What is considered a Good or Righteous Deed?
-
"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.