The legitimacy of parental obligation

[organon 0]

Unlike the issue of a rational man's happiness at being given life, all these questions are indeed other, unrelated questions. As such, they do not pertain to the answer of the first question - should a man be grateful to his parents for giving birth to him.

?

This has already been answered above (post #22); gratitude is a spiritual payment, and, to be offered, requires an examination of motivation.

So, if this gratitude is suggested to be owed irrespective of the context, the answer is no. Again, consider the example of the parents who sought to raise a suicide bomber.

Brian, I would suggest that you take some time to consider whether your reasoning here, described in post #22, is indeed flawed. If gratitude is a spiritual payment, and there is no consideration offered by the other parties (one's parents), then no, one does not owe them gratitude.

[organon 0]

He recognizes they could have made other choices and taken other actions which would have resulted in him never having existed (abortion for example). In other words, the rational man considers his parent's choice and action in this regard to be 'good'.

No. Goodness is a moral evaluation, which requires an examination of motivation.

Unless your judgment is that your birth was an immoral act - ie bringing you into existence was an evil thing for your parents to have done - you owe your parents thanks for that act. Of course, if you do consider your having been brought into existence an immoral act - an act of evil - then this entire conversation is pointless.

It may be indeed be becoming so :-).

Goodness is a moral evaluation, in relation to the nature of an individual's "soul" or consciousness. A moral evaluation depends upon the identification of the nature of the individual(s), and of their, in this context, motivation. Whether the life of the child eventually became an immense, authentic, positive value, to himself and to a rational judge, is not relevant here.

Again, to offer my parents thanks, or gratitude, for something they have given me, which is a spiritual payment, depends on an examination of their own nature, and of their motivation, so far as it informs a grasp of that nature.

[Brian Smith 0]

Does a child properly feel gratitude to a worthless prostitute, who conceived accidentally, carried the child to term out of fear of going to hell should she have had an abortion, and raised him out of duty to her God, offering virtually no positive spiritual education or support, because she feared she would go to hell if she didn't?

Lets try this from another perspective to see if this doesn't help.

If my wife - that value which I hold most dear - had been the child you reference above, I would despise her mother for the way she raised my wife. But, despite that fact, I would be eternally grateful for her choice to give birth to her daughter. She is responsible for that act. As such, I owe her for it - for, had she acted otherwise, I would never have experienced the joy and wonder of that irreplaceable value which is her daughter.

Thus, no matter what else I may damn her for, I must thank her for bringing her daughter into existence.

[Brian Smith 0]

...to offer my parents thanks, or gratitude, for something they have given me, which is a spiritual payment, depends on an examination of their own nature, and of their motivation, so far as it informs a grasp of that nature.

If someone gives you something - and you value what they have given you thus KEEPING it - then you owe them thanks for value which you have gained from them. They have earned it by virtue of giving you the value - and you accepting it.

Put simply, it is YOUR valuation which dictates your appropriate response to them - not THEIR motivation in giving you the value.

[organon 0]

Does a child properly feel gratitude to a worthless prostitute, who conceived accidentally, carried the child to term out of fear of going to hell should she have had an abortion, and raised him out of duty to her God, offering virtually no positive spiritual education or support, because she feared she would go to hell if she didn't?

Lets try this from another perspective to see if this doesn't help.

If my wife - that value which I hold most dear - had been the child you reference above, I would despise her mother for the way she raised my wife. But, despite that fact, I would be eternally grateful for her choice to give birth to her daughter. She is responsible for that act. As such, I owe her for it - for, had she acted otherwise, I would never have experienced the joy and wonder of that irreplaceable value which is her daughter.

Thus, no matter what else I may damn her for, I must thank her for bringing her daughter into existence.

Let's examine the reasoning here in some depth.

1. You deeply value the fact of your wife's existence.

2. The mother, whatever her nature or motivation at the time, was the agent of that existence.

--

Therefore, in the context of the fact that your wife would not exist but for the fact the mother brought her to term and raised her, even though the motivation and the nature of her upbringing was wholly immoral, you feel gratitude toward her mother.

Are you entirely justified in being happy that your wife, who let us assume is thoroughly beautiful of soul, exists?

Without question.

Are you entirely justified in being happy that the mother brought her to term, the precondition of her current existence?

Without question.

Should you feel gratitude toward the mother?

Consider the meaning of gratitude, in the context of the fact that it relates to a spiritual payment, and a moral evaluation of the individual who provided one with the relevant value. Let me provide an example that may be helpful here.

Assume that a young scientist, good and rational, after graduating from college, gets an apartment in the city while beginning his first job. His first month, he is short on rent. His parents, grasping this, send him a check in the mail. He feels gratitude toward them. Why? He believes that the check was sent out of a recognition of his value, with the corollary implication in regard to their value (who recognize the value he possesses).

Years later, the now 28-year-old discovers that the motivation for sending the check was wholly irrational and immoral, having nothing whatever to do with a recognition of his moral value -- they sent the check out of no other motive whatever but that they were urged to do so by their priest, saying that God would grant them rewards in heaven were they to do so.

Does he still feel gratitude toward them for that check?

[organon 0]

...to offer my parents thanks, or gratitude, for something they have given me, which is a spiritual payment, depends on an examination of their own nature, and of their motivation, so far as it informs a grasp of that nature.

If someone gives you something - and you value what they have given you thus KEEPING it - then you owe them thanks for value which you have gained from them. They have earned it by virtue of giving you the value - and you accepting it.

Put simply, it is YOUR valuation which dictates your appropriate response to them - not THEIR motivation in giving you the value.

Let us continue following your response to the example regarding the young scientist. I may be unable to post again tonight, in which case, I'll respond tomorrow.

[organon 0]

Two more examples:

(1) Assume that as a result of the 9/11 attack, security measures were introduced that I immensely value the existence of, for they have drastically improved safety at airports and in the air.

Should I feel gratitude toward the men responsible for that attack?

(2) Assume a criminal fires a bullet at a man, and strikes him in a non-threatening area of his torso. After this, the man devotes himself to the creation of a bulletproof vest, that good men in law enforcement around the world value the existence of.

Do I owe gratitude to the criminal?

[organon 0]

(2) Assume a criminal fires a bullet at a man, and strikes him in a non-threatening area of his torso. After this, the man devotes himself to the creation of a bulletproof vest, that good men in law enforcement around the world value the existence of.

Do I owe gratitude to the criminal?

(Please note this is entirely fictional; I have no idea whatever of the actual origins of the bulletproof vest.)

[Brian Smith 0]

Should you feel gratitude toward the mother?

Yes.

Consider the meaning of gratitude, in the context of the fact that it relates to a spiritual payment, and a moral evaluation of the individual who provided one with the relevant value.

By thanking the mother, I am paying her for the value she created.

His parents send him a check in the mail. He feels gratitude toward them. Why?

Because he values that which was sent to him - the money.

He believes that the check was sent out of a recognition of his value

And he may properly thank them for that as well. In other words, he thanks them for money. AND he thanks them for the love they have for him.

So you see, regardless of the REASON the check is sent, the man still values the money. If he keeps it - if he keeps the value that has been given him - then he owes gratitude for the receipt of that value. Whether he agrees with the reason the value was given to him doesn't change this debt one bit.

Years later, the now 28-year-old discovers that the motivation for sending the check was wholly irrational and immoral, having nothing whatever to do with a recognition of his moral value...Does he still feel gratitude toward them for that check?

Yes. The check was a value to him. What he no longer has gratitude toward them for is the love he thought they had for him. He has now learned his prior gratitude for THAT was in error. But that does nothing to change the rightful gratitude he owes for the check itself, since that particular value remains unchanged.

As I have continually pointed out, you keep trying to add things into your question. Here again we see that same attempt. What you are doing is conflating the value of the parental love (and the gratitude it deserves) with the value of the check (and the gratitude it deserves). They are not one in the same - and it is an error to treat them as such.

[organon 0]

Should you feel gratitude toward the mother?

Yes.

Consider the meaning of gratitude, in the context of the fact that it relates to a spiritual payment, and a moral evaluation of the individual who provided one with the relevant value.

By thanking the mother, I am paying her for the value she created.

His parents send him a check in the mail. He feels gratitude toward them. Why?

Because he values that which was sent to him - the money.

He believes that the check was sent out of a recognition of his value

And he may properly thank them for that as well. In other words, he thanks them for money. AND he thanks them for the love they have for him.

So you see, regardless of the REASON the check is sent, the man still values the money. If he keeps it - if he keeps the value that has been given him - then he owes gratitude for the receipt of that value. Whether he agrees with the reason the value was given to him doesn't change this debt one bit.

Years later, the now 28-year-old discovers that the motivation for sending the check was wholly irrational and immoral, having nothing whatever to do with a recognition of his moral value...Does he still feel gratitude toward them for that check?

Yes. The check was a value to him. What he no longer has gratitude toward them for is the love he thought they had for him. He has now learned his prior gratitude for THAT was in error. But that does nothing to change the rightful gratitude he owes for the check itself, since that particular value remains unchanged.

As I have continually pointed out, you keep trying to add things into your question. Here again we see that same attempt. What you are doing is conflating the value of the parental love (and the gratitude it deserves) with the value of the check (and the gratitude it deserves). They are not one in the same - and it is an error to treat them as such.

Brian, I think the general nature of your reasoning here is this:

If one receives an existential value -- e.g., one's wife, a check, and yes, one's life -- from another, if that existential value is a value to him, then he owes gratitude to the consciousness that was the agent by which that value was obtained, regardless of the degree of their depravity.

In other words, his gratitude derives from the existence of the relevant value, that is a value to him, and the nature and motivation of the mind responsible for the existence of that value, and its transmission to him, if applicable, is not relevant.

What does this imply?

Assume that the Nazis killed and dissected innocent men, and from this, we gained knowledge that has added to the development of medicine in some field or fields.

The knowledge thus gained, was instrumental in saving the life of a loved one dear to you.

Does one feel gratitude toward the Nazis?

No, of course not. One cannot isolate an effect from its cause -- an existential value received from a consciousness, from an identification of the nature (and motivation, which implies the nature) of that consciousness. Again, gratitude is a spiritual payment.

Gratitude properly results from an identification of the nature and motivation of those responsible for the thing one values as good, deriving from their valuing of you for rational reasons, and what this implies about them.

In the above examples: do I feel gratitude toward those responsible for 9/11? No, but I do toward those whose creativity, if such applies, created the new security measures.

Do I feel gratitude toward the criminal? No, but I do toward the inventor.

Do I feel gratitude toward the Nazis? No, but I do toward the doctor who saved my loved one's life.

[organon 0]

As I have continually pointed out, you keep trying to add things into your question. Here again we see that same attempt.

No. Currently, the focus is the (rational) nature of gratitude, a grasp of which is important to an understanding of the perspective of a rational man in relation to the issue this thread concerns.

[Brian Smith 0]

If one receives an existential value -- e.g., one's wife, a check, and yes, one's life -- from another, if that existential value is a value to him, then he owes gratitude to the consciousness that was the agent by which that value was obtained, regardless of the degree of their depravity.

Yes. Because the value and the depravity are not the same thing - even though you continually insist on treating them as if they are.

do I feel gratitude toward those responsible for 9/11? No, but I do toward those whose creativity, if such applies, created the new security measures.

Yes. You feel grateful to the individual who created the value (security). You do not feel grateful to the individuals who destroyed values. That is the same reason you feel grateful to your parents. They created the value - you.

Do I feel gratitude toward the criminal? No, but I do toward the inventor.

Yes. You feel grateful to the individual who created the value (invention). You do not feel grateful to the individuals who destroyed values. That is the same reason you feel grateful to your parents. They created the value - you.

Do I feel gratitude toward the Nazis? No, but I do toward the doctor who saved my loved one's life.

Yes. You feel grateful to the individual who created the value (the health of your loved one). You do not feel grateful to the individual who destroyed values. That is the same reason you feel grateful to your parents. They created the value - you.

As you indicate in the above examples, the creator of a value deserves your gratitude. Unless it is your claim that you are not a value or that your parents did not create you (did not give you life), then gratitude to them for giving you life is simply the consistent application of your own principle.

[organon 0]

As you indicate in the above examples, the creator of a value deserves your gratitude.

Why? Because, in the case of a productive achievement, of the moral virtue one assumes in the creator, which was required in its creation. If a rational man were to discover that the motivation, and nature, of the mind that created a given productive value that is a value to him was wholly depraved -- that the intent of the creator in its creation was evil -- the gratitude would, and should, evaporate.

Unless it is your claim that you are not a value or that your parents did not create you (did not give you life), then gratitude to them for giving you life is simply the consistent application of your own principle.

Gratitude, once more, in the context of it being owed to another consciousness, is a spiritual payment.

Is a rational individual's life a value to him? Yes. Were his parents the metaphysical agents of his existence? Yes. Does that necessarily imply anything whatever about their moral value, to whatever degree, from which gratitude would derive? (Recall the case of the parents who sought to raise a suicide bomber.) Without question, no.

You are, in the context of an effect that you value, offering gratitude to the consciousness responsible, with the positive moral evaluation that implies, even in the face of incontestable evidence that such consciousness lacks any value whatever. You are claiming that if one regards a given existential effect as a value, regardless of the nature and motivation of its creator, you then owe that individual, regardless of their depravity, should such be the case, gratitude -- which is a spiritual payment rationally given only in the context of the actual or implied value of the consciousness that is the source of that value.

[Paul's Here 0]

According to my online dictionary, gratitude means "the state of being grateful." (Not very helpful there, I admit). Grateful means "appreciative of benefits received." The nature of the originator of the benefit does not come into play here, in my opinion. Thus, if a prostitute gives birth to a child who grows into an adult that one falls in love with, one may feel grateful to the mother. The moral virtue of the creator is another issue that needs to be evaluated, but does not interfere with being grateful.

Had I had an ancestor who was in a Nazi concentration camp, I would be grateful that the Nazis did not kill my ancestor. There is no implication whatsoever about a moral evaluation of the originator of the value or a criminal for not destroying the value.

[Brian Smith 0]

As you indicate in the above examples, the creator of a value deserves your gratitude.

Why?

Because one values the creation the individual has created. And since that creation is the RESPONSIBILITY of the creator, then he is due either praise or condemnation for his act. He is due either thanks or scorn for it. And if you value the creation - you praise. Otherwise you condemn.

If a rational man were to discover that the motivation, and nature, of the mind that created a given productive value that is a value to him was wholly depraved -- that the intent of the creator in its creation was evil -- the gratitude would, and should, evaporate.

Again, you speak of TWO values but treat them as if they were ONE. That is an (ongoing) error.

The particular creation is one value.

The love (or whatever motivation) of the person is another value.

These two things are NOT the same. A check and love are quite DIFFERENT values. And they EACH deserve gratitude. In other words, they possess two DIFFERENT identities. To treat them as if they were the same is a blatant contradiction.

Now - because you value BOTH, you are properly grateful for both. Of course, if you discover that the love you value does not in fact exist, then obviously you should not be grateful for that love. It would be wrong to be grateful for a non-existent value. However, your error about the love does not change the fact that you STILL value the creation itself. And because you still value that one thing, you are still justly grateful for it.

The loss of the one value for which to be grateful doesn't cause you to lose the other value for which you are grateful.

Put simply, where before you were grateful for a particular creation and you were grateful for the love you thought a person had for you, now you are grateful ONLY for the creation. That value still remains. It doesn't DISAPPEAR - and neither does the proper gratitude for it. Thus you still owe the person for giving you the ONE value, even though you THOUGHT they had given you TWO values.

In fact, since you claim there is actually a value and an evil in this case, then one is properly grateful for the value and condemnatory of the evil.

You are, in the context of an effect that you value, offering gratitude to the consciousness responsible, with the positive moral evaluation that implies, even in the face of incontestable evidence that such consciousness lacks any value whatever.

Yes. I am offering the individual a positive moral evaluation because he created a value I treasure. That moral evaluation extends to nothing more about the person except his creation of that particular value. It is an error to assume it extends to any other aspect of the person.

You are claiming that if one regards a given existential effect as a value, regardless of the nature and motivation of its creator, you then owe that individual

Yes, you owe him for his creation. He gave you a value. No matter what else, that act of value creation and value giving is something for which one is justly grateful.

...regardless of their depravity...

If a man is a rapist, I consider him completely depraved. If he saves my life somehow, I am grateful to him for that act. That does not change the fact that I consider him completely depraved and thus hate him for his depravity. You seem to be under the impression that one cannot do both. That is an error.

[organon 0]

According to my online dictionary, gratitude means "the state of being grateful." (Not very helpful there, I admit). Grateful means "appreciative of benefits received." The nature of the originator of the benefit does not come into play here, in my opinion. Thus, if a prostitute gives birth to a child who grows into an adult that one falls in love with, one may feel grateful to the mother. The moral virtue of the creator is another issue that needs to be evaluated, but does not interfere with being grateful.

Had I had an ancestor who was in a Nazi concentration camp, I would be grateful that the Nazis did not kill my ancestor. There is no implication whatsoever about a moral evaluation of the originator of the value or a criminal for not destroying the value.

Hello Paul,

Dictionary.com defines “grateful” as: “warmly or deeply appreciative of kindness or benefits received”.

"Appreciation" is defined as: "gratitude; thankful recognition". This recognition is, in the context of this thread, of the originator.

The relevant definition of "recognition", I think, is: "the acknowledgment of achievement, service, merit, etc." This also, in the context of this thread, is an acknowledgement in relation to the originator.

--

The question, for a mind that values integrated awareness, is, “Received from whom?” Who was the originator? It is this implied or actual identification that is the source of his positive emotional response, of his warmth and appreciation (his thankful acknowledgement of the originator's achievement or merit, as implied by the value in question, in this case, his wife).

Were he to recognize that the nature and motivation of those from whom he received the kindness or benefits were depraved, e.g., that the parents of his wife raised her with no intent whatever but to have her die in the cause of their religion, would he remain "warmly or deeply appreciative” toward them -- would he treat them with thankful recognition, an emotional response deriving from an identification of what they are, in a moral sense (his acknowledgement of their (moral) achievement or merit), in the context of the relevant value? Or would such warmth evaporate.

Without question, he can value the existence of the benefits – his existence, or that of his wife. He can be glad that he and she exist. But this does not relate to his emotional response to her originator(s) ("warmly or deeply appreciative"), which follows from the "thankful recognition" of their "achievement or merit" in a moral sense, given that the originator's creation of the value -- giving birth to a child, which does not necessarily require moral virtue (as opposed to productive work requiring the involvement of the mind) -- implies nothing whatever necessarily about moral value, and assuming also that he has incontestable proof of actual depravity.

John

[organon 0]

Had I had an ancestor who was in a Nazi concentration camp, I would be grateful that the Nazis did not kill my ancestor. There is no implication whatsoever about a moral evaluation of the originator of the value or a criminal for not destroying the value.

When you write, "I would be grateful that the Nazis did not kill my ancestor," what do you mean? That you value that fact, independent of the moral evaluation of those responsible for the continued existence of that value (in this case, through abstaining from killing him).

But, if we consider gratitude in the context of the meaning "“warm or deep appreciation of kindness or benefits received”, do you feel "warmth or deep appreciation" toward the Nazis for their role in the existence of that fact? Meaning: "thankful acknowledgement of [their] achievement or merit [in the context of the role in the continued existence of that value]"?

Would I feel gratitude toward the Nazis? No.

Would I feel gratitude toward the member(s) of the resistance or the Allied armies responsible for freeing my ancestor from them? Yes.

John

[organon 0]

Had I had an ancestor who was in a Nazi concentration camp, I would be grateful that the Nazis did not kill my ancestor. There is no implication whatsoever about a moral evaluation of the originator of the value or a criminal for not destroying the value.

In the context of the meaning of the word "grateful", as described in the two above posts, I believe the proper formulation would be:

"I would be happy that the Nazis did not kill my ancestor."

Gratitude implies warm or deep appreciation for benefits received, i.e., thankful recognition of achievement, service or merit, in relation to the creation and/or continued existence of a value one holds. Given one grasps evidence proving there is no basis for such recognition -- that in fact, the men responsible for the continued existence of that value (e.g., the ancestor) were wholly depraved, or evil, and their only role in his existence was simply the fact that they did not get around to killing him -- he should not feel gratitude.

[Paul's Here 0]

I think arguing by means of examples is getting quite burdensome and is leading to no conclusion. Just because a dictionary defintion includes certain examples doesn't mean that every element within the defintion applies to every instance. Dictionary definitions are not philosophic definitions. I do not have to be thankful to the person who was involved in creating /sustaining the value when I feel gratitude about the benefits I've received, unless it is appropriate to be thankful. Nor does my thankful appreciation have to be toward the evil people.

As far as "being happy the Nazis didn't kill my ancestor" I could just as well be happy that they didn't kill a lot of other people from whom I have derived no benefit, but I would not feel gratitude.

[organon 0]

I think arguing by means of examples is getting quite burdensome and is leading to no conclusion. Just because a dictionary defintion includes certain examples doesn't mean that every element within the defintion applies to every instance.

?

We are trying to establish a rational definition, and it will have implications in regard to the subject of this thread. If you do not believe the offered definition is rational, please provide an argument as to why.

As far as "being happy the Nazis didn't kill my ancestor" I could just as well be happy that they didn't kill a lot of other people from whom I have derived no benefit, but I would not feel gratitude.

Does this imply you feel gratitude that they did not kill your ancestor? Again, whether this statement is valid, relates to a definition of the word.

[organon 0]

As far as "being happy the Nazis didn't kill my ancestor" I could just as well be happy that they didn't kill a lot of other people from whom I have derived no benefit, but I would not feel gratitude.

Does this imply you feel gratitude that they did not kill your ancestor? Again, whether this statement is valid, relates to a definition of the word.

This is actually a point I would like to explicitly address once more.

Assume there is an existential value, e.g. the life of a wife, or a friend, or a valued family member, that is dear to one.

Assume further that there is an individual in some way responsible for the current existence of that value, e.g., a criminal who did not fire, or a Nazi who did not have the time to kill him or her, as the Allies were approaching.

Is the existence of the person a value to one?

Yes, without question.

Is one happy the person exists?

Yes, without question.

Does one feel gratitude for his or her existence?

Gratitude is the "warm or deep acknowledgement of achievement, service or merit in relation to kindness or benefits received." Which relates to an evaluation of the originator.

The question is: to whom is one offering one's gratitude? Who is the individual, and what is his nature, and the nature of his role in the existence of the value one currently possesses?

One cannot be grateful for an existential fact, out of this context -- it is an emotional response to another consciousness. He can be happy it exists, but gratitude to an individual involved in some way in the current existence of that value, exists in the context of an evaluation of the nature of that "benefactor".

[Brian Smith 0]

Gratitude is the "warm or deep acknowledgement of achievement, service or merit in relation to kindness or benefits received." Which relates to an evaluation of the originator.

Without debating the validity of this definition:

Benefit received: life

service: creating that life

form of acknowledgment: simply thanks or gratitude

originator (creator) of benefit: parents

The question is: to whom is one offering one's gratitude?

The "originator" (creator) of the "benefit" (the value).

And FOR WHAT are you thanking him? The creation of the value - nothing more and nothing less.

Who is the individual...

The parent.

...and what is his nature...

This is your error. The person's "nature" - his character - his overall moral worth - has no bearing on the particular benefit received, the particular service rendered, or the particular form of proper acknowledgment for that service.

For example - a man is a fraud and a cheat. But in some particular emergency situation, he decides to tell the truth - and that truth telling saves a life. Afterwards, however, he goes back to his scamming and his lying. Justice demands one be scornful to him for his deceitful actions. But justice also demands one be thankful to him for that one act of truth. His OTHER lying does not change this fact.

Put simply, his deceitful actions do not somehow blank out his one act of truth. One cannot treat him as if he did NOT perform that VALUED act. That is the blanking out of reality. And that act is just as dishonest as his lying.

One cannot be grateful for an existential fact, out of this context...

Since the man's "nature" is irrelevant TO this context, this statement is false.

One is not thanking him for his "nature" - one is thanking him for his particular act.

[organon 0]

Gratitude is the "warm or deep acknowledgement of achievement, service or merit in relation to kindness or benefits received." Which relates to an evaluation of the originator.

Without debating the validity of this definition:

Benefit received: life

service: creating that life

form of acknowledgment: simply thanks or gratitude

originator (creator) of benefit: parents

The mere fact that one's mother gave birth has no necessary implication regarding the nature of her motive, or of the corollary implication of her value, in the context of this act.

The question is: to whom is one offering one's gratitude? The "originator" (creator) of the "benefit" (the value).

And FOR WHAT are you thanking him? The creation of the value - nothing more and nothing less.

Who is the individual...

The parent.

...and what is his nature...

This is your error. The person's "nature" - his character - his overall moral worth - has no bearing on the particular benefit received, the particular service rendered, or the particular form of proper acknowledgment for that service.

You are claiming that he deserves gratitude, by virtue of nothing other than the fact that he was part of the "existential causative string" responsible for that value's current existence, regardless of his nature or motivation in the context of his role in its development or current existence. By this reasoning, should we value the security measures that were introduced as a result of their action, we owe gratitude to the 9/11 hijackers.

A man is not owed gratitude, irrespective of the nature of his role and motivation in the current existence of that value:

Gratitude is the "warm or deep acknowledgement of achievement, service or merit in relation to kindness or benefits received." Which relates to an evaluation of the originator.

For example - a man is a fraud and a cheat. But in some particular emergency situation, he decides to tell the truth - and that truth telling saves a life. Afterwards, however, he goes back to his scamming and his lying. Justice demands one be scornful to him for his deceitful actions. But justice also demands one be thankful to him for that one act of truth. His OTHER lying does not change this fact.

Put simply, his deceitful actions do not somehow blank out his one act of truth. One cannot treat him as if he did NOT perform that VALUED act. That is the blanking out of reality. And that act is just as dishonest as his lying.

Of course he deserves credit for his virtue, which maintained a life of value. In this case, gratitude is offered, without question. Why? As a spiritual payment for an act of virtue, that resulted in the continued existence of a dear value.

Since the man's "nature" is irrelevant TO this context, this statement is false.

In this case, the benefactor's role in the maintenance of that life was virtuous, and the gratitude one feels is a response to that virtue. An identification of the man's nature in the context of this act is the source of the (rational positive) evaluation that results in the emotional response of gratitude.

One is not thanking him for his "nature" - one is thanking him for his particular act.

One offers gratitude to him because of what that act implies in relation to his nature in the context of this act -- the virtue he demonstrated in his role of maintaining that value that is dear to one. It is not the act considered as a thing in itself, isolated from its cause in consciousness, that gives him value, and earns him gratitude -- it is the fact that he, in this context, was good -- and goodness is an evaluation that exists in the context of consciousness.

Gratitude is the "warm or deep acknowledgement of achievement, service or merit in relation to kindness or benefits received." Which relates to an evaluation of the originator.

Gratitude is a spiritual payment.

[Brian Smith 0]

Of course he deserves credit for his virtue, which maintained a life of value. In this case, gratitude is offered, without question.

Excellent. I am glad you have finally accepted and are applying my principle.

You have just offered gratitude "without question." Without question of "motive" - without question of the "nature" of the "originator" of the "benefit" - without question of anything about the man's character whatsoever. You do NOT know WHY this man said what he did. For all you know, he might have had a 'fear of god' or any other such irrational and scorn-worthy motivation you have mentioned in previous examples. But, as you have now clearly and rightfully identified, those questions don't change the fact that his act 'maintained a value' and thus by virtue of that fact alone he 'deserves credit' - in this case "gratitude."

Put simply, you have just accepted the fact that his particular act of truth telling "has no necessary implication regarding the nature of [his] motive, or of the corollary implication of [his] value, in the context of this act."

You have just accepted "that he deserves gratitude, by virtue of nothing other than the fact that he was part of the "existential causative string" responsible for that value's current existence, regardless of his nature or motivation in the context of his role in its development or current existence."

Now that you have actually accepted my principle, you simply need to start applying it consistently.

[organon 0]

Of course he deserves credit for his virtue, which maintained a life of value. In this case, gratitude is offered, without question.

Excellent. I am glad you have finally accepted and are applying my principle.

You have just offered gratitude "without question." Without question of "motive" - without question of the "nature" of the "originator" of the "benefit" - without question of anything about the man's character whatsoever. You do NOT know WHY this man said what he did. For all you know, he might have had a 'fear of god' or any other such irrational and scorn-worthy motivation you have mentioned in previous examples. But, as you have now clearly and rightfully identified, those questions don't change the fact that his act 'maintained a value' and thus by virtue of that fact alone he 'deserves credit' - in this case "gratitude."

I have no reason whatever to believe that the psychological cause of his motivation -- to violate a general policy of immorality and choose to tell the truth and save the life of a person of value -- was immoral. On the basis of the implied nobility of that act, I grant him gratitude.

Put simply, you have just accepted the fact that his particular act of truth telling "has no necessary implication regarding the nature of [his] motive, or of the corollary implication of [his] value, in the context of this act."

You have just accepted "that he deserves gratitude, by virtue of nothing other than the fact that he was part of the "existential causative string" responsible for that value's current existence, regardless of his nature or motivation in the context of his role in its development or current existence."

Now that you have actually accepted my principle, you simply need to start applying it consistently.

Betsy, forgive me if this a violation of board etiquette, but:

Pending the identification of a positive motivating personal value, I will not continue to invest time in adding to this thread.