Why should we act good?

What would you say is the difference between acting good and actually being good?
Kant says you can act good between actually being good.

I think the same way, but I'd like to hear more answers than an utilitarian argument.

Being good is actually having the desire to do go.

You can act good but not have the desire to do so, you only act good to avoid punishment or because you expect a reward.

Kant essentially creating an extremely embellished utilitarian spook

*desire to do good

Mentally, people can "act" good but not actually be goodness seeking to scheme their way by being "good" but we all get caught in some ways. You can compliment someone on their dress and then make fun of that dress with your friends when they walk away.

Being good, is natural, without any expectation of gain. Though me trying to define this isn't going to bring it it's best justice. It's like helping out someone without "because I lent you money, I am going to constantly ask for it back" rather not you don't need them to pay you back.

>Should

Disregarding those "Momma said so" morals, it really depends on yourself.

Try acting in a "bad" way and getting away with it.
Try getting caught.
Is there a difference for you?

People have different levels of bullshit acceptance or conscience.

As to your actual, albeit silly question: Not being a dick strenghtens bullshit tolerance with your surroundings over time. So you get away with more shit later. Other anons mentioned it, too.

Even animals have morality up to a point.

livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html

We shouldn't. The only reason I don't go around raping women is because of the law, and because I don't want to end up in prison and be raped myself.

>well i mean sometimes animals do something that sort of kind of is like how humans treat each other

>morality

Typical scientists talking about things they don't know about

"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto"

Why would you inflict suffering upon others when you know that you yourself carry the same suffering as them? Recognize the suffering of your fellow man, not of his abstractions of "human" and "humanity", but the suffering of the substantial: man himself.

To be good is a natural state of the universe. It suffices to feel good for doing good.

I like it.

I have a related anecdote. A professor that I work with got on an elevator with me last week and he had a size sticker stuck to the back of his pantleg of his obviously new pair of jeans. I tapped him on the shoulder and told him he had a sticker stuck there, and he embarrassingly removed it.

On telling my girlfriend later that I did that, she called me a weirdo. I told her that I helped him out because if I had a sticker stuck to my leg (or ephemerally, if I was wrong / looked foolish / was doing something stupid) I would want somebody to help me out, not keep quiet so as not to embarrass me.

It's hard to sympathize with other peoples problems, but it's always nice when someone sympathizes with your problems and cares about you. I do it because I want to be treated likewise.

I also like this. Although I'd like to know neurologically why it feels pleasurable to undertake a "good" act.

Yeah, even if you stripe away all its religious connotations, I think that the Golden Rule (at least in its negative form) ough to be the governing principle of all human relations.

The act of doing good for the "good feeling" is pure hedonism at its primal level. That is the reward that you call spooks. Speaking of "his own nature", what is this nature other than ignorance,indulgences, disorganized mind?
And just to clarify, karma isn't a reward but rather an objective of a goal, from a Buddhist standpoint and Jains too. Not the metaphysical reward but the habitual creation of the pattern in your mind as a tool to rise above the menial worldly trappings.

19. The Wisdom of Contentment

Yang Chu said: “How can a body possessing the four things, a comfortable house, fine clothes, good food, and pretty women, still long for anything else? He who does so has an insatiable nature, and insatiableness is a worm that eats body and mind.

“Loyalty cannot set the sovereign at ease, but perhaps may imperil one's body. Righteousness cannot help the world, but perhaps may do harm to one's life. The sovereign's peace not being brought about by loyalty, the fame of the loyal dwindles to nothing, and the world deriving no profit from righteousness, the fame of the righteous amounts to nought.

“How the sovereign and subjects can alike be set at ease, and how the world and I can simultaneously be helped, is set forth in the dictum of the ancients.”

Yu Tse said: “He who renounces fame has no sorrow.”

Lao Tse said: “Fame is the follower of reality. Now, however, as people pursue fame with such frenzy—does it not really come of itself if it is disregarded? At present fame means honour and regard. Lack of fame brings humbleness and disgrace. Again, ease and pleasure follow upon honour and regard. Sorrow and grief attend humbleness and disgrace. Sorrow and grief are contrary to human nature; ease and pleasure are in accord with it. These things have reality.”

Kek. That's just a fucking spook.

Thread. Over.

>a comfortable house, fine clothes, good food, and pretty women

I have literally none of those

It's not for "pure feeling." The universe is unchanging and the universe is the only standard that exists, for good or bad. The good feeling simply comes from being right with the universe.

Bad actions simply aberr from the natural order of things.

For example, a free market functions best in equilibrium, this equilibrium is distorted when a bubble appears, and the bubble brings upon a great calamity when it bursts.

The thinking is that moral precepts aren't simply "lol I decided this to be so," but that morality actually has a concrete basis, bad things are tautologically bad, good things are tautologically good. These are not laws of man, which are fickle, but natural law which is absolute and universal.

I thought was responding to , but I stand by my post regardless.

Since I've already blown my load I might as well explain my own conception of all this.

I think of actions in the context of infinite series in game theory. What are stable patterns? What is the average response?

One should live life as if every day, were to be repeated infinitely forever. Eventually you come to a sort of stochastic rhythm. The golden path is the optimal set of choices, like water which always flows along the optimal path.

Of course the dao which is knowable is not the dao. In my daily struggle to follow the golden path, I am ceaselessly amazed by the pessimism and sardonic nature of others. Most people are not preoccupied with their own path. They are simply spectators, there to shout on the sidelines. It brings to mind paralysis. One recalls a line from Nietzsche: "And now once more lieth the lead of his guilt upon him, and once more is his weak reason so benumbed, so paralysed, and so dull."

But I, who walk the path am immune to the cries of the spectators, or so I hope to be. It is hard not to accumulate sorrow from all directions. It is hard not to be disoriented. Although I do believe that if even one person walks the golden path it should suffice to save all of mankind. For all their sake, we have to try.

>I do declare, my squad is hered to come to my aid, sir
>t. Chip Braxton (white man)

Then get them.