Actions versus Consequences

[Reforged]

Actions and consequences are only ever really discussed as far as subjects like crime and punishment go... and "karma". They're never really discussed to the extent nature versus nurture is with an understanding that it fundamentally changes and moulds a human beings personality regardless of source or outcome.

For example; I do something good and something bad happens to me. Do I take it as a life lesson and become more prudent with my good deeds, do I go a slightly rebellious route and become even more zealous in my do-goodings (fairly certain thats not a word but whatever) or do I go "oh fuck this" and go the other way entirely.
Does it depend on age? Circumstance? Intellect? Philosophical approach? Is there a basic way in which all humans are inclined to react or is it completely based on the type of person in those circumstances?

Another example; I'm a total bastard and good things happen to me. What then? What do I take away from that?

Both of these are examples that occur with regularity and I'm sure we could all give sources we've come across ourselves, I know I certainly could.
Which effects our personalities more; our actions, the outcome or our response to that outcome? Can we really claim to have any significant control over how our personalities develop or are we helplessly being moulded by the vicious whirlpool that is cause and effect without any moral or logical basis to it?

These are the thoughts I woke up at almost 5am with. Slightly groggy, slightly pissed off, slightly thirsty and regarding the thoughts with the semi-conscious equivalent of "oh for fuck sake, really?". But the thoughts remained like a mischievous little imp poking my forehead occasionally and not letting me get back to sleep. So here I am leaving it on your doorstep, ringing the doorbell and running away.
I'd rather this was kept strictly as a debate grounded in reality if it does indeed become a debate but I for one do not have an answer to these questions and would not dare to claim I did without some type of study to quote from.

Go nuts.

[jonb]

Why would you expects results from your actions, in a vast blank godless universe?
How would you know which of your actions are good or bad? A kick up the pants has at times produced a better result than mountains of care.
Is it up to the world to give you meaning, or is that something you have to find in yourself? I put mine with my keys, I think, no its not there, now let me think, yes I must have left it in the pub.

[Reforged]

Why would you expects results from your actions, in a vast blank godless universe?
How would you know which of your actions are good or bad? A kick up the pants has at times produced a better result than mountains of care.
Is it up to the world to give you meaning, or is that something you have to find in yourself? I put mine with my keys, I think, no its not there, now let me think, yes I must have left it in the pub.

Expecting isn't it. Results do emerge from actions. It has nothing to do with religion. You have mistaken a query in cause and effect for one in religion and the meaning of life. Society classes actions as good and bad, morality isn't a religious issue. Its a human one that we as a species define and redefine constantly.
Like I said; lets keep this grounded in reality.

[Annik]

Psychology has many, many theories on personality and how it develops/changes. One does not prevail over the others, as of right now. To answer your questions simply: We don't know.

[Reforged]

Psychology has many, many theories on personality and how it develops/changes. One does not prevail over the others, as of right now. To answer your questions simply: We don't know.

Yeah, that sounds about right. Psychology may of made a hell of alot of progress but for now its still in the dark about way too much.

[jonb]

Expecting isn't it. Results do emerge from actions. It has nothing to do with religion. You have mistaken a query in cause and effect for one in religion and the meaning of life. Society classes actions as good and bad, morality isn't a religious issue. Its a human one that we as a species define and redefine constantly.
Like I said; lets keep this grounded in reality.

Does society class things correctly? Why should I conform to a cultural norm, did I or was that you, who knows, who is going to be the umpire? As you have set an absolute 'results do emerge from actions' you have your own point of view with which to examine your reality.

[Reforged]

Expecting isn't it. Results do emerge from actions. It has nothing to do with religion. You have mistaken a query in cause and effect for one in religion and the meaning of life. Society classes actions as good and bad, morality isn't a religious issue. Its a human one that we as a species define and redefine constantly.
Like I said; lets keep this grounded in reality.

Does society class things correctly? Why should I conform to a cultural norm, did I or was that you, who knows, who is going to be the umpire? As you have set an absolute 'results do emerge from actions' you have your own point of view with which to examine your reality.

No they don't, not all the time but if I rob a homeless guy I'm generally classed as a dickhead. If I give money to the homeless guy I'm generally classed as being generous. These are basic moral judgements in action that have been for a very, very long time and show no signs of changing any time soon. The effects of robbing mean I'm alittle bit richer but I risk losing respect, the effects of giving money are that I'm abit poorer but I might gain some respect.

Results *do* emerge from actions, even unintentional ones. Just living, breathing in and out, eating, drinking, going to the toilet. None of these are moral actions or even notable actions but they do have results even if those results themselves aren't notable. This is very basic stuff. Look up "The Butterfly Effect". The theory, not the film.
That isn't me stating any moral absolutes, that is me being factual. Now if your views differ radically from societies in this regard then please, don't spare any details.
I mean seriously? This is the part your debating? Did I miss a meeting?

[jonb]

No they don't, not all the time but if I rob a homeless guy I'm generally classed as a dickhead. If I give money to the homeless guy I'm generally classed as being generous. These are basic moral judgements in action that have been for a very, very long time and show no signs of changing any time soon. The effects of robbing mean I'm alittle bit richer but I risk losing respect, the effects of giving money are that I'm abit poorer but I might gain some respect. Results *do* emerge from actions, even unintentional ones. Just living, breathing in and out, eating, drinking, going to the toilet. None of these are moral actions or even notable actions but they do have results even if those results themselves aren't notable. Look up "The Butterfly Effect". The theory, not the film.
That isn't me stating any moral absolutes, thats me being factual. Now if your views differ radically from societies in this regard then please, don't spare any details.
I mean seriously? This is the part your debating? Did I miss a meeting?

No I think you were there, but I think you were pouring a coffee. What you set up as amoral absolute is not. Most charities will tell you not to give to the homeless, as the homeless person can often be in that situation because of an underlying psychiatric problem, alcoholism for an instance. By giving money you allow the person to stay within their comfort zone, as such they are not forced to address the underlying cause of their situation. If that is accepted then it would be better to take money from the homeless person so they get help quicker, assuming there is help to be had.
I think that a charity would say that, because they want the money you might give to the homeless person, which is not to say the charity is necessarily wrong. For every law there is a situation where it could be argued the wrong person was convicted. As such I chose to treat situations individually rather than trying to cram 'reality' into a template, which it does not properly fit.

[Reforged]

No they don't, not all the time but if I rob a homeless guy I'm generally classed as a dickhead. If I give money to the homeless guy I'm generally classed as being generous. These are basic moral judgements in action that have been for a very, very long time and show no signs of changing any time soon. The effects of robbing mean I'm alittle bit richer but I risk losing respect, the effects of giving money are that I'm abit poorer but I might gain some respect. Results *do* emerge from actions, even unintentional ones. Just living, breathing in and out, eating, drinking, going to the toilet. None of these are moral actions or even notable actions but they do have results even if those results themselves aren't notable. Look up "The Butterfly Effect". The theory, not the film.
That isn't me stating any moral absolutes, thats me being factual. Now if your views differ radically from societies in this regard then please, don't spare any details.
I mean seriously? This is the part your debating? Did I miss a meeting?

No I think you were there, but I think you were pouring a coffee. What you set up as amoral absolute is not. Most charities will tell you not to give to the homeless, as the homeless person can often be in that situation because of an underlying psychiatric problem, alcoholism for an instance. By giving money you allow the person to stay within their comfort zone, as such they are not forced to address the underlying cause of their situation. If that is accepted then it would be better to take money from the homeless person so they get help quicker, assuming there is help to be had.
I think that a charity would say that, because they want the money you might give to the homeless person, which is not to say the charity is necessarily wrong. For every law there is a situation where it could be argued the wrong person was convicted. As such I chose to treat situations individually rather than trying to cram 'reality' into a template, which it does not properly fit.

Maybe, maybe not. Presumably the person in this instance is giving the money out of good will. The crux of my query was that if this effected the person attempting the act out of good will badly what psychological effect would it likely have and what factors would determine the effect. Instead of attempting to answer this you totally missed the point and decided to turn this into being about objective morality which is a tried and tested subject repeatedly and tiredly debated. For the purposes of this thread we are assuming that we are dealing with the average person who considers the most basic morality adopted by most modern cultures to be correct and thus believes murder, stealing, assault, etc etc to be immoral and generosity, patience, loyalty, etc etc to be admirable.
Why you would derail this subject instead of discussing objective morality on one of the other countless threads dedicated to such a thing is beyond me. Do you have something to add toward the subject actually raised or not? If so I would actually like to hear it.

[jonb]

Yes I was attracted to your thread, because it was talking in a way that did not drop into 'academic latin'. However as an ordinary person I did not know what I thought about morals was entirely constrained by my society, as such I accept your view that I should be quiet.