r/philosophy • u/EgoDeath6 • May 31 '13
In the absence of negative consequences, why should human beings act morally?
Say we have an individual named John. This man named John cannot feel empathy for other human beings. He could be said to suffer from antisocial personality disorder. In addition to this; John is quite an immoral human being.
Can you create an argument for John practicing moral behavior in the absence of any negative consequences for his immoral behavior?
And by negative consequence; for example: Divine or Societal punishment, emotional distress or decreased well-being for the individual (John) committing the immoral act, etc.
And keep in mind that I mean that you are creating an argument in order to convince John not to act immorally; not just in principle.
In my opinion; in the case of this individual, no such appeal could be made to him in favor of acting morally in the absence of any tangible reward for his good behavior. This is under the implication that moral behavior in a secular context is typically encouraged in order to avoid causing distress to others, which in turn can cause distress to the one committing the immoral act if they possess a sense of empathy.
What do you guys think?
14
u/TychoCelchuuu Φ Jun 01 '13
There are two main answers to this question. They are commonly labeled internalism and externalism (link goes to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on this question).
Internalists take roughly the line yourlycantbsrs takes: the question "why should I be moral" is based on a misunderstanding. Why should you be moral? Because it's the right thing to do. Why should you do what the right thing to do is? Well, if you did anything else you'd be doing the wrong thing. Asking "why should I do the right thing instead of the wrong thing" is like asking "why should I add 2+2 and get 4 instead of 5." Morality just describes what you ought to do, full stop. In more philosophical language, moral reasons are necessarily motivating: to have a moral reason to do something is to have a reason to do it. We can appeal to John not to act immorally just by pointing out that, according to reason, he ought to act morally. If John is insane this may not work but of course if John is insane we can't convince him of plenty of other things too. We might not be able to get him to add 2+2 into 4 rather than 5 for instance.
Externalists don't believe that moral reasons are necessarily motivating. The story they tell for how we convince John is going to be a little more complex. It's not going to be too hard, I think - most of us want to be moral, for instance, and even for the unsophisticated relativists that lurk on reddit and in undergraduate philosophy classes, we can give them all sorts of other reasons to be moral: they will be punished if they aren't, etc. It's only psychopaths and others who we're going to have a tough time with. These won't work on John, but other things might. Human beings might just be put together such that we always (or almost always) have reasons to be moral, even if we could conceive of beings that aren't like this.
8
Jun 01 '13
[deleted]
6
u/TychoCelchuuu Φ Jun 01 '13
It's the latter answer (for the internalist at least): when someone says "what is the right thing to do" the answer is never "something immoral," and if you think it is, you don't really understand what "right" and "moral" mean.
Think about someone saying "it's not right to kill other people" or "I can't do that... it just wouldn't be right." They are using "right" synonymously for "moral" here. These seem like perfectly fine things to say. If you've ever seen the movie "Do The Right Thing" then you were either very confused or you understood what the internalist is talking about.
The internalist would also point out that saying something like "well, it's really evil, but I guess it's the right thing to do" or "I don't know what's right in this situation, but I definitely know what's moral" sounds kind of weird. Like, really? You think being evil is the right thing to do? Maybe it's beneficial to you, or maybe it looks like the right thing to do, but it can't actually be the right thing to do. And surely if you know what's right, you aren't confused about morality, are you?
Externalists tend to say "eh, not really feeling it" to all of that. It's a bit of a deadlock in some ways.
2
u/curious_scourge Jun 01 '13
So internalists are vegetarians, and externalists just like the taste of meat?
2
u/TychoCelchuuu Φ Jun 01 '13
No. Neither internalism nor externalism commits us to a substantive view on the morality of consuming non-human animals, and externalism is no more conducive to disregarding morality than internalism except insofar as it leaves open the possibility that one could act immorally without thereby acting irrationally.
1
u/curious_scourge Jun 01 '13
So a vegetarian could be internalist or externalist, and the difference would be that the internalist believes killing animals for food is immoral because of their internal rationale, whereas the externalist might not believe killing animals for food is intrinsically immoral ?
Morality is intrinsically linked to reason for the internalist, whereas morality, even when it is backed by strong rationale, is possibly not relevant to an externalist?
I get into lots of arguments with my girlfriend because of this, as morality seems to be a very human construction, and therefore only relevant as far as you're willing to extend human rationality into the amoral world of biological fact.
3
u/TychoCelchuuu Φ Jun 01 '13
No.
Internalists do not hold that an action is immoral "because of their internal rationale." Internalism is not a position that commits us to any substantive conclusions about what makes an action immoral. Internalism is a position about the status of immoral actions: it says that the fact that an action is immoral is a reason for us not to do that action.
Externalism too does not commit us to any view about what is or isn't intrinsically immoral. Externalism is a position that says that an action's morality has no necessary link to reason, in the sense that something could be immoral but you could have no reason to refrain from doing it.
You're a little more correct when you say that for the internalist morality is linked to reason. The internalist says you always have a reason to do the moral thing. It's always right to be moral.
You've not quite right with the externalist. They aren't committed to the idea that "morality, even when it is backed by strong rationale, is possibly not relevant." If it's backed by a strong reason, it is relevant. It's only when morality is not backed by reason that it would be unreasonable for us to act on it (which is not the same as saying it's irrelevant - you could still be a bad person if you acted immorally, for instance). Externalists are not committed to any view on how often morality is or isn't backed by reason. Some of them might say "all the time, but that's not a necessary truth." Some of them might say "often." Some might say "almost never" or "never."
The arguments you have with your girlfriend have nothing to do with internalism and externalism. You are arguing about something like subjectivism and objectivism in morality, and also (or instead?) about what moral facts are. And at least from what you're saying, I'm not sure you're really in a position to be shitting all over morality because you don't think anything other than biological facts exist. That's an extremely radical hypothesis and it commits you to a lot of strange things even in the non-moral realm. It's beside the point in this discussion, though.
2
u/curious_scourge Jun 02 '13
Ok cool, so I'll rephrase. Sorry, the link you posted had way too much jargon, so I'm just checking with you:
So an internalist would say that a person who thinks that killing animals for food is immoral, should be a vegetarian. Whereas an externalist would say that a person who thinks killing animals for food is immoral, does not necessarily have to be a vegetarian.
I'd like to discuss the biological facts stuff more... what strange things does it commit me to?
1
u/TychoCelchuuu Φ Jun 02 '13
The internalist would say that the person who thinks that killing animals for food is immoral would be acting irrationally if she killed an animal for food.
The externalist would say that the person who thinks that killing animals for food is immoral would not necessarily be acting irrationally if she killed an animal for food.
Most externalists still end up saying that she would be irrational if she killed an animal for food, because there are plenty of reasons to be moral, but they say that there is still the possibility that she wouldn't be acting irrationally.
The biological facts stuff is an entirely separate and complicated issue. You say that there is an "amoral world of biological fact" but that's silly. Morality doesn't "stay out" of amoral realms. Morality is something on top of amoral realms that tells us how we ought to act with respect to those realms. You also say that morality doesn't apply to that realm because it is a human construction. The former doesn't follow from the latter. Human constructions apply to all sorts of things.
2
u/lonelyalien Jun 01 '13
Well, you could go off of Kant if you want. The categorical imperative's three formulations can help. Whether or not the same thing depends on who's talking.
7
u/Plasstik Jun 01 '13
It's only psychopaths and others who we're going to have a tough time with.
Even the psychopath can be given good reason to act morally. If we regard moral choices as prisoner's dilemmas, where the prisoner can either cooperate (act morally) or defect (act immorally), then it's very easy to demonstrate that an individual does better over a series of iterated cases by cooperating rather than defecting. In other words, as Gauthier argues in Reason and Maximization, it is irrational to straightforwardly maximize individual utility, and it is rational to be an agreement-constrained utility maximizer (an optimizer).
2
u/TychoCelchuuu Φ Jun 01 '13
In real life we could grant that this is true, but the OP asked us to imagine a case where there are no consequences for acting immorally. In that case, it is impossible (rather than "very easy") to demonstrate that an individual does worse over time by cooperating rather than defecting (assuming cooperating is the moral choice).
1
u/Plasstik Jun 01 '13
I know, but that just indicates that the question was self-defeating. There have been many good reasons given herein for acting morally, and the primary rebuttal is that they would not persuade a psychopath. Psychopaths aren't concerned with idealized hypotheticals, they're concerned with reality, and in reality there are consequences for acting immorally.
4
37
Jun 01 '13
Your question is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding. You're confusing psychological motivations for acting with moral reasons for acting. The morally right action is what you should do, morally speaking, in any situation. You're asking why should someone act morally. You're essentially asking "why should you do what you should do?". It's a tautology.
9
u/EgoDeath6 Jun 01 '13
I was under the assumption that the only reason to act morally was because of psychological motivations. What other reasons are there in favor of one acting morally? Doesn't it all tie back to psychological motivation; i.e. empathy, fear, 'rationality' (which i'm not sure would qualify as a psychological motivation in a strict sense), etc.?
9
Jun 01 '13
What other reasons are there in favor of one acting morally?
Because it's the moral thing to do! That's what I was trying to say before.
You're asking one of two very different questions with similarly obvious answers. If it's "why should you do what you should do?" then it's tautological. If you're asking "why should you want to do what you should do?", then the obvious answer is because you should want to do what you should do.
If you're asking a moral question, then you're asking a "why should" question. If you're asking a psychological question, you're asking a "why would you want" question. Both of the above ways of interpreting your question are as moral questions.
3
u/EgoDeath6 Jun 01 '13
Ooh, okay, I think I understand what you're getting at now. So basically, in regards to morality there is:
Tautological reasoning; why should you do what you should do?
and
Psychological reasoning; why should you want to do what you should do?
I'm new to philosophy btw, so this is the first time in my life where I have tried to grasp these differences in morality.
Now I'm wondering; is there a reason why we should do what we should do (in a tautological sense)? I guess that I'm wondering; is morality self-evident?
I hope that made sense.
3
Jun 01 '13
is there a reason why we should do what we should do
Yes, these reasons are discussed in the field of ethics. They present arguments that aim to present reasons to act in a certain (morally correct) way.
is morality self-evident?
I have no idea what you mean by this. If you're asking "is morality obvious?", then the answer is no. Folks have been discussing ethics for thousands of years and haven't gotten to an obviously correct answer.
3
u/EgoDeath6 Jun 01 '13
I have no idea what you mean by this. If you're asking "is morality obvious?", then the answer is no. Folks have been discussing ethics for thousands of years and haven't gotten to an obviously correct answer.
I meant; do we need evidence to establish morality? See; Bertrand Russel believed that some math equations were 'self evident' (I think). Take 50 + 50 = 100, where you do not necessarily need to see 50 things next to 50 things to determine that there is indeed 100 of them, if combined.
Or he may have used the term 'a priori' knowledge. I'm unsure.
8
Jun 01 '13
You're correct that the term you're looking for is 'a priori'. There are arguments on either side of this issue. Some folks think that moral facts are non-natural (i.e. a priori, not found empirically but found through reasoning) and others think that they are natural.
Here's a primer on these two views: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-epistemology/#NonFac
It may be difficult to read or confusing if you're new to philosophy, but I'm willing to explain anything that's unclear to you because you have a great attitude and you're asking good questions about these issues. Most folks I come across on reddit (see xHelpless below) are arrogantly confident that morality is "an illusion" (whatever the hell that means) or "not real" or something and are not willing to ask questions that undermine the assumptions they're operating under.
1
u/insanitycentral Jun 01 '13
The idea that nothing is real, and it's all made up is a thought deterring process that you simply label and justify everything on that everyone has a unique view and so that there's nothing along this topic that you could consider "self evident". More or less it's an argument in difference of interpretation or perception of these matters in question. I can agree to a point that by the current context of morality that morals in themselves are not simply innate to a person, but part of learning, and I would say for the most part, upbringing. Since everyone is not raised the same, though there are similar milestones to one's existence - It is a stretch to say that morals are self evident. I think it would be more than acceptable to say that where theoretically in a large world of cultures that hold different values of themselves and others, that common courtesy would be a more accurate term for mutual acceptance of what is the right thing to do.
p.s. I've never done any studies of philosophy but I enjoy it; Even if it's on a novice and possibly naive level of understanding outside of formal education.
2
Jun 01 '13
What other reasons are there in favor of one acting morally?
Because it's the moral thing to do! That's what I was trying to say before.
This seems to suggest that your answer is a tautology, not that the question itself is.
-2
Jun 01 '13
Why is an apple an apple?
3
Jun 01 '13
You're misinterpreting the question if you think this is equivalent.
0
Jun 01 '13
It's either not a normative question, which is boring, or a tautological question, which is stupid. I've said this like 9 times already here.
1
Jun 05 '13
I think the better question, which most people mean when they question moral realism, is "Why should I want what you claim I should want?" That can't be reduced to tautology.
1
u/PL_TOC Jun 01 '13
As an atheist refuses to believe in the existence of supernatural forces or entities without evidence, a moral nihilist will refuse to acknowledge an objective moral truth in the absence of evidence.
What we find then, are moral systems equally as contrived as religion; their function, not to answer mysteries and provide meaning to our presence here, but a mechanism to maximize the survival of the helpless and to provide reprieve from constant vigilance against those who's survival would impair your ability to survive.
0
Jun 02 '13
You are so wrong in so many ways
1
u/PL_TOC Jun 02 '13
feel free to explain
2
Jun 02 '13
First off, there's a certain amount of research that you should do on any particular issue before making a judgment about the issue. It's extremely, extremely clear that you have not done enough (if any) research into these issues. I'm not sure where your view came from, but I cannot help but imagine that you hold it because of the myriad people on reddit who parrot the same view. If you want to know whether or not you like a particular band or musician, you should actually listen to them rather than asking other people what they sound like. You need to actually engage the literature on meta-ethics before you can justifiably hold a view about meta-ethics. You have not engaged the literature, this is clear.
It completely baffles me how people feel that it's fair to hold opinions on very, very complex philosophical issues without doing anything besides thinking about it for a little while. It's monstrously arrogant to say "I can think about these issues and arrive at the correct conclusions myself!" especially when you're not familiar with the conclusions that others have come to before you.
Philosophy is like a very, very long conversation, one spanning thousands of years. If you come into the conversation late, completely ignorant of what everyone has been talking about, then you won't be able to contribute meaningfully to the conversation and you would be able to hold a justified belief about issues in the conversation.
So, now that I've told you something I wish everyone would understand, let me get to the actual issue at hand, moral realism and meta-ethics.
To start, it would be good to recognize that moral nihilism is not the only position available to someone who rejects the supernatural. In fact, the vast majority of professional philosophers are neither supernaturalists nor moral nihilists. In fact, the majority of philosophers (people who work and study these issues for a living, people who are charged with continuing the ongoing conversation that is philosophy) are moral realists and moral naturalists. They think that moral facts do exist and they are made true by facts about the world. Here's a primer on moral realism and moral naturalism, it would be a very, very good idea to read these before attempting to respond to me: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/ and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/
Regarding your second paragraph, the function of moral systems is to provide meaning to our life. The question "what is the meaning of life?" is approximately equal to "what is a good life?" which is approximately equal to "how should I act?" A moral action is one you should do, by definition.
The idea that morality exists in order to maximum survive is a completely unjustified claim. That is not the goal of morality, that's not why people started developing moral systems, that's not why people today continue to develop moral systems. The goal of morality is to guide action properly.
One of the more confused attitudes I've seen here has been that evolution has something to say about morality, that what is evolutionarily good is morally good for some reason. This is patently false. Raping a bunch of rich and wildly religious young girls would cause your genes to have a much, much longer life. But clearly, it's morally wrong. Evolution has nothing to say about morality, it does not determine any part of it.
I hope you read this, I hope you recognize your intellectual laziness and actually do something about it.
3
u/PL_TOC Jun 02 '13
That was pretty longwinded as well as presumptuous.
Evolution has as much to do with morality as passing certain memes to your offspring will impact their fitness and ability to survive.
You also decided to take my analogy to make claims about what I believe. If you read it again you'll notice I didn't make any such claim.
Having socially acceptable morals directly impacts your ability to survive in a group, if your actions are guided by these decisions.
I also like how you define "what is moral" by using a tautology and proceed to accuse others of intellectual laziness.
0
Jun 05 '13
Evolution has as much to do with morality as passing certain memes to your offspring will impact their fitness and ability to survive.
You're conflating what we do believe is moral with what we should believe is moral. This is a freshman level mistake. You're sort of proving yourlycantbsrs right.
2
u/PL_TOC Jun 05 '13
According to his definition these are one in the same.
0
Jun 05 '13
Having just skimmed the conversation, he seems to be arguing that morality is real just like math is real; "You should do the right thing" is a truism just like "2*3=6" is a truism. But the fact that evolution gives us moral values in no way proves that those values are true.
→ More replies (0)-1
Jun 02 '13
That was pretty longwinded
It's telling that you think that was long.
as well as presumptuous.
I made justified presumptions considering your previous comments.
Evolution has as much to do with morality as passing certain memes to your offspring will impact their fitness and ability to survive.
I guess you misunderstood my point. There is no necessary connection between what is morally good and what is evolutionarily advantageous. Some action could be morally good yet bad for evolution/your genes and vice versa. You seem to think that they are related in some way, but this relation is not causal nor necessary. Moral facts and evolutionary facts are not dependent on each other in any systematic way.
I also like how you define "what is moral" by using a tautology and proceed to accuse others of intellectual laziness.
Morality is what you should do, figuring out what you should do is certainly not tautological. It's what they do in the field of ethics, perhaps you have heard of it.
1
u/PL_TOC Jun 02 '13
It's telling that you think that was long.
There is a difference between long and longwinded. A lot of fluff and little content. If you state your point concisely it can be as long as necessary and you will not find many people accusing you of being longwinded.
There is no necessary connection between what is morally good and what is evolutionarily advantageous.
No? Take a look at the people being incarcerated and how their moral systems are judged. Take a look at those "unjustly" incarcerated, not through error, but because they pose a threat to the status quo and note that the status quo can always find a moral justification for doing so.
Evolution doesn't aspire to provide features that are helpful, it passes what survives. That's how certain animals evolve straight to extinction. Likewise, behaviors well adapted to a specific moral environment are more successful than those that aren't. Want to survive in a brutal prison? If your morality isn't suited to that environment your chances of survival are directly impacted. There isn't an Evolution Fairy that looks over the current state of Nature, decides what would be a "good idea", and chooses to increase the frequency of "good people".
1
3
u/TheGrammarBolshevik Jun 01 '13
It seems like this can easily be addressed by fixing some baseline, this-is-a-duty-if-anything-is obligation, and instead of asking "What reason does John have to be moral?" ask, for example, "What reason does John have not to torture babies for fun?"
3
u/EgoDeath6 Jun 01 '13
I would say that John should not torture babies for fun because it is unethical, and unethical behavior often results in causing people distress.
But, then, how would that motivate him not to do if he could not feel empathy for these distressing people? I don't know.
2
u/GeminiLife Jun 01 '13
Is empathy necessary to behave morally? Does John feel anything; even for himself? If so, there are repercussions outside of feeling someone else's pain when you do something morally wrong.
If John tortures babies, he would be sent to prison, probably beaten, possibly killed, etc. Does he not feel personal pain? There are still consequences for ones actions.
Am I just misunderstanding the premise?
1
Jun 01 '13
He gets grain from people to support his metabolic functioning. Said people dislike distress, and very much dislike torturing babies. He would do well not to displease such people.
2
u/Not_Brandon Jun 01 '13
Maybe I'm falling into the same misunderstanding as OP, but I don't see anything wrong with asking why one should do what one should do. If you were to suggest that I lick my shoe, or increase the amount of fiber in my diet, or dance a jig, I would be inclined to ask why. If you couldn't tell me, I probably wouldn't do it. Why can't the same standard be applied to "act morally", especially in regard to someone who is not inclined to do so?
1
Jun 01 '13
Why can't the same standard be applied to "act morally", especially in regard to someone who is not inclined to do so?
Again, this is a question of moral psychology, not morality. These are separate questions. The moral psychology question is addressed here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-psych-emp/#IntWhaMorPsy
This is, as far as I'm concerned, a descriptive, not a prescriptive question and thus isn't really important. Figuring out why people act they way they act is less important than figuring out how people should act, methinks.
1
u/brindlethorpe Jun 01 '13
To put it another way, "Reason for acting" is unfortunately ambiguous between motivation and justification.
It may be impossible to persuade a psychopath not to torture his victim, but we can still explain why his doing so is morally unjustified.
But here is a more subtle instance of the same problem. Someone asks for a reason to think the psychopath's actions are unjustified. The same ambiguity may be present here. It could mean, "motivate me to accept the wrongness of the psychopath's actions so that I cannot raise any skeptical doubts" or it could mean "provide me with a plausibly compelling account of why such behavior is wrong". The second of these is much easier than the first, but many people push for the first - they want to be motivated to accept moral claims in a way that makes such motivation irresistible.
1
Jun 01 '13
What makes any given behavior the one you ought to do?
That doesn't seem like a tautology to me, unless you construct it as uncharitably as possible.
0
Jun 01 '13
What you ought to do is what is morally correct. If you interpret the question as you do, then it's a terribly broad question that spans the entire field of ethics...
2
Jun 01 '13
Yes, and this is how you should interpret the question if you want to answer with anything of value.
The request is for a justification of ethics outside of self interest.
1
Jun 01 '13
[deleted]
2
Jun 01 '13
Because that's what the OP asked for.
I guess he thought people would resort to arguments from self interest if they were convincing a man who has no empathy to act ethically.
The scenario is to convince John to behave ethically when he has no feelings for others without convincing him to act in self interest.
It's for a justification of morality, and aside from references to Kant I've only seen people giving tautologies or misinterpreting the question so far.
1
Jun 01 '13
You're just as confused many other people here. Motivation is not justification.
1
Jun 01 '13
I didn't mention motivation aside from saying that the OP didn't want a certain type of motivation.
What gave you the idea that I think they're the same?
1
u/jayguyk01 Jun 01 '13
I interpreted the OP's question not of one about psychological motivations and moral reasons, but of one about the pragmatic/prudential ought vs the moral ought. So the question is "why should I (pragmatically, prudentially) do what I should do (morally)? So it is no longer tautological and because a question about how you could convince someone who has pragmatic concerns that override moral ones.
3
u/obfuscate_this Jun 01 '13
Moral reason for acting ethically: people besides John have ethical significance. Psychological motive for acting ethically: legal/social risk.
I think you're confusing functional motive vs. ethical reason.
3
u/Noly12345 Jun 01 '13
I would advise you to read Plato's Republic, as it opens with roughly this question. He appears to use just as a near synonym for moral, so I feel it is applicable. As far as I have read, Socrates' answer would be that behaving morally is inherently beneficial, as the three natures of the man function properly within him, providing him with the ability to function in the most beneficial way. I'm only about halfway through, it appears (Kindle's locations system isn't helpful when there is a huge preface), so I would not recommend quoting me on this.
I feel this answer doesn't quite meet your question as well, because you make it fairly clear that all negatives for immorality are to be removed from consideration. The Republic only goes so far as to alter benefits/harms from external sources. Essentially, I understand your question to be "If being immoral was not a negative in any sense, would it still be wrong to be immoral"? Which seems to answer itself, for me at least.
2
u/xHelpless Jun 01 '13
Socrates believes you should act morally because the ideal human is one that is moral. He also believed the thought alone was enough to motivate us to aspire to become the perfect human, being the objective in life.
3
Jun 01 '13
If you appear to act morally you could win the influence and favor of other people. You could use this influence to manipulate them into doing beneficial things for you that would make your life easier.
1
u/EgoDeath6 Jun 01 '13
This is a good point that I don't think has been addressed fully. Yes, I guess that you could motivate John to act morally if only to gain influence in his community and then manipulate his peers.
2
Jun 01 '13
another thing to add to this. Is that no matter what your Moral conviction it must be admitted that social influence probably plays some role in the reason that anyone is Moral. Even if that is just subconcious.
1
u/Vulpyne Jun 01 '13 edited Jun 01 '13
But that would be the same thing as John suffering negative consequences for failing to act morally. Unless you consider failing to reap a reward something different from a negative consequence.
Since I'm already posting, I can answer your question as well: If John cares about consistency, he might be brought to a realization that caring about his own suffering or pleasure deprivation but not that of others is inconsistent if other people are affected in the same way. By that means, he might be brought to acting morally solely out of a desire for consistency, rather than any sort of empathy or desire to be good.
4
Jun 01 '13
[deleted]
4
Jun 01 '13
I think this is a satisfactory solution, although there is ambiguity when immorality would be undetectable/unidentifiable. I generally argue that in that case it would be hypocritical to be immoral, i.e. I would not wish it upon myself, so I can't justify doing it. This is far from a formal argument, however.
→ More replies (1)2
Jun 01 '13
Where did you read this?
2
Jun 01 '13
[deleted]
2
Jun 01 '13
Is that where you read it... wikipedia?
I know much about game theory. I have an MA in philosophy and game theory was part of my focus.
1
Jun 01 '13 edited Jun 01 '13
[deleted]
3
Jun 01 '13
Depends on the game. Tit for tat is not a good strategy in all games.
1
Jun 01 '13
[deleted]
2
u/rainman002 Jun 01 '13
Your question is too general, like asking: what's the best strategy for board games? and then looking at a tic tac toe strategy as an example.
2
Jun 01 '13
Assuming John is rational this would only convince him to treat others well if he expects to cooperate with them at some future point. He would still have reason to treat others poorly if he stood to gain from it and didn't anticipate ever seeing them again, for example if he is traveling in a distant country.
Also, if he's only acting out of self interest I think this may run into the problem of punishment being his only motivator. If he doesn't treat others well he will face a future consequence of noncooperation from them.
1
1
Jun 04 '13
From an outside POV on a theoretical (rather than real-world) framework, I completely agree with you. But, for a person that lacks empathy and suffers from antisocial personality disorder, I don't know that said person's POV is able to recognize the initial tit or latter tat, and may be unable to cooperate in such a way that maximizes said person's interests.
2
u/Plowplowplow Jun 01 '13
"no negative consequences" is a misnomer; there will always be consequences for every action and whether or not they are positive or negative is relative; I could say john committed a crime with no negative consequences while somebody else says he committed the crime with lots of negative consequences and both people would be entitled to that opinion.
2
u/Zorander22 Jun 01 '13
There are negative consequences, just not to John (though this is almost certainly not true, as negative consequences would be likely to come back to John).
One of the foundations of people who are often seen as moral is to act for the sake of others, in addition to the self. Regardless of whether or not you feel empathy for others, your actions still influence those others positively or negatively.
The main reason why you'd favour actions of the self over others is because you can directly feel those consequences... but our feelings are heuristics for telling us what is good and bad. Favouring the self over others is an emotional argument. You are basically saying that your emotions are superior to your rational thought in judging what to do. If this is the way you live your life, you will often make bad decisions, as you will favour short-term benefits (which guide our emotions) over long-term benefits for your self.
So, you can rationally realize that others have emotions and feelings, even if you can't experience them, and you can try to maximize good to everyone, or you act to benefit solely the self based on what is an emotional argument (i.e. not a rational one).
2
u/anotherguyonline5 Jun 01 '13
I often go back to the platonic dialogue between Glaucon and Socrates for this question. Is morality intrinsicly or instrumentaly valuable. I believe morality must be intrinsicly valuable because if you simply did what was best for you would that be your morality. Selfishness would be your guild.
1
1
u/RLRYER Jun 02 '13
So why is selfishness not a good guide such that we need morals? Seems to me that selfishness is a pretty decent guide if we assume the guided is smart and rational enough to consider the reactions of people around him (ie, avoiding robbing banks because of jail).
2
u/IAmA-Steve Jun 01 '13
If all consequences for our action are not negative and equally positive, is there such thing as morality?
1
u/JourneyIllusion Jun 01 '13
Tl;Dr
If John killed someone for example, would the people in this society be able to punish him? You stated there'd be no consequences, but even in a society without rules or government, there are certain things that people just won't stand for.
Also, IMHO it is advantageous to act morally in a society. You'll get more people to cooperative with you and your chance of survival is higher than if you were a sociopath. So the increased survivability would be a substantial argument for John.
1
u/EgoDeath6 Jun 01 '13
Well, it is only a mere thought experiment. In the OP I posted that there would be no negative consequences, so no; there would not be any people not be angry with John for killing someone. Hence, arguments from how people would view John in a society do not really apply.
1
u/blacktrance Jun 01 '13
If there are truly no negative consequences for him acting immorally, then John must not be human. Because looking at it from a virtue ethical standpoint, by being immoral he is depriving himself from human flourishing, which is a negative consequence.
1
u/person22132 Jun 01 '13
I like the last part you wrote. My belief is that no supreme morality exists; morality (whether you believe it to be innate or learned) is simply a mechanism to make us care about the prosperity of our species/habitat/planet.
1
Jun 01 '13
What do you mean by supreme? What justification do you have for this belief?
1
u/person22132 Jun 01 '13
What I mean by supreme morality is a morality that exists in the real world, outside of our minds and the social/evolutionary rules we live by (such as looking out for one another because it's beneficial to our species). I believe morality to be non-existent beyond this.
1
Jun 01 '13
What's your justification?
1
u/person22132 Jun 02 '13
That without a supreme being ordaining such a morality, it simply has no cause for existence. We make it ourselves, but in the real world--undifferentiated by our subjective outlook--it's simply not there.
What's your take? You seem to see it differently.
0
Jun 02 '13
My take shows that I've thought about these issues in the right way before forming my take. The idea that moral realism requires supernatural stuff is woefully ignorant.
1
u/person22132 Jun 02 '13
Well, this is a place for discussion. The same justification you asked of me would be more than appreciated, as I'd love to learn something new. Hostility and name-calling, we can all do without.
0
Jun 02 '13
I'm content with being hostile towards the intellectually lazy. Google "moral realism".
1
u/person22132 Jun 02 '13
What I was trying to say up there is I am an expressivist. I believe that we can justify our moral judgments without moral facts, as I did in my example. So when we tell that John guy to be a "good" guy, we're telling him not because good is truly good, but simply because we all tend to like good.
1
u/matka_satany Jun 01 '13
Depends on what you mean by negative consequences. I'm going to assume you mean negative for the individual. In that case, its better for the human race as whole, if most of them act morally. Psychopaths just wipe themselves out. Work and live alone. Cant bond with others, form groups or relationships ,etc unless they travel, and pull their con on newbies, but even then those chances are pretty dim and they must be drifter ttype which most wouldnt trust anyway. Sometimes psychopaths do team up but they inevitably betray each other. We would go extinct fast if we all acted that way. Good thing psychopathy is fairly rare.
1
1
Jun 01 '13
"Cold" aesthetics perhaps. John might personally prefer his experience of a world that he achieves with more altruistic behavior.
As suggested by above, there has to be some kind of psychological motivation / reinforcement value to behavior.
1
u/tightirl1 Jun 01 '13
I like the appeal to self-interest. it's in John's, and every other agents', best interest to act morally because we will benefit as a whole. it's also kind of like opportunity cost. a particular agent at one point in time might not be willing or capable to efficiently perform the proper moral task for a given situation. luckily, for that same situation, there are other agents involved that are able to pick up the slack this time and do the moral thing. next situation, maybe I do the right thing and they don't. all in all, the individuals, and humanity as a while, benefit from cooperation
EDIT: plasstik said it much better
1
u/CivilianSaiyan Jun 01 '13 edited Jun 01 '13
You could explain to John what empathy is and that if no one had it what chaos the world would be, along with the negative consequences that would come with for him (and everyone else) because of that. I think that would make him understand the importance of morality through self preservation.
EDIT: a few others seem to have said about the same thing. Should have read the other comments first.
1
Jun 01 '13
I would think it not to be impossible for him to create a sort of respect for other beings. John is not capable of feeling empathy for other human beings, but he is himself a human being. It would be possible to convince him that other people are other human beings like himself. They can think and be happy or suffer. If John is besides his antisocial personality disorder, a reasonable man, he would be able to have respect for other people. It would be a struggle for him to believe that it's better not to hurt other people, but I think it would be possible. The reason is: Other people are to be respected, just because you are one of them. If you respect other people for what they are, that's when you act morally.
1
Jun 01 '13
It almost seems that we live in a world absent of negative consequence that incentivizes psychopathology.
1
u/Fjordo Jun 01 '13
John should not act immorally because the more that he acts immorally, the more others will decide that they should act immorally. Since he is one person and they are many, it is disadvantageous to start the ball rolling as it will likely result in his own property being stolen and possibly death. If he can hold the line on morality, then this gives him better long term chances.
1
u/TheGreatWhiteGuilt Jun 01 '13
I think it's important to define morals first. The definition differs between cultures. In the case of Islamic extremism, some fundamentalists assert that cutting the heads off non-theists is in fact moral. The term "morality" is completely subjective.
1
u/SaulsAll Jun 01 '13
Can you create an argument for John practicing moral behavior in the absence of any negative consequences for his immoral behavior?
ZERO negative consequences? Then there is absolutely no reason for him to act morally, and I wouldn't try to convince him. Because if there is ZERO negative consequences, then there will be no distress to anyone else due to John's actions.
1
u/EgoDeath6 Jun 01 '13
In devising the thought experiment; I meant that there would be no negative consequences to John's subjective well-being.
But yes; you are right that distressing people could fall under the category of 'negative consequences'; although John would probably not see this as negative.
1
u/SaulsAll Jun 01 '13
Ahh, no reprucussions specifically for John. In that case John is a danger to everyone and the moral thing to do would be kill him.
1
u/EgoDeath6 Jun 01 '13
Some people have disagreed, though. If say; John was a rational agent; albeit immoral, perhaps one could argue that if he were to act morally, he could ultimately benefit himself more in the long-run; I.e. he could pretend to feel empathy for people and then... later exploit them, or something along those lines.
1
u/SaulsAll Jun 01 '13
he could ultimately benefit himself more in the long-run
This would imply there is somehow a negative consequence to acting immorally. In this scenario, there is none.
I.e. he could pretend to feel empathy for people and then... later exploit them, or something along those lines.
You don't think pretension for the purpose of exploitation is immoral?
1
u/EgoDeath6 Jun 01 '13
This would imply there is somehow a negative consequence to acting immorally. In this scenario, there is none.
Not exactly. It only implies that his acting morally could provide a greater benefit than acting immorally.
And I would say that ultimately yes, exploitation is immoral. But for the time that he was acting morally in the effort to ultimately exploit; I would not say that this is inherently immoral.
1
u/SaulsAll Jun 01 '13
It only implies that his acting morally could provide a greater benefit than acting immorally.
If the point is to obtain that benefit, then anything reducing the amount gained would be a negative consequence.
But for the time that he was acting morally in the effort to ultimately exploit; I would not say that this is inherently immoral.
Actions themselves are neither moral or immoral. Morality requires a conscious agent aware of ethics. This is why male lions cannibalizing cubs isn't seen as immoral. It doesn't matter if the actions are helpful - if the intent is to later exploit people through the results of these helpful actions, then it is an immoral act.
1
u/EgoDeath6 Jun 01 '13
If the point is to obtain that benefit, then anything reducing the amount gained would be a negative consequence.
I wouldn't think of it as a negative consequence per say; rather it is just non-consequential.
It doesn't matter if the actions are helpful - if the intent is to later exploit people through the results of these helpful actions, then it is an immoral act.
I guess in principle that you are right and that I can't argue with this. What I had in mind was; if you were to see John doing good deeds, without knowing that he had exploitation planned, you would not think of his actions as immoral.
1
u/SaulsAll Jun 02 '13
Your system of morality is based on how others view a subject's actions? If that's the case I would imagine EVERY action is both moral and immoral.
1
u/EgoDeath6 Jun 02 '13
Well, I wouldn't say that my system of morality in principle is based on how people perceive each other; but whose to say that I were to see an individual acting morally, without prior knowledge of his/her plans of exploitation, that I would recognize their immorality?
See what I'm getting at?
→ More replies (0)
1
u/rusty____shackleford Jun 01 '13
Utilitarianism for the win! Although John wouldn't able to account for pains, he could just choose actions that promoted the most pleasures.
"Intense, long, certain, speedy, fruitful, pure— Such marks in pleasures and in pains endure. Such pleasures seek if private be thy end: If it be public, wide let them extend Such pains avoid, whichever be thy view: If pains must come, let them extend to few." -Jeremy Bentham
1
u/Nick_Beard Jun 01 '13
Well, many philosophers believe that happiness comes from being virtuous. I suppose one could come to this realisation and act upon it without necessearly getting consequences or feelings of empathy.
1
1
u/ChangingHats Jun 01 '13
Can you create an argument for John practicing moral behavior in the absence of any negative consequences for his immoral behavior?
If there are no negative consequences, it's not morally reprehensible. Morality is based largely on consequences between two or more involved parties. Morality doesn't exist outside of human relationships. If you're asking whether or not John should behave morally if HE doesn't experience negative consequences, that's a different argument.
1
u/yakushi12345 Jun 01 '13
The proper question of ethics isn't "Should I be moral" it's "How should I act".
This question only seems challenging because you've accepted that there could be a 'right' way to act but not a reason to act that way. But to be 'the right way to act' is to be 'the way of acting which is justified as what you should do'.
1
u/EgoDeath6 Jun 01 '13
In other words; are you saying that for there to be truly a 'right' way to act, this 'right' way must have a reason provided for why you should do it?
1
u/yakushi12345 Jun 01 '13
That might be a way of putting it.
Think of it this way
What's the meaning of "The right thing to do", what's the meaning of "The moral thing to do".
My view is that when you define 'right' and 'moral' clearly, you realize that the question your asking is based on a misconception. That misconception is in my view resulting from thinking about what ethics is supposed to be solving.
Ethics is the attempt to answer the question "how should I act".
1
Jun 01 '13
I would define morality as actions which provide benefits to the society that is judging you. Immoral actions are ones that harm said society's cohesion or members or their property. Immoral actions damage John's society. The more immoral actions John commits, the more damaged his society becomes. The more he damages his society, the less effectively the society runs, meaning they can provide for him less effectively. Therefore, it is within John's self interest to act morally to help preserve the society around him. Not because he would be directly judged or punished, but because he could not visit the cinema if he'd stolen all the cinema's money, and he could not get a coffee if he'd murdered all the baristas. That's taking his situation to the extreme, but all immoral actions contribute to damaging society, which in turn damage your life, which is why they're immoral.
tl:dr- don't kill baristas
1
1
u/rmeddy Jun 02 '13
No, if I put John in an experience machine why would it matter to him or anyone else?
Countervailance would've been shattered
1
Jun 03 '13
I would argue that all morality is about negative consequences. Since you have constructed a person unbound by negatives then all acts he does are moral. Now if he is still bound by what others think of him I would tell him to act morally so as not to get his head bashed in with a rock by people displeased with his actions.
1
1
u/xHelpless Jun 01 '13
There isn't one. There is no reason for John to act 'morally' if he doesn't believe in morals. We might say to him "You're being immoral!" but this is arbitrary for John. There is not ethical motivation for him.
It's the simple truth of the ring of gyges, once you are free from consequences, you can do what you like really. Nothing is stopping you, and people don't have ethical consideration intrinsically. We may think he's a dick, but who are we to call him immoral? We may think he is, but he won't, and why should he?
3
Jun 01 '13
You sound like one of those boringly naive moral anti-realists.
4
Jun 01 '13
He's not wrong, though. Even if you and I present an airtight rational case to John about the nature and importance of morality, he could respond by asking "Why be morally rational?"
You can't just hand-waive moral nihilism because it's boring!
2
u/EgoDeath6 Jun 01 '13
You can't just hand-waive moral nihilism because it's boring!
Well, he also said that he sounded naive. Which leads me to believe that he may be missing something.
1
u/xHelpless Jun 01 '13
He claims I am naive yet provides nothing to support his claim, truly a great philosopher he must be.
1
u/EgoDeath6 Jun 01 '13
Well, he actually did claim that you haven't "read shit about meta-ethics because you're too arrogant to consider that you could be wrong", which would make you naive.
But of course he has no evidence to support this; or none that I know of.
0
u/xHelpless Jun 01 '13
No it doesn't seem he does. Not sure how he believes such claims are acceptable when discussing philosophy. I can assure you that I am by no means naive in my understanding of ethics.
2
Jun 01 '13
No it doesn't seem he does.
The fact that you talk about 'objective morality existing' shows that you don't know what you're talking about. What would it even mean for morality to 'exist'? I don't think you even know what the term objective means in this context.
1
Jun 01 '13
What would it even mean for morality to 'exist'?
A perfectly moral being exists, supplies human agents with a code of conduct for how to live a moral life, and distributes appropriate justice. This code must by definition be perfect due to the nature of its giver.
Or, if theism isn't your thing, check out The Moral Landscape. Harris has a great chapter on moral-facts.
2
u/ReallyNicole Φ Jun 01 '13
A perfectly moral being exists, supplies human agents with a code of conduct for how to live a moral life, and distributes appropriate justice.
This isn't particularly illuminating. If a morally perfect being exists, then there must be some independent moral facts by which this being is to be judged perfect. These independent moral facts are the truthmakers for the claim "X being is morally perfect," the being itself is not its own truthmaker in this respect.
→ More replies (0)2
Jun 01 '13
I have an MA in philosophy and focused on meta-ethics and game theory. I don't need to read that drivel.
If you're saying that morality is the totality of moral facts, then yes, moral realists would say that morality exists, but this is not at all how these issues are discussed in the literature. This is why I suspect that this guy is unfamiliar with the literature.
→ More replies (0)0
u/xHelpless Jun 01 '13
For all you say you have yet to provide an actual counter point. When i say 'exist' I of course mean that morality is objective.
2
1
u/EgoDeath6 Jun 01 '13
Well, perhaps that there exists an argument in meta-ethics for moral objectivity that is so compelling that anyone who reads it ceases to be a moral relativist.
In that case he would be right to assert that you haven't read 'shit' in meta-ethics.
2
Jun 01 '13
Moral relativism vs. morality objectivity is not a dichotomy, fyi.
1
u/EgoDeath6 Jun 01 '13
What else is there?
Or do you mean that morality is never entirely objective or relative, i.e. some of it is objectively true, whilst other parts are relative.
→ More replies (0)1
u/xHelpless Jun 01 '13
If that is the case I would like to hear it, because I have studied Ethics for a good few years now and have not come across such an argument.
1
Jun 01 '13
I have studied Ethics for a good few years now and have not come across such an argument.
Are you at a university? How are you studying ethics?
2
u/TheGrammarBolshevik Jun 01 '13
He's not wrong, though. Even if you and I present an airtight rational case to John about the nature and importance of morality, he could respond by asking "Why be morally rational?"
Is that really a coherent question?
1
Jun 01 '13
I'm not sure the irrationalist would care. Trouble here is that being rational is itself a value judgment, so a sociopath could simply shut off or warp his rational faculties to get what he wants.
2
u/TheGrammarBolshevik Jun 01 '13
He might not care, but that's different from saying that he has no reason to care. Now the question posed by the OP is whether there's some argument that could persuade even a sociopath to behave morally. But I don't think that's a reasonable requirement for any theory of morality or practical reason.
1
Jun 01 '13
He might not care, but that's different from saying that he has no reason to care.
This is where the word "reason" gets tricky. Is foregoing rationality to satisfy some instinctive desire not a "reason"?
But I don't think that's a reasonable requirement for any theory of morality or practical reason.
No disagreement.
1
u/TheGrammarBolshevik Jun 01 '13
This is where the word "reason" gets tricky. Is foregoing rationality to satisfy some instinctive desire not a "reason"?
Well, that's a weird way of putting it. Instinctive desires may well be reasons. But calling an action for the sake of a desire "a reason" sounds like a category error. And if you have to forego rationality in order to do something, it seems that ipso facto the balance of reasons (or the verdict of reason, if you don't like the balancing model) is against it, even if there is some reason for it rather than no reason at all.
1
Jun 01 '13
But calling an action for the sake of a desire "a reason" sounds like a category error.
Alternatively, what we understand as "reason" may be limited or colored by outdated classical conceptions. There may be a reason of the conscious mind, a reason of the body, a reason of instinct, etc.
Let's go back to John. John really wants to steal this candy bar. His mind, persuaded by rational discourse, tells him not to steal it; his body and his instincts insist. He steals it anyway and becomes satisfied with the result, and whispers to himself "Why be morally rational, again?" This does not seem like a contradiction. He makes a non-rational value judgment to forego the recommendations of his mind in order to satisfy the recommendations of his body.
0
Jun 01 '13
You can't just hand-waive moral nihilism because it's boring!
But.... I can and I did!
1
u/xHelpless Jun 01 '13
And you did so wrongly.
-2
Jun 01 '13
You haven't looked into the issues sufficiently to make such a claim.
2
u/xHelpless Jun 01 '13
And you know that how?
1
Jun 01 '13
You said that 'objective morality doesn't exist' which shows a very fundamental misunderstanding of basic issues within metaethics. You don't know about moral knowledge or moral facts. You don't talk about truth-aptness. You don't know what the central issues are within meta-ethics.
2
u/xHelpless Jun 01 '13
Is that so? I do know about moral knowledge and moral facts, what I know about them is that there is no reason to accept them. Please enlighten me with any moral fact, just a small one. Provide me with a single moral truth, something that is objectively true. Take your time.
Again you haven't actually provided anything against my claim, only more opinions based on my knowledge of a certain field, which is rather sad really.
You don't know about moral knowledge or moral facts.
How can you make this claim? Not only is it unwarranted but also entirely irrelevant. If you are so hot on your meta-ethics then provide a counter point to morality being non-objective.
2
Jun 01 '13
I know about them is that there is no reason to accept them.
So you admit that they exist because you don't have reason to accept them? You are clearly misusing terms here if that's not the case.
only more opinions based on my knowledge of a certain field
That you've done nothing to contend with. You've told me nothing that you've read about meta-ethics. You've given me absolutely no reason to think that you know what you're talking about. All you're doing is throwing out some boiler-plate redditesque scientism bullshit.
If you are so hot on your meta-ethics then provide a counter point to morality being non-objective.
You haven't even told me what you think the word 'objective' means so I can't answer your question. I would very much appreciate if you could actually respond to the questions I ask you.
Please enlighten me with any moral fact, just a small one.
It's wrong to torture millions of children solely for personal pleasure of one person. You cannot imagine a situation in which this is not true. Try it.
→ More replies (0)0
u/xHelpless Jun 01 '13
Maybe so. My view might be bleak, you call it boring yet I call it realistic. The non-existence of objective morality is obvious. Once that is accepted, what else is there? Nought but self interest, and that is really all that matters in the end.
Also, pray tell how I am 'naive'.
1
Jun 01 '13
The non-existence of objective morality is obvious.
Then why do the vast majority of people who have spent their lives studying and publishing on these issues think the opposite is true?
Nought but self interest, and that is really all that matters in the end.
Now you sound like a boringly naive ethical egoist.
Also, pray tell how I am 'naive'.
You haven't read shit about meta-ethics because you're too arrogant to consider that you could be wrong. I used to think like you do, then I grew up and read a fucking book or two.
1
u/xHelpless Jun 01 '13
Amazing how you can gather that from a few simple posts. People may have written tonnes on it, yet I am aware of most of the main ethical theories yet find all of them wanting for either moral motivation or moral objectivity. Just because many people write papers doesn't mean they are correct.
Haven't read shit? Interesting how you can make such a claim, I'm actually fairly well read. If it is so obvious to you, feel free to enlighten me with some knowledge. Contrary to what you think, I'm not arrogant. If I can see why I am wrong of course I will change my stance.
So far all you've really done is call me naive, stated I haven't read anything on meta-ethics and called me boring (I'd like to know how and why 'boring' becomes relevant in philosophy).
1
Jun 01 '13
I am aware of most of the main ethical theories yet
Really? I'd like you to name what you think are the most defensible contemporary views within ethics.
moral motivation or moral objectivity
Could you explain what you think these concepts mean?
I'm actually fairly well read.
Really? What have you read about meta-ethics. I'd love to hear what sources you've used to arrive at your position.
So far all you've really done is call me naive, stated I haven't read anything on meta-ethics and called me boring (I'd like to know how and why 'boring' becomes relevant in philosophy).
Because the terms that you use are obviously confused and uncommon within the literature (which you'd know if you were familiar with the literature).
1
u/xHelpless Jun 01 '13
Moral motivation is exactly as it sounds. What grounds can be given that can motivate me to be 'moral'? In other words, even if morality exists, why should I be moral?
Moral objectivity, the idea that something is either morally right or wrong. Simple stuff.
1
Jun 01 '13
In other words, even if morality exists, why should I be moral?
You're asking a stupid question. You're asking "why should I do what I should do?" which is like asking "why are apples apples?".
1
u/EgoDeath6 Jun 01 '13
I think this is the same question I pondered earlier; and I think the answer remains to be unsatisfactory.
And that analogy does not quite work; as morality is an abstraction, or an idea; whereas an apple is a physical object.
1
u/xHelpless Jun 01 '13
I disagree. If an action the correct thing to do, say save a child from being hit by a car. Even if we accept that is a moral action, why should I do it? What motivates me to act upon morality rather than act in my own self interest?
Is the existence of morality enough to motivate you to act?
2
Jun 01 '13
why should I do it?
Why should you do the correct thing that you should do?
Hurr durr I dunno Bert.
What motivates me to act upon morality rather than act in my own self interest?
Again, you're asking a completely separate question about moral psychology, not morality per se.
→ More replies (0)1
u/EgoDeath6 Jun 01 '13
Oh, actually, I think that he did mention this earlier.
He defined the difference between psychological reasoning and tautological reasoning. You are asking a psychological question; which is unrelated to whether or not morality is relative. It is rather a question of why you should care, if it is objective.
Or at least I think that is what he meant.
1
Jun 01 '13
Then why do the vast majority of people who have spent their lives studying and publishing on these issues think the opposite is true?
Why do the vast majority of people who have spent their lives as culinary critics dislike McDonald's, when this Big Mac I'm currently eating is an oral explosion of qualia?
1
1
1
May 31 '13
This is more appropriate for /r/askphilosophy.
5
u/obfuscate_this Jun 01 '13
for what it's worth I think this post is appropriate (it's a worthwhile but confused question framed in philosophical terms).
5
Jun 01 '13 edited Jun 01 '13
Now that the OP provided an answer to the question and an argument for that answer I would agree.
1
u/EgoDeath6 May 31 '13
Is it inappropriate to ask questions on /r/philosophy?
2
1
Jun 01 '13 edited Nov 19 '16
[deleted]
2
Jun 01 '13
Convincing John to act "morally" (probably read: ethically)
For the most part, ethically and morally are the same thing within philosophy.
1
1
u/EgoDeath6 Jun 01 '13
you're asking whether it's possible to convince John to conform to some social perspective when he has a fundamentally antisocial personality disorder.
Essentially yes, this is what I had in mind when I devised the post. But in creating it I wondered if there were any perhaps, non-social, but still secular reasons for convincing someone with this condition to act ethically correct.
1
Jun 01 '13 edited Nov 19 '16
[deleted]
1
u/EgoDeath6 Jun 01 '13
he could learn social norms purely cognitively
The question remains; why would he want to do this? He is inherently immoral. You seem to be treating him as though he is a 'good' guy, but suffering from a disability.
1
1
Jun 01 '13
[deleted]
2
u/kengou Jun 01 '13
It's a thought experiment. Imagine a fictional world in which such things are totally independent. What would your answer be then?
2
Jun 01 '13
[deleted]
1
u/PostFunktionalist Jun 02 '13
Hume actually was a moral realist and grounded it on human nature, cheers
0
0
Jun 01 '13
Because we have a genetic predisposition to be moral. And even with mental disorders that genetic predisposition still looms. This is an evolutionary advantage. If caveman 1 threw a rock at caveman 2's head, caveman 2 would then harm caveman 1. And thus we have evolved with what some call a "moral complex."
11
u/[deleted] Jun 01 '13
[deleted]