6 ms·

Here is the preceding verse, Mathew 6:2 "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the str

Here is the preceding verse, Mathew 6:2 "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full." I think what Jesus meant was that letting others know was not the problem, but giving alms for the sake of being honored by others. These good deeds were not done out of mercy for fellow human beings, but to improve their stature in society.

nothrabannosir 10y ago
And what people are trying to say is: that may be a bad thing, but it does not cancel out the good thing you did. You now did both a good and a bad thing. Not just a bad thing. We try to judge people based on their actions. Someone messes up and defends themselves with "I was only trying to help!" - "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."[0] The fact that proverb exists at all, means that our society has at least a partial inclination towards judging people on their actions, regardless of intention. Well, if that applies in the "mean good, do bad = bad" case, then it should apply symmetrically in the "mean bad, do good = good" case. Concretely: Bill Gates does some good. Someone says: he's only doing it to atone. So it doesn't count. --- the first part is not the problem, but the second part is. He still did good, and it still counts. Hate his character all you want, but he did good. Don't use his character to detract from his actions. [0] There's even a Wikipedia page about it; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_road_to_hell_is_paved_with_good_intentions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_road_to_hell_is_paved_with...
- Retric 10y ago
  There is a view that good actions only count if there is sacrifice. As he still has 30+ billion the net impact of his giving at a personal level was Zero. Hell, he said several times he did not like being the worlds richest person. So, arguably he may have been acting in a completly selfish fasion. Consider a Pimp finds out he can londer money and find new girls by setting up a homeless shelter. Is setting up the shelter a good action?
  - PakG1 10y ago
    The analogy is poor. The argument being discussed is whether Bill did something bad and uses the results to fuel the good he does in order to atone for his bad. In your analogy, the pimp does something good and uses it to fuel the bad he does. For the record, Bill's business practices sucked, but there's no denying that he had better vision for tech than the monster of his day, IBM. Each age has its villain, each of which has been far from what the world considers to be truly evil.
    - Retric 10y ago
      I think you missed the connection. Gates did not want to be the richest person in the world any more. Giving that money to charity was a socially acceptable way of doing so. Thus, it may have been a selfish action with a net positive outcome. The pimps homeless shelter might also be a net positive impact. It seems far more selfish. Alternatively it may have started Gates down a different path which changed his mindset. I can't know as this is all internal. The point is some people feel the internal reasoning is just as important as the outcome. PS: This is one of the reasons the law cares about internal reasoning not just outcomes.

nothrabannosir 10y ago

And what people are trying to say is: that may be a bad thing, but it does not cancel out the good thing you did. You now did both a good and a bad thing. Not just a bad thing. We try to judge people based on their actions. Someone messes up and defends themselves with "I was only trying to help!" - "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."[0] The fact that proverb exists at all, means that our society has at least a partial inclination towards judging people on their actions, regardless of intention. Well, if that applies in the "mean good, do bad = bad" case, then it should apply symmetrically in the "mean bad, do good = good" case. Concretely: Bill Gates does some good. Someone says: he's only doing it to atone. So it doesn't count. --- the first part is not the problem, but the second part is. He still did good, and it still counts. Hate his character all you want, but he did good. Don't use his character to detract from his actions. [0] There's even a Wikipedia page about it; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_road_to_hell_is_paved_with_good_intentions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_road_to_hell_is_paved_with...

Retric 10y ago
There is a view that good actions only count if there is sacrifice. As he still has 30+ billion the net impact of his giving at a personal level was Zero. Hell, he said several times he did not like being the worlds richest person. So, arguably he may have been acting in a completly selfish fasion. Consider a Pimp finds out he can londer money and find new girls by setting up a homeless shelter. Is setting up the shelter a good action?
- PakG1 10y ago
  The analogy is poor. The argument being discussed is whether Bill did something bad and uses the results to fuel the good he does in order to atone for his bad. In your analogy, the pimp does something good and uses it to fuel the bad he does. For the record, Bill's business practices sucked, but there's no denying that he had better vision for tech than the monster of his day, IBM. Each age has its villain, each of which has been far from what the world considers to be truly evil.
  - Retric 10y ago
    I think you missed the connection. Gates did not want to be the richest person in the world any more. Giving that money to charity was a socially acceptable way of doing so. Thus, it may have been a selfish action with a net positive outcome. The pimps homeless shelter might also be a net positive impact. It seems far more selfish. Alternatively it may have started Gates down a different path which changed his mindset. I can't know as this is all internal. The point is some people feel the internal reasoning is just as important as the outcome. PS: This is one of the reasons the law cares about internal reasoning not just outcomes.