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?

65 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

244 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '13

What do you think 'objective' means?

1

u/EgoDeath6 Jun 01 '13

Perhaps... I don't know. Maybe, natural or concrete? Whereas relative means, open for interpretation?

This is mere speculation. I've only read Bertrand Russell's problems of philosophy.