Why conduct yourself in an ethically just manner?

[Kevin]

This question is for those who think we should act with a regard to ethics - that the wishes of others should play a role in shaping our conduct. Here it is: Apart from reasons of self-interest, enlightened or not (e.g. the breakdown of society or the increased likelihood of yourself being targeted or arrested), what is the primary reason that leads you to the conclusion you shouldn't kill people for pleasure or for trivial reasons. I think most of us can agree that we shouldn't; but why?

[johnson1010]

Why conduct yourself in an ethically just manner?
This question is for those who think we should act with a regard to ethics - that the wishes of others should play a role in shaping our conduct. Here it is: Apart from reasons of self-interest, enlightened or not (e.g. the breakdown of society or the increased likelihood of yourself being targeted or arrested), what is the primary reason that leads you to the conclusion you shouldn't kill people for pleasure or for trivial reasons. I think most of us can agree that we shouldn't; but why?

Why should we dismiss self interest and the notion of do unto others?

One of our greatest strengths is the ability to imagine how another feels, or how they will react, or what their intentions are. Empathy is what allows us to interact with one another. It leads to both our greatest acts of kindness and worst feats of malice.

It seems you are looking for a personal, rather than general reason why we treat each other well. What is more personal than imagining your own actions done to yourself? "Hey! That lady just dropped four 100 dollar bills!" Thinking only of ourselves it would be easy to take that money. Who couldn't use an extra $400? But then you think what that $400 dollars means to you, and what if you were on the way to the bank to deposit money for your house payment and you lost it somewhere. Taking that amount of money from someone just becomes unacceptable.

My view of morality is a follows, and i think it can be applied across all countries and cultures.

Those things which increase harmony between people, and aid in the productivity of people are good. Those things which interfere with the above are bad.

Think of "bad" things and test them against this. It is pretty general, but i have to get out of here, so no time to refine it.

[Theomanic]

Interesting question, Kevin. Personally, I would say I agree with Johnson in that I have empathy for people and would find it difficult to harm another for that reason. Also, I just plain don't want to. Why should I WANT to kill another person? I guess that works with the empathy response - I would have to hate someone quite a lot before I'd be capable of overcoming my empathy and feeling justified in taking someones life. I don't think I would gain any pleasure from it, and it's a lot of work and quite dangerous to do for a trivial reason.

Quite honestly, I have met people who I think the world would be much better off without. I didn't for a moment think of killing them though. Maybe just wished for a terrible accident . Though likely that is tied up with self-interest (ie. I don't want to go to jail because of this jerk). Beyond empathy, it seems to me that killing someone is a lot of hassle. Makes a mess, having to explain it or hide the body, etc etc. It's usually a lot easier to avoid them.

If we didn't exist in a society wherein murder was so deeply frowned upon I imagine murder would be more common as some people have quite a tiny amount of empathy, if any at all. I assume that's part of why we live in societies and why empathy exists - to keep the species from killing each other off.

[Kevin]

Why should we dismiss self interest and the notion of do unto others?

Because the first answer, self-interest, isn't what I'm interested in.

One of our greatest strengths is the ability to imagine how another feels, or how they will react, or what their intentions are. Empathy is what allows us to interact with one another. It leads to both our greatest acts of kindness and worst feats of malice.

I agree. I consider empathy to be a distinct answer apart from self-interest. This is actually one answer I was hoping to get. The question itself "why act morally?" pretty much requires the recipient to be a moral being (imperfect as may be) in order to answer it. The reason a person may refrain from an unjust act when there is no question of suffering adverse consequences from it is empathy - but cannot be self-interest.

It seems you are looking for a personal, rather than general reason why we treat each other well.

It's just the opposite, actually - a universal line which determines the sphere of ethical concern. Are all members of the species homo sapiens included? Regardless of the answer - Why? What is it that determines inclusion or exclusion?

What is more personal than imagining your own actions done to yourself? "Hey! That lady just dropped four 100 dollar bills!" Thinking only of ourselves it would be easy to take that money. Who couldn't use an extra $400? But then you think what that $400 dollars means to you, and what if you were on the way to the bank to deposit money for your house payment and you lost it somewhere. Taking that amount of money from someone just becomes unacceptable.

I disagree because empathy is something that plays in more than one direction. The person who dropped it is actually a stinking-rich war profiteer drawing a paycheck from Halliburton. I'm going to play Robin Hood and give the money to a homeless shelter. While I do believe that in general it is wrong to steal I won't give a blanket condemnation of it.

My view of morality is a follows, and i think it can be applied across all countries and cultures.

Those things which increase harmony between people, and aid in the productivity of people are good. Those things which interfere with the above are bad.

Think of "bad" things and test them against this. It is pretty general, but i have to get out of here, so no time to refine it.

That sounds like the utilitarian "greatest happiness" principle. I like this one even though I can't fully relate to it. It's too abstract for me. I always get around to thinking that if say a particular hypothetical despised minority was to be wiped out that that in itself would lead to increased harmony among those still present. And that's not an aceptable answer. Here is another formulation of the utilitarian philosophy. I'd like to hear what you make of it. If a person suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. I see this as a working presentation of the greatest happiness principle; and one that conveniently rules out mass exterminations prompted purely out of hate. It is wrong to kill these people due simply to their possessing interests, the most basic of which are the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. This is what makes empathy possible. And we are empathetic because we are, to varying degrees, moral creatures.

Thank you for the reply.

[Kevin]

I don't think I would gain any pleasure from it, and it's a lot of work and quite dangerous to do for a trivial reason.

Yeah, murder is an extreme example. I should have just stuck with "why act in an ethically just manner" or presented a milder form of offense such as thievery or simple bad manners. But yes, your above quoted snippet of an answer, which I'll shorthand as being self-interest is certainly one I can appreciate. I wonder though if you did gain pleasure from it, if you'd do it even though you knew it was for a trivial reason, in the circumstance of it being a societally-accepted act. Hypotheticals... certainly. But as is seen from any brief view of history what was once condoned may become regarded as being deeply unjust in later societies. I don't think as poorly of a slaveholder in the Old South as I would someone who currently voiced support for the institution of slavery. in the first case it's a matter of someone failing to rise above the injustices he is born into while in the second it is a matter of trying to actively increase the scope of injustice he operates in.

Anyway, while I do acknowledge self-interest, I find it to be a poor basis upon which to build an ethical foundation since ethics requires one to look beyond one's own self. It's a self-defeating propostion. I also find empathy to be a far too subjective standard for any coherent system to spring forth from. Thanks.

[strawberrybird]

Interesting question, but perhaps phrased poorly? You seem to me making the assumption that we can all agree to what is ethically just. However, ethics vary among cultures and throughout history. Are you trying to ask why do people tend to act in accordance with the social contract? Or why do we have certain ethical values in common?

If you're specifically talking about murder or thievery, most people believe in free world believe in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or property). Self-interest is the root of all of those values, and is what prevents us from harming others. You can not remove it from the discussion, because it is the foundation for all other values.

[Interbane]

Are all members of the species homo sapiens included? Regardless of the answer - Why? What is it that determines inclusion or exclusion?

We recognize only a limited number of people who we can consider "acquainted". The number varies, but I'd say the average is a couple hundred. People we are acquainted with we are far more likely to be moral towards. There are a number of internal influences, including empathy and guilt or shame. The caring/kindness/empathetic behavior is like positive reinforcement, and feels good to us when displayed and recieved. The guilt/shame/embarrassment feelings are negative reinforcement for behavior, and apply more to that circle of acquaintances than to the 'outside' general public.

The number of people that we consider in our 'in-group' fluctuates. It harkens back to the days of our evolutionary heritage, where we had to learn to survive as groups of tribal hunter/gatherers. The maximum number for such tribes is generally thought to be about 140 people. More than that, and we start to lose track of people and relationships. Within such numbers, we can be fairly confident that anyone who we do "wrong", our mother/relatives will also have a relationship with, and this is why shame/embarrassment/guilt is more effective within the in-group. You are held more accountable for your actions to those who you don't wish to disappoint. If you 'do wrong' to someone in your in-group, the chances your relatives and mother(and others you don't wish to disappoint) will find out are drastically increased.

The trick in modern society is to get rid of the idea of the 'out-group'. Perhaps the hurdle of our evolutionary heritage will never truly be overcome, but we do well nonetheless.

I had an interesting run-in the other day. I was driving through a parking lot and another driver almost smashed into me. I was startled and miffed at the person, and scowled at them. Their foreign face suddenly became recognized as someone I knew, a wrestler I had coached last season. My scowl instantly changed into a smile; it was in this person's nature to be a bit dopey and clumsy, even while driving. But he was good hearted and I knew that. I got out of my car after parking and started teasing him.

The transition in considering the person an 'outsider' to an 'insider' elicited a 180 in my disposition. Yet it is strange that my personal knowledge of this guy had any influence on my actions towards him. He would still be the good-hearted clumsy person even as a stranger. For years I've always attempted to overcome this 'out-group' prejudice by relating strangers to people who I know that are similar looking, or similar acting. In doing so, I can almost feel a 'switch' inside me being flipped, as the person goes from 'stranger and enemy' to 'possible acquaintance'. I can empathize with them even if they scowl at me.

A larger hurdle will be to overcome the larger exclusionary hurdles. Most religions are exclusionary. They either exclude non-believers, other religions, or even different denominations of the same religion. Nationalism is one that is frustrating since it almost seems to be part of the moral zeitgeist that having pride in your country is seen as a good thing. However, it's this very nationalism that entrenches our views of people from other nations as being members of our 'out-group'. Racism is one that will be difficult to overcome as well. Local clustering will always remain, but we've shown that in most cases it need not be exclusionary. High school sports is an example, where even fierce competitors from other schools are now considered 'friends' because, since they knew each other, they found each other on Facebook and became friends. Of course, that's only an example, but our ability to network socially is great at breaking down local barriers.

[Kevin]

The number of people that we consider in our 'in-group' fluctuates.

Yes, but this is to apply on a universal level. Regardless of the person being a member of the in-crowd or not the same values should apply. For an example, you shouldn't kill someone just because you can't relate to them; not even if you are sure that you won't be harmed by anyone in return. Why? Why go against self-interest in this matter?

The trick in modern society is to get rid of the idea of the 'out-group'.

I agree.

The transition in considering the person an 'outsider' to an 'insider' elicited a 180 in my disposition. Yet it is strange that my personal knowledge of this guy had any influence on my actions towards him. He would still be the good-hearted clumsy person even as a stranger. For years I've always attempted to overcome this 'out-group' prejudice by relating strangers to people who I know that are similar looking, or similar acting. In doing so, I can almost feel a 'switch' inside me being flipped, as the person goes from 'stranger and enemy' to 'possible acquaintance'. I can empathize with them even if they scowl at me.

There is a Buddhist quote [variously translated of course] that I often think of that says: People forget that we too are suffering. It works for me sometimes. But these 'outsider' and 'insider' classifications are too narrow for my purpose. I'm not saying they're wrong or dismissing them except in that I don't see that it affects a general universal principle to explain why someone should act in an ethical manner. Yes, I will be kinder to someone I like than I will to someone I don't like, but that needn't destroy a universal outlook such as "Do unto others..." If you're friendly to someone who is friendly to you - that's not a matter of ethics. It is an amoral state - [and to address briefly the previous reply] just as is acting in self-interest. This is what, by and large, a chimp will do in a similar situation. That's fine, but no ethical standard on which to build a human community.

What is it that determines how you should conduct yourself irrespective of the community you happen to be in? I am not asking about particulars like should you address someone in the familiar or formal or anything like that - but as a general outlook - what should be your intent?

I don't mean to be needling you with this. Treat it as entirely a rhetorical set of questions if you prefer.

[johnson1010]

i have thought about this for a while.

How does morality work?

There is no god. No imperative which forces us to behave morally from beyond.

There are many different ways of behaving, but broadly speaking, lets talk about selfish and community oriented morality.

Selfish morality would be the kind which says that it is ok to steal from someone else, or kill in an effort to get ahead in life.

Community oriented morality is basically the premise that if you help someone else, they will try to help you, if only to be helped by you again later. This is the seed of all “do unto others” method.

Community oriented morality simply out-competes selfish morality. By its nature, it builds relationships and forges bonds with a group of people. A few working together can accomplish what many working separately cannot. A kind of natural selection is at work in social groups. You keep around people who help you, and you help them, so that they can be a use to you in the future.

Community oriented morality also dictates that any who live in a community must adhere to the rule of the community. Those who mis-behave are few, those who tow the line are legion. Being part of the community is a far more successful strategy than trying to fight the community.

There is no magic here. No mystery. It is survival of the fittest applied to morality. Being moral is in everyone’s best interests, and more specifically, your own best interest. One strategy is observed to be outrageously successful, and another leads to a life of being ostracized and punishment which inhibits the success of anyone who practices selfish morality.

One is not superior to the other due to higher moral authenticity. It is simply a case of one path being more successful. I would argue that community oriented morality IS more morally authentistic, but that is not what ensures it's useage.

These are naturally not absolutes. The fact that there are instances of successful selfish moralists demonstrates that the enforcement of community oriented morality falls to humans, not some external force of immovable authority which sees all and can have immediate impact on the enforcement of community oriented morality.

The bad guys don’t always get what is coming to them because they have slipped through the cracks of detection from other humans, who are not perfect. The very vast majority of humans do not follow the path of selfish morality, though, because it is a less successful strategy. Some few humans have succeeded in cutting out a piece of the world for themselves using selfish means, such as dictators, while the vast majority of the population which they feed off of lives a life of community oriented morality. By and large what happens is that a selfish moralist takes from someone within the in-group of the community oriented group, and they punish this loner for disrupting the harmony of the group. Sheer weight of numbers ensures the enforcement. Numbers which have a hard time forming up around a selfish morality because there is no mechanism in it to encourage co-operation.

There are specifics which vary from community to community, but basically speaking, those things which contribute to the success of the community are seen as good, those things which inhibit the success of the community are seen as bad.

The definition of the community, or in-group, also determines which things are considered bad. A gang which robs from the people of its neighborhood is still behaving in a community oriented frame-work, but they have defined their in-group standards to be very selective. This pits them against the larger group which deems the work of the gang to be a selfish moral act.

The gang will be punished by the larger majority.

The eradication of the jews by Nazis was widely viewed as bad by communities which thought of the group “humanity” as the in-group. Nazis considered a very specific segment of society to be their own in-group, and so the infliction of misery on those outside of that group was seen as justified to further the success of the in-group, or so they perceived.

This is no different than how Americans saw the native Americans or iraqi’s now. We send our troops to inflict misery on those we have marginalized and removed from our perceived in-group without real notions of having done wrong.

As time goes one, hopefully, we will all be able to conceive of all life as being in our in-group.

You see that what i am saying here has nothing to do with how the way things "should" be, but just how they are. People co-operate and get along because it is successful, not because it is the right thing to do (although i do think it is the right thing to do.) Morality does not force our hands. It is not an imperative that we cannot escape. It is a product of our interaction with eachother and in a way it is subject to natural selection.

[johnson1010]

http://www.wimp.com/monkeysshare/

Capuchin monkeys using teamwork and a notion of "fairness" to interact with eachother. These are the seeds of our morality.

Watch the video.

The one monkey could have kept all the nuts for hmiself after reaping a reward that was only available to him after aid from an ally. To retain that aid for future endeavors, and no doubt to ensure the same treatement from his ally if the situation were reversed, the monkey behaves in a community oriented moral framework.