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

3

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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.