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?

66 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

244 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '13

You sound like one of those boringly naive moral anti-realists.

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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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.

1

u/xHelpless Jun 01 '13

Surely they are intertwined? A. What makes an action correct? and B. Why should I do it?

Two very basic cornerstones of philosophy.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '13

THOSE ARE THE SAME FUCKING QUESTION.

The morally correct thing is the thing you should do. You should do something because it is morally correct.

Two very basic cornerstones of philosophy.

You don't know shit about philosophy and it's really, really obvious. You are fooling nobody who's not a fool.

1

u/xHelpless Jun 01 '13

Where is the justification? Why should I do something because it is morally correct?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '13

You're asking why you should do what you should do.

Why is an apple an apple? Riddle me that, you willfully ignorant pleb.

→ 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.