Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 06/29/03 11:58 pm:
I forgot, I'm supposed to make my case to get an A!
There is a common misconception that acting morally is unpleasant and that there must be a payoff such as going to heaven when you die, or keeping your job, or mommy loves you.
However, being a moral person simply FEELS GOOD for those mature enough to understand and practice good morals/ethics.
I am a moral person even when it is "detremental" to me. For example, I have often been given too much change, but I always make the correction. Or, last week at the pharmacy, the pharmacist was going to undercharge me by $20.00, and I pointed out his mistake.
There is a painful example of being moral when it is detrimental to the doer, and that is the case of whistleblowers who according to one of the witnesses in the Enron hearing stated she received many letters from whistleblowers who suffered from their morality. However, I think we all have an obligation to act morally even if it is "detremental" to ourselves. (excluding getting killed or others getting killed, have to file that one under unusual circumstance requiring more thought)
We are all under an obligation to ourselves to act morally in daily life. The only way to happiness, for sure, though I know you don't like Eastern Religious Philosophy!
Have a great week, Chou
Clarification/Follow-up by Jon1667 on 06/30/03 5:02 am:
Jim Mcginnes:
I think you are reading too much into the question. What I thought I was suggesting is that it might be immoral to imply, as the question implies, that unless morality pays off, one has no reason to act morally. I wasn't (of course) suggesting that anyone who asked the question was immoral, anymore than someone who asks "Is murder really wrong?" is immoral. Questions, I suppose, are amoral, but what a question suggests might not be amoral.
I agree with you about what you call "Socratic Nihilism." Teachers should not merely critisize, but try to suggest alternatives. Still, it _is_ part of the teacher's job to disabuse students of illusions, and remove their complacency. That is an important part of the educational experience too.
Clarification/Follow-up by Jon1667 on 06/30/03 5:15 am:
Dark_Crow 06/29/03
An act of immorality is an act of injustice
__________________________________
How true!
Clarification/Follow-up by Jon1667 on 06/30/03 5:17 am:
Hank:
You may be right, but I don't think I was asking whether morality pays off. The answer to that is probably that sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes it does in some ways, and not in others. But I thought I was asking whether suggesting that unless it does pay off, there is no reason to be moral, is an immoral suggestion. Suppose that honesty were not the best policy (as the saying goes), would there be any good reason to be honest?
Clarification/Follow-up by Jon1667 on 06/30/03 5:22 am:
Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 06/29/03 11:58 pm:
I forgot, I'm supposed to make my case to get an A!
_______________________________
Well, whether or not you get an A, you are supposed to make a case for your view for your view to be taken seriously. Unless you give reasons for your view, you do not take your view seriously, because you don't care whether or not your view is true, and if you don't take your view seriously, then why should anyone else do so?
There is a common misconception that acting morally is unpleasant and that there must be a payoff such as going to heaven when you die, or keeping your job, or mommy loves you.
However, being a moral person simply FEELS GOOD for those mature enough to understand and practice good morals/ethics.
I am a moral person even when it is "detremental" to me. For example, I have often been given too much change, but I always make the correction. Or, last week at the pharmacy, the pharmacist was going to undercharge me by $20.00, and I pointed out his mistake.
There is a painful example of being moral when it is detrimental to the doer, and that is the case of whistleblowers who according to one of the witnesses in the Enron hearing stated she received many letters from whistleblowers who suffered from their morality. However, I think we all have an obligation to act morally even if it is "detremental" to ourselves. (excluding getting killed or others getting killed, have to file that one under unusual circumstance requiring more thought)
We are all under an obligation to ourselves to act morally in daily life. The only way to happiness, for sure, though I know you don't like Eastern Religious Philosophy!
____________________________________
Is there Eastern Religious _Philosophy_?
But now my question is, suppose that, whether or not it is pleasant, acting immorally in a particular case were unpleasant. (As sometimes it surely is.) Now, would you have a good reason for acting morally?
Isn't that really the issue?
Clarification/Follow-up by HANK1 on 06/30/03 1:32 pm:
I read your clarification, Ken. Looks as if you MIGHT be characterizing the 'boys' at Enron when you insinuate that morality "doesn't pay off SOMETIMES." In Enron's case, business ethics were 'trashed.' When you say "pay off," are you talking about personal gain, deceiving the public etc.? All actions and thoughts should include truth, goodness and usefulness ... to opine! I feel that being an honest and fair person is much more important than getting 'paid off' for doing something immoral ... at anytime, no matter what the consequences might be. If I felt that immorality was important, I'd have more $$$ than Donald Trump. There doesn't have to be a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow. I'd rather have respect from that gentleman in Heaven and my friends down here on Earth! I try to be MORAL all the time ... and I feel that most Experts on this Board feel as I do! I'm a REALIST, Ken, and since I've been 'around many blocks,' I'll just say, "HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY!" There is not such a word as immorality in my vocabulary! Perhaps this is one reason why Carol and I are very happily married!
HANK
Clarification/Follow-up by Dark_Crow on 06/30/03 2:20 pm:
you are supposed to make a case for your view for your view to be taken seriously. Unless you give reasons for your view, you do not take your view seriously, because you don't care whether or not your view is true, and if you don't take your view seriously, then why should anyone else do so?
Ken that simply is not true in the case where someone gives a view that is such _common knowledge_ that the author pre-supposes an argument is unnecessary. For example if the air temperature in 90 degrees outside today and normally it is 70 degrees and I said to Sam, it sure is hot today.
Clarification/Follow-up by Jon1667 on 06/30/03 4:46 pm:
tonyrey 06/30/03
Whether a question is immoral depends on the motive for asking that question. If it is intended to be constructive then it is not immoral. It may be misguided but it is certainly not malicious or deliberately destructive.
_________________________
I did not mean the question itself was immoral. I meant that what it suggests could be construed as immoral because it suggests that we have no good reason to be moral (or avoid immorality) but that our motive for doing either is (as Socrates puts it) profitable.
"Pay off" is an ambiguous expression which takes us back to the issue of selfishness and self-interest. Is self-sacrifice immoral or ignoble because you experience peace of mind (or even joy) as a result of your decision?
__________________________________
No, of course not. But does the self-sacrificer deserve a moral medal if his action is motivated by the promise of the feeling achieved by it? I would say not. It is one thing to do something right, and, as a result have the good feelings you mention; but quite another thing to do something right _in order to_ get such feelings. See the character, Lady Bountiful, in Farquar's play, "The Beaux-Strategem."
Of course, I should add, that it may say something about a person if the person gets good feelings from acting rightly, and bad feeling from acting wrongly, even if he does so aiming to achieve those feelings.
But, I doubt, very much that many are as calulating as that in real life. And there is also the problem that if the agent knows or even suspects that he is doing right for the sake of the good feeling he expects from doing it, that he will not achieve his goal.
To believe that it is presupposes an impossible demand - that an action is moral only if it does not benefit the agent in any way whatsoever. It reminds me of the Puritan doctrine that being virtuous is necessarily painful!
If being a good person is immoral then morality is immoral... :)
__________________________________________
Kant has been accused of holding that you can be moral only if it is painful for you to be so, but that is a calumny. What Kant held was that morality is often a mask for self-interest, and that it is impossible to tell for sure whether or not you are acting morally for the sake of being moral, or have some other motive; but that a good (but not decisive test) of whether you are acting morally for morality's sake is whether you are acting morally, and doing so is contrary to your self-interest.
Being good is never immoral, but being good for the wrong reason is not moral either. As Eliot wrote, the greatest treason is doing right for the wrong reason. ("Murder in the Cathedral")
Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 06/30/03 5:20 pm:
Herr Professor Jon:
Well, I have been hanging around the Philosophy Board on Answerway and Askme for a few years now, and I know my personality and knowledge has come across to all the regulars. I am part comedian, part serious thinker, part a lot of other things!
I disagree with your assessment that I can't attempt to be funny and have a serious opinion.
I have to add that talk about morality is only sensible(not non-sense) if it deals with concrete examples! It is what we DO that is moral or immoral. All the talk of our motives and thoughts in relation to your question is pure non-sense. Yet, you give tonyrey five stars for this medieval outlook! This non-sense!
Cordially, Chou
Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 06/30/03 9:16 pm:
Ken,
Unusually, I find myself in complete agreement with you!
