Being moral without being happiness pump

Post Reply New Topic

How does someone find the fine line between being moral and being 'a happiness pump'?

This is a concept reflecting the problem of Utilitarian philosophy. In pop culture, it is found in The Good Place TV show.

Spoiler:

Most people would be unhappy as happiness pumps, so a rule utilitarian would not need to do anything that extreme. But it is a real problem for act utilitarianism.
https://iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/

I think you are overcomplicating things a little.

One can get a thrill from blessing others.

One concept relating to Christianity is that people assume that it is all about doing good and one gets to Heaven when one died, but this, as good as the doing good part is nice, is not what Christianity is all about and is a false concept of what it is about.
(I am assuming that you are referring to Christianity here and I will make this correction based on that to clarify something. Dorgive me if I am going off track).
The message of the Bible is that no one is righteous enough to make it into Heaven, and Christ came to make the way into Heaven, and likewize, no one is beyond redemption that they can't repent and be saved. So to sum up, a mass murderer on a grand scale has the same chance to get to Heaven as someone who has dedicated their whole life to doing good.
The Bible calls doing good as "Works" and God said of some of the people who pride themselves in their good works that their works were like filthy rags in his sight. (One has to read it in context and not assume that doing good is wrong because it is great to do good and we should all try to do good when we can, and the Bible encourages us to do good for one another).
But to be brief, Christianity teaches that to get to Heaven is about believing in Jesus Christ who has paid the price for our sins. No one from the one who has hardly sinned to the ultimate sinner can enter into Heaven by any other means, and no one can claim they have not sinned, and it only takes one sin in ones life to not be allowed in if one has not believed in and had faith in Jesus Christ and accepted that He made the way for you to get to Heaven.
Anyone who claims that they are a Christian and says you have to be as good as you can to get to Heaven has entirely missed the point of what Christianity is all about, and dare I say it, can be preaching a false gospel.


Sorry. I got that bit off my chest.

Back to your idea.

It at first seems simple enough but then the variables can keep going and going, so like you say, where is the moral line? I can't say because it can vary from one persons view to the next persons view, and that is why I say that you can simplify it by what the Gospel message says that none of us are without sin and we all need a saviour to get to Heaven, so from the Christian perspective, all possible eventualities are catered for if the individuals repent and accept Jesus.

Other religious beliefs are different and one varient which is noticably common to most of them though it is completely different with the Christian faith (And I believe the Jewish faith does not go against this though they largely are still waiting for their saviour as most did not accept that Jesus was the one they were waiting for (Which is why God gave the "New Covernant (Testament)" to live by which the majority Jews have not accepted (Some have who are called Mesaianic Jews because they have accepted Jesus)....

But most of the worlds religions do preach the salvation comes through works philosophy which also some of the cults which align themselves to Christianity but do not accept the fundamentals of Christinity as they also believe that doing good works gets you to Heaven which mean one does not need a saviour so Jesus is out of the picture as being their saviour as their saviour is doing good works (Which is why they are classed as cults and not one of the Christian denominations (Some Catholic groups also have followed this line but not all as many do put their faith in Jesus as their way into Heaven)).

But anyway. I am off on a tangent in my thoughts as I do write and write and write sometimes! (I apologize!)

So my personal answer is different as the line does not really exist when it comes to my beliefs because I am viewing things from a difderent angle.

Now if others who have other beliefs also see this thread, and answer, it will be interesting to see their views as to some of them they will have a happy medium between the extremes. Lets see shall we?

Ooh. Utilitarian. I don't know what that is.

Utilitarians are philosophers/ethicists rather than strictly a religion, although you can combine it with religious beliefs too.

They believe that morality is based upon: greatest possible (usually qualified with long term) happiness for the greatest possible number.

Sometimes there will be something which will provide the greatest possible happiness for people in general but will be harmful to the person who is initially committing the act. Heck, if someone is friendless and nobody - or if you're religious, no human/animal - cares for them, esp if they are hated, this can go so far as suicide: after all the fewer people on the planet the less hunger there is so the more hungry people can get fed and the less of a carbon footprint is left. But... being suicidal isn't right for the individual. I wouldn't advocate it as 'the moral thing to do' even if someone genuinely had nobody, I would tell them to reach out to a suicide hotline or therapist.

Mind you when Hitler: someone who was doing severely active harm to millions, did it - that really was a greater good to the world. So even with such extremes there are exceptions.

On a less extreme level, part of morality is about making sacrifices. But - how far is too far?

Or is it wrong to make sacrifices at all? Should we all be selfish? I don't think that's the answer at all! I think that even as aspies, we are part of a society and should help people where we can. NTs are desperately part of a society and it would be unhealthy for them to cut others off in that way, turning every interaction into a transaction.

I think a mix of the two is where morality lies. And I think that even if someone is a Protestant, they still have to consider this stuff while on earth. It's more about ethics than religion. Using a fictional 'afterlife points' thing sets up a fictional premise but the truth of the matter is: that makes it selfish and is irrelevant to the initial premise. A true 'happiness pump' would be doing all this sacrificing for nothing at all.

The keyword I've learned is: boundaries. Acknowledging both your needs and others' needs and respecting both.

I've spent quite a lot of time with people of "altruistic", "happiness pump" approach to life and they are really draining - frustration of their neglected needs seems to inevitably spawn as passive agression.

I was going to say that one can spend far too much time thinking about having fun and the theories behind what having fun is, when one is missing out on just having fun.

Defining fun varies so considerably that it has so many variables that one has to be serious which is no fun, to try to define it.

It is better to catch the moment and enjoy it!


One part of life recently has limited fun and that is the news on TV which is the opposite of fun. People sit to watch the news so they can have their daily dose of seriousness and dread. Are they mad? There must be an addiction to doom and gloom to want to watch that!

So we are better off by just living and being and enjoying life.

I am thinking of an entire book in the Bible called "Proverbs" which I believe was written by Solomon who God gave wisdom to, and who explored many aspects of life and in the end he concluded that all was futile. Like chasing the wind, but the only real satisfaction in life is by enjoying what we have. To enjoy the fruits of our labour.