stable. As the Good Reverend once said, "People without guilt are called 'criminals'." However, it seems to me that only in a world without guilt can any truly selfless act occur.
The main flaw that I see with this idea is that of the martyr; or more specifically, an atheistic one. People like the ancient Christians or the modern suicide bombers do not count, as they believed they would receive their reward in Heaven. After all, what's a crucifixion or two compared to eternal bliss? But a true atheist who sacrifices themselves without any hope of a reward, now there's a problem. By the argument this post presented, the only reason an atheist would give their own life is that they are so afraid of the guilt they'd feel otherwise that they would rather die. Which, of course, is possible, but I don't think it would be provable.
Oh well. It was kind of a depressing idea anyway.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Hey Ben,
Got a Prayer Book? Go to page 870, and read article 13. It speaks directly to your point.
And by the way, the Good Reverend did not say that people without guilt are criminals; people without guild are called psychopaths. This is the goal, according to the professionals.
Your Dad
I'm not sure I'm translating the Olde Englishe properly, but it would seem to me to simply be saying that any deed done without faith is not pleasing to God; not only that, but are sinful. Am I interpreting this correctly?
I would say you are discovering the first minute difficulty in being a truly good person. Yes, there is a wash of good feeling for doing a good deed. Is this why we do good deeds? Maybe. Maybe not. What then is a good deed? There is a whole conversation in the Church about Deeds and Faith you might want to look into. I am going to have to look up that passage from the Rev.
To address the martyr of the atheist: I don't really think that it happens. Or rather if it did happen it would be more properly termed confusion than martyrdom. In fact, I think that there is a high level of confusion in any atheistic "good deed."
Think of it this way. To do something selfless you have to put another person's wellbeing above your own (be it buying a homeless dude a cup of coffee or diving into a river to save a drowning child) and the only reason to do that (for an atheist) would be out of some sense of reward or to avoid a punishment. The best example of this would be doing something that puts life in jeopardy so we will work with that.
The guy who jumps in the river to save the drowning child may be acting out of a hope for good feeling if he succeeds or to avoid guilt if he does nothing. However, he might also drown in the attempt. Let's look at his options. If he does nothing, he will feel guilty and this will cause him some momentary discomfort and he will get over it in time. In that time period he will still be able to do things he likes (rewards), he just might not like them as much (assuming his conscience is driving him nuts). If he jumps in the river he might save the child (getting some momentary pleasure, reward) or he might drown himself. Now, if he drowns his life is over and there is no chance of any possible pleasure (reward) ever again for all eternity.
Clearly the only logical thing to do is to stand on the bank and let the child drown. Any time that an atheist does something of that nature he/she is in the grips of a monumental confusion.
So what does that mean for the person who lives his life in fear of eternal damnation?
This person might do LOTS of nice things as part of his efforts to get a better, um, Commission.
I spent the weekend on some pretty creepy websites, and I'm now convinced that a lot of these guys are not good people at all. They do a few good deeds so they can feel morally superior and avoid eternal punishment.
Well, pagan, you are reinforcing the point - - aren't you? Ben's entry, and the comments (and Article 13 of the Articles of Religion) make the exact distinction you are drawing: a careful distinction between the effect of good deeds on society, and the effect of the good deed on the doer. As a poet says, "that's the ultimate treason: to do the right thing for the wrong reason!"
Kevin Holsapple
Here is a translation of Article 13:
"The good works we do without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit are necessarily done for selfish reasons, and not for the love of Christ. They are done for the sake of advantage or admiration, and so are not pleasing to God, and in fact, should be considered sins. Motivation is everything."
-The Good Reverend
CENSORSHIP! CENSORSHIP!
I am reminded of George Orwell's 1984...if no record of my censorship exists, did it ever occur?
Your sister Megan might be one of those nasty, narrow absolutists, who insists in a single version of "truth". You, on the other hand, have learned your lesson from the professions: you have your truth, and she has her truth, because there is no absolute truth.
Dad
Who censored what now? Hmmm... apparently the 1984 comment is accurate. So Mr. Mandal you aspire to the heights of a new world order do you? This is WAR!
Wait a sec... Who is this "Christ", and why must I be doing something for him in specific to be doing something 'unsinful'?
You're a heathen. You're going to burn anyway. No point in making the effort. There are only 144,000 of us anyway: Odds are, you're not one of us.
You disgust me. Not that this is anything new.
Hey Capitalist,
The very definition of "sin" is seperation from God, so obviously, by definition, deeds done apart from the love of Christ are sins. The insight of Article 13 takes you right to the very heart of moral life: our motivation for deeds. Good deeds done for selfish reasons are sins.
Let's use an example: say you give a million dollars to the Lloydminster Hospital, to built the Gurn Center for Burn Victims. That good deed will do good things for the patients who use it, but will it do good things for your soul? Will it "make you a better person"? Maybe it will; maybe it won't. It depends on your motivation. If you give the money to feed your own ego, then the gift will actually hurt your soul.
The goodness of deeds is the LOVE that motivates them. According to the Bible, we are creatures created to love God, and for this reason, good deeds for human creatures are deeds they do for love to God.
sorry, but have you read any John Piper? His thesis is that to be a good Christian you MUST be a hedonist.
Post a Comment