What is considered a Good or Righteous Deed?
-
"What goes around comes around."
-- Karma Law"Whoever does a good deed - it is for his own soul; and whoever does evil - it is against it"
-- Quran 4515"Whatever good happens to you, it is from God; But whatever evil happens to you, it is from your own soul."
-- Quran 479"For if you forgive men for their wrong doings, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men for their wrong doings, neither will your Father shall forgive your wrong doings"
-- Jesus, Matthew 612"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Torah and the Prophets."
-- Jesus, Matthew 712"That which is despicable to you, do not do it to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."
-- Hillel (1 BCE)"The wise man does not lay up his own treasures. The more he gives to others, the more he has for his own. "
-- Lao Tzu"Hate is never conquered by hate,
Hate is only conquered by love.
You will not be punished for your anger,
You will be punished by your own anger.
Those who are free of resentful thoughts surely find peace. "
-- BuddhaSalam / Peace
-
Alright so what I now wanna know is does praying count as a righteous deed?
-
By this logic... wow one must really have to be a bad person to have his sins outweight his good deeds if its so easy and we all do it unconciously from holding elevators and opening doors for people O_O
As the saying goes. It takes a lot of work to go to heaven but even more work to go to hell.
-
As the saying goes. It takes a lot of work to go to heaven but even more work to go to hell.
Then what happens to the neutral person? XD
-
Alright so what I now wanna know is does praying count as a righteous deed?
A good and sincere praying / meditation (in whatever format or standards) shall resulted in a good behavior..
It's not about #frequency or 'the correctness of movements or utterance/mantra' it's about sincerity..
Praying is for you, not you for praying...After that; compassion and forgiveness, forgive other people faults... in that manner God shall also forgive your fault/shortcoming and the act also cleansed your heart from pride, hatred, anger, prejudice and revenge...
Those who do good deeds do it to their own soul... and those who do bad deeds do it to their own soul too..
Salam / Peace
-
Peace Aryan
Have you thought about focusing on the character instead of the acts, Ultimately the character is gonna commit the acts. Any act that a good character does is always going to be good. So for a example in a given situation for act, the brave person won't be reckless or cowardly.
This stuff is from ancient greek philosophy, I think it's in line with the Quran with regards to changing oneself and growing oneself in character.
-
Peace Aryan
Have you thought about focusing on the character instead of the acts, Ultimately the character is gonna commit the acts. Any act that a good character does is always going to be good. So for a example in a given situation for act, the brave person won't be reckless or cowardly.
This stuff is from ancient greek philosophy, I think it's in line with the Quran with regards to changing oneself and growing oneself in character.
Any act that a 'good' character does, may not necessarily be good, it can be 'bad'. Would that change the good character into a bad? It would depend on frequency/impact then, a gradual slope. Similarly a 'bad' character can have traits of a 'good' character and so on. Being a good or bad character in short may depend on how it plays out in terms of actual actions...intentions and actions, sometimes one barely makes it, other times there might be a chasm. Trying to carry out actions in the 'name' of something may have a result that was helped by that intention of course, given that we have understood what we are trying to achieve and how. It's dicey till it's all done imo.
If we look at this in terms of say a life rpg, you have a meter good/bad...and depending on the frequency of the types of choices you make, and the magnitude of impact you may have...the slider moves towards one side or the other. It's a constant battle/flow till we die and when we do, we would have a cumulative score so to say. Some would say we were ignorant of the type/magnitude/impact and if they truly were, based on various factors...it would adjust accordingly and so on and so forth.
-
Any act that a 'good' character does, may not necessarily be good, it can be 'bad'. Would that change the good character into a bad? It would depend on frequency/impact then, a gradual slope. Similarly a 'bad' character can have traits of a 'good' character and so on. Being a good or bad character in short may depend on how it plays out in terms of actual actions...intentions and actions, sometimes one barely makes it, other times there might be a chasm. Trying to carry out actions in the 'name' of something may have a result that was helped by that intention of course, given that we have understood what we are trying to achieve and how. It's dicey till it's all done imo.
If we look at this in terms of say a life rpg, you have a meter good/bad...and depending on the frequency of the types of choices you make, and the magnitude of impact you may have...the slider moves towards one side or the other. It's a constant battle/flow till we die and when we do, we would have a cumulative score so to say. Some would say we were ignorant of the type/magnitude/impact and if they truly were, based on various factors...it would adjust accordingly and so on and so forth.
Yh I agree with the cumulative score idea but what I mean is that when we come to look at acts we can only look at them from the point of view of what would the compassionate person do, or what would the brave person do or what would the wise, just and so on person do. Because at the core of morality IMO is the moral agent that makes the moral dimension to actions possible. Without which it would just be a case of laws and rules without that moral dimension that i have in mind being there.
A good person can do bad and that won't make the act right because we can tell that a good person in that situation would have done otherwise because that is what would have been in accordance to something like just, bravery and other positive moral attributes.
-
Yh I agree with the cumulative score idea but what I mean is that when we come to look at acts we can only look at them from the point of view of what would the compassionate person do, or what would the brave person do or what would the wise, just and so on person do. Because at the core of morality IMO is the moral agent that makes the moral dimension to actions possible. Without which it would just be a case of laws and rules without that moral dimension that i have in mind being there.
Basically you mean focusing on traits like compassion, courage etc. I agree with the moral agent and so on but the traits themselves are like tools and what would make them moral/immoral would depend on how they are being handled. They may lend to the action, but the act itself needs to be looked at from a point of view separate from the tools used in it. A good/bad (irrelevant for our purposes) person may use a trait like compassion but it can be the wrong thing to do in that particular situation which called for something else to lead to a good/desired result. We can term it misplaced. We (focusing on the moral aspect now) should always try to look for positive moral attributes to use, but they should depend on the situation and be appropriate which may not come about if we only focus on the attributes.
A good person can do bad and that won't make the act right because we can tell that a good person in that situation would have done otherwise because that is what would have been in accordance to something like just, bravery and other positive moral attributes.
No, we can't tell if a good person would have done otherwise because he's still a good person...but we may be able to tell if he could've done better. So, like has been said, maybe a separate evaluation of the situation, the appropriate tools to use, and how to use them effectively and for what outcome...would be more prudent. -
Basically you mean focusing on traits like compassion, courage etc. I agree with the moral agent and so on but the traits themselves are like tools and what would make them moral/immoral would depend on how they are being handled. They may lend to the action, but the act itself needs to be looked at from a point of view separate from the tools used in it. A good/bad (irrelevant for our purposes) person may use a trait like compassion but it can be the wrong thing to do in that particular situation which called for something else to lead to a good/desired result. We can term it misplaced. We (focusing on the moral aspect now) should always try to look for positive moral attributes to use, but they should depend on the situation and be appropriate which may not come about if we only focus on the attributes.
I see them more as aspects of morality rather than tools because each aspect is like a spectrum. Lets say bashar asad comes knocking on your door asking for help. You know this guy to be a murderer however your sympathy and generosity makes you want to give him shelter. Now if you give him shelter it would be termed as compassion but from a virtue ethicist's point of view, its not compassion. It's the excess of compassion. I don't know of a word for the excess of compassion. But what I mean is that it only earns the status of a compassionate action when it's neither too much nor too little. It is that which is in the middle of the two extremes.
The example of brave was good because we have words for the two extreme ends of that spectrum Recklessness and cowardice. So person J who dives head first into a burning building to save someone isn't using the tool of bravery. They come across that situation which brings into play a moral spectrum. The moral aspect in this case is the spectrum that entails cowardice, bravery and recklessness. So here bravery is a possibility but at the same time so is cowardice and recklessness. The person who has the disposition of bravery would successfully carry out the brave action.
Important to note is that in this case, bravery is not a tool that J could forego in this situation. If he walks away, it can still be termed as brave because if he was to jump in there whilst he was almost sure that he would die and lets say he also had asthma, then it would have been reckless of him not brave. On the other hand if he ran away without considering the situation sufficiently, then it would have been cowardly. Since he has been exposed to that situation, what he does next, will either be cowardly, brave or reckless. He can't opt out after being exposed.
No, we can't tell if a good person would have done otherwise because he's still a good person...but we may be able to tell if he could've done better. So, like has been said, maybe a separate evaluation of the situation, the appropriate tools to use, and how to use them effectively and for what outcome...would be more prudent
Your right. What I should have said was something else. Whilst we can't tell if a good person would have done otherwise, we can tell that a brave person would have done otherwise on occasions where the relevant moral spectrum is called into play. In this case the bravery spectrum. So to find out what act would have been morally right in this case, we assess in light of a morally brave agent and what they would have done.
Sorry for the late reply Nadia. I keep forgetting to check on this forum. Hopefully il be more active.
-
I made some bad mistakes when i wrote my post last night. Im just gonna clarify now -[
When someone is exposed to a burning building, or Bashar Asad asking for help, there is no possibility of compassion or bravery because the circumstances are not right. This is pretty much what you said about compassion not being appropriate at times. The person with the dispositions of bravery or compassion would recognise the moments when compassionate and brave acts are there to be committed. In the case of the burning building, someone would recognise that there is no possibility of bravery here. There is only the possibility of recklessness. So the person who does not go into the building is not being brave (contrary to my earlier post) they are just not being reckless.
but the traits themselves are like tools and what would make them moral/immoral would depend on how they are being handled.
I agree on this but when you say
but the act itself needs to be looked at from a point of view separate from the tools used in it.
So would you look at things purely in a consequential sense? I can't think of any moral action where there is no relevant moral attribute(s) or tool(s) and the only way to get it right is to try and hit the middle of the two extremes of that relevant moral attribute (given that it is available)
Sometimes it may appear as though there is a conflict. For example say you have to kill one person to save a hundred. Some might say it would be compassionate to not kill that one person. But in this case the conflict being between bravery and compassion asks of an agent which act is more possible. Is bravery more possible or compassion. Given that "compassion" would kill 100 and given that it takes courage to kill the one person to save 100, then its clear that the only morally good thing available here is bravery.
My overall point is that whatever way we look at acts in different situations and circumstances, if we don't tie it back to moral attributes, then can we really call it moral?
-
No worries about the late replies bro, and thank you for a great discussion.
I see them more as aspects of morality rather than tools because each aspect is like a spectrum.
I agree with you that they are aspects of morality but when one uses them in action, they can be wielded like tools. I say can because sometimes we are naturally so attuned to one aspect that it's second nature to us (whether by habit or whatever) and to someone else, they might need to put effort and thought into it.Lets say bashar asad comes knocking on your door asking for help. You know this guy to be a murderer however your sympathy and generosity makes you want to give him shelter. Now if you give him shelter it would be termed as compassion but from a virtue ethicist's point of view, its not compassion. It's the excess of compassion. I don't know of a word for the excess of compassion. But what I mean is that it only earns the status of a compassionate action when it's neither too much nor too little. It is that which is in the middle of the two extremes.
When it's appropriate and fits the situation, it would be well balanced and reasoned, agreed. Though personally one would use that little tool of compassion to quieten his doubts, keeping him in place and calling the police on the side...kill two birds? Sounds a bit machiavellian even to me, I know.When someone is exposed to a burning building, or Bashar Asad asking for help, there is no possibility of compassion or bravery because the circumstances are not right. This is pretty much what you said about compassion not being appropriate at times. The person with the dispositions of bravery or compassion would recognise the moments when compassionate and brave acts are there to be committed. In the case of the burning building, someone would recognise that there is no possibility of bravery here. There is only the possibility of recklessness. So the person who does not go into the building is not being brave (contrary to my earlier post) they are just not being reckless.
Well it is a good example you picked because it's more black and white...at the same time someone passing by might decide it's a brave thing to do especially if there's someone crying for help in there? They might bolster themselves before with 'it's the right/brave thing to do'...and might also be termed as a selfless thing to do if one does it with little to no thought before hurling themselves in the thick of it to save someone else. In the first case, taking the time to assess the risks and the desired results and what we need to go through with it etc might not be a bad thing (balanced approach in the spectrum?), in the second it could be a bad thing because the guy might end up killing himself as well as not achieving the desired result. Some would say it's in the try...he's a hero (how can we gauge the worth of saving a life to the possible cons?), some would say it was stupid when he had a family of his own to support. Just a lot of shades and angles here, even if something is relatively black and white.So would you look at things purely in a consequential sense? I can't think of any moral action where there is no relevant moral attribute(s) or tool(s) and the only way to get it right is to try and hit the middle of the two extremes of that relevant moral attribute (given that it is available)
That's one of the issues I see when we analyse an action/act before acting, it seems to be the more balanced approach but in a time based situation, could be disastrous? Maybe in some situations it is a do or die type thing and hang the consequences? Hard to say. I'm not sure if even a balanced moral aspect spectrum would be getting it right in some situations. By moral action you mean intending it to be moral action and then using the relevant attributes etc in the actual act? Or that there are certain actions that are inherently moral e.g. saving a life?Sometimes there is a conflict. For example say you have to kill one person to save a hundred. Some might say it would be compassionate to not kill that one person. But in this case the conflict being between bravery and compassion asks of an agent which act is more possible. Is bravery more possible or compassion. Given that "compassion" would kill 100 and given that it takes courage to kill the one person to save 100, then in this conflict bravery must be carried out for the sake of morality.
Being brave enough to push that button or whatever that kills the person? That's one of the issues but then again are we basing our morality on how many lives we save? Why is the life of that one person worth less than the 100? Is it in justice, is it a hostage situation? Is it some twisted madman's basement where if you save one, a 100 others would die? It's easier to take the former and make up our minds. If the one person is someone the agent knows, harder. If he doesn't know, then is it moral to base it on numbers? Do we even have any other criteria...? I guess if we use save the life of one we save humanity, makes it tougher.
My overall point is that whatever way we look at acts in different situations and circumstances, if we don't tie it back to moral attributes, then can we really call it moral?
The inherently moral aspect we touch on... Given that we can think of acts as separate from morals but use a certain morality while carrying it out...would that change the act into a moral one? On the flip side, if there is an inherently moral act would it be separate from the immoral intentions of the person doing it? If actions are judged by intentions that would make the acts separate from morality? Can there be an inherently moral act? Regarding the latter, I don't think so. So I would say that we would have to tie it in to something to call it something. -
While I was thinking this, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings came to mind. I remember discussing it some time back, it started off with an opinion I read on cracked basically talking about how the decision to bomb was made with the intention of stopping a war that had claimed so many lives and that it was a good thing basing it on the numbers involved...how many dead and how many more would've died. Effectiveness/desired result/methods used...all reared their head. It might be interesting to think about, how intentions/actions, morality/ethics and the methods used to achieve that play out in real life in decisions already made.
peace
-
"Righteous" does not equal "good". Righteous IS God-Conscious.
It may be easier to understand the concept if we understand that when God mentions "righteous works" He is really talking about works, deeds or efforts we make for Him or because of Him in accordance with His Commandments and Guidance. That's what a righteous work really is.
Another point to remember is that the 10 to 1 ratio applies only to Believers. We get that reward for our works multiplied only if they are righteous (God Conscious) and also only if done while believing.
An atheist or an Idol worshipper can do all the "good" works they want and it counts for absolutely nothing on The Last Day. Those works are all nullified because they are not Righteous works. The same can be said for works done in the service of nothing more than our Ego.
To determine if it's "good" or "bad", no matter how small or large the deed, we simply have to ask ourselves is if what we did is in accordance with God's Teachings and something He would approve of? Will it benefit or harm someone? Will it make their life better or worse? Is it kindness or mean spirited? And of course, our intentions count.
-
Again sorry for yet another late reply sister. I've been busy with an essay which i handed in on wednesday (literally did 0 sleep the night before and only 4 hours the night before the night before to make the deadline)
Well it is a good example you picked because it's more black and white...at the same time someone passing by might decide it's a brave thing to do especially if there's someone crying for help in there? They might bolster themselves before with 'it's the right/brave thing to do'...and might also be termed as a selfless thing to do if one does it with little to no thought before hurling themselves in the thick of it to save someone else.
They might decide that it's the brave thing to do but that does not make it brave. If they have the disposition for bravery they would recognise that this is a moment that does not count as bravery and so they should not go in the building. The person who decides that they should go in there with the intention and rationalisation that its the brave thing to do will get it wrong because they don't have the disposition of bravery, they are only trying to be brave but instead end up being reckless. Thats what makes it a virtue because they are skilled at recognising the right opportunities of bravery and can carry them without fear or perhaps the right amount of fear.
(how can we gauge the worth of saving a life to the possible cons?), some would say it was stupid when he had a family of his own to support. Just a lot of shades and angles here, even if something is relatively black and white.
Well thats the thing. In virtue theory, I think the most important attribute is wisdom in which all attributes like bravery, compassion and so on are tied to. The wise person would know how to measure and assess in the best possible way so whilst some would say he should do x and others say he should do y, if he is truly wise to a high degree, he will recognise what the best course of action is. Then other attributes come in such as courage.
So wisdom comes first. What i mean to highlight here is that wisdom is the one that binds all these dispositions.
That's one of the issues I see when we analyse an action/act before acting, it seems to be the more balanced approach but in a time based situation, could be disastrous? Maybe in some situations it is a do or die type thing and hang the consequences? Hard to say. I'm not sure if even a balanced moral aspect spectrum would be getting it right in some situations. By moral action you mean intending it to be moral action and then using the relevant attributes etc in the actual act? Or that there are certain actions that are inherently moral e.g. saving a life?
Time based situations only make a greater demand on the virtuous person requiring of them a high level of virtue. Sometimes the situation won't permit no matter how virtuous the person is (they are not God) but when the situation does permit, the greater the virtue they have, the greater their chance of success. There is a chapter in the Quran about (im not sure if im saying this right) zul qayr nun.... the individual who blocked off Gog and Magog. I think I remember reading in that chapter that he was found to consistently make the right choice. He might be a good exmaple of a virtuous man.
Some would say there are inherently valuable actions such as saving a life, but for me this is not the case. Saving a life is only good when its for the right reasons. Right reasons being that which is entailed by wisdom then followed by compassion. If someone saved hitler's life for the sake of gaining status with hilter and thus power, then this is not valuable.
Being brave enough to push that button or whatever that kills the person? That's one of the issues but then again are we basing our morality on how many lives we save? Why is the life of that one person worth less than the 100? Is it in justice, is it a hostage situation? Is it some twisted madman's basement where if you save one, a 100 others would die? It's easier to take the former and make up our minds. If the one person is someone the agent knows, harder. If he doesn't know, then is it moral to base it on numbers? Do we even have any other criteria...? I guess if we use save the life of one we save humanity, makes it tougher
Yes. In a situation where you have no other choice other than to kill one or kill 100 or do nothing and watch them all die. The virtuous person would recognise here what the right choice is. Whether its to do nothing, save one or save 100. It could be any one of these. Im not trying to suggest what the right choice is what im trying to show is that in according virtue theory (which i love) provided there is a best action to be carried out in a given situation, whatever the situation, the virtuous person, will carry it out. The greater the depth and breadth of their virtues, the greater depth and breadth of situations they can deal with in the best possible manner.
The inherently moral aspect we touch on... Given that we can think of acts as separate from morals but use a certain morality while carrying it out...would that change the act into a moral one? On the flip side, if there is an inherently moral act would it be separate from the immoral intentions of the person doing it? If actions are judged by intentions that would make the acts separate from morality? Can there be an inherently moral act? Regarding the latter, I don't think so. So I would say that we would have to tie it in to something to call it something.
I really don't think that there can be an inherently good or bad action because circumstances will render the good or bad of the act. Intention is crucial to the morality of an act IMO because if someone accidently saves a life without intending it, then great! the consequence is great but there is no morality in the act IMO since there is no intention and so it can't be tied to a moral attribute or to wisdom in general.
Again sorry for the late reply sister. I was gonna reply in the library earlier on today but I got distracted and remembered now to reply and also thank you for a good discussion!
-
"Righteous" does not equal "good". Righteous IS God-Conscious.
It may be easier to understand the concept if we understand that when God mentions "righteous works" He is really talking about works, deeds or efforts we make for Him or because of Him in accordance with His Commandments and Guidance. That's what a righteous work really is.
Another point to remember is that the 10 to 1 ratio applies only to Believers. We get that reward for our works multiplied only if they are righteous (God Conscious) and also only if done while believing.
An atheist or an Idol worshipper can do all the "good" works they want and it counts for absolutely nothing on The Last Day. Those works are all nullified because they are not Righteous works. The same can be said for works done in the service of nothing more than our Ego.
To determine if it's "good" or "bad", no matter how small or large the deed, we simply have to ask ourselves is if what we did is in accordance with God's Teachings and something He would approve of? Will it benefit or harm someone? Will it make their life better or worse? Is it kindness or mean spirited? And of course, our intentions count.
Peace Mr Q
if they are an idolworshiper, or kafir or commit shirk, then i don't think they can be considered as virtuous at the time that they are commiting shirk or are at the heart kafirs, or idolworshippers. But if they commit moral acts with true moral intentions then i really dont think that they can be kafirs even if they utter phrases like "christ is the son of god" What matters is their internal state IMO and if they are truely doing moral acts with moral intentions, then i would think that their internal state is more close to that of a mulsim or muming then that of someone who associates partners with God.