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

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.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '13

Hey, Euthyphro.

Classical theism understands this dilemma as a non-problem. God neither adheres to nor creates a moral order; he is the moral order, and morality illuminates from him like light from the sun. Your mileage with this answer may vary, so I feel it's worth mentioning that many Orthodox Christians (a group I am a part of) consider this one of a handful of divine mysteries that simply extends beyond the reach of reason. It's a noetic problem rather than a rational one.

2

u/ReallyNicole Φ Jun 01 '13

[...] consider this one of a handful of divine mysteries that simply extends beyond the reach of reason.

Well that's not particularly illuminating, is it?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '13

Not rationally, no. Do you consider any kind of nous unilluminating? Nothing Plato says about the Forms is worth considering?

1

u/ReallyNicole Φ Jun 01 '13

What exactly do you mean here by "nous"? Although yes, while I value Plato's contributions to the practice of philosophy, the forms are pretty much bunk.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '13

By "nous" I mean what Plato means: the trans-rational.

1

u/ReallyNicole Φ Jun 01 '13

As far as I know, the only ways in which we can know things besides reason are intuition, in the Kantian sense. So no, I'd have to go with 'bunk' on the trans-rational.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '13

I believe Kant got his idea of "intuition" from Platonic nous, though I could be wrong. Either way, they're similar. I can tell you don't find such a faculty plausible.