Take the bonus?

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;59512 wrote:

Now I'm really confused. Is acting selfishly the same as acting morally? Or are they different, and selfishness is better than morality?

They are different and completely independent. If morality means acting selfish it's not really morality, it's the lack thereof.
Normally acting morally is better than acting selfish, I meant that sometimes there is no other option than to not act morally.
Morality is subjective, but for example giving all your food to the poor would be morally right. You just can't always do the morally right thing, because you would starve yourself.
Same with torture, I would say it's immoral, but we just have to do it to prevent terrorist attacks.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

They are different and completely independent. If morality means acting selfish it's not really morality, it's the lack thereof.
Normally acting morally is better than acting selfish, I meant that sometimes there is no other option than to not act morally.
Morality is subjective, but for example giving all your food to the poor would be morally right. You just can't always do the morally right thing, because you would starve yourself.
Same with torture, I would say it's immoral, but we just have to do it to prevent terrorist attacks.

I will tell you how I think you are wrong: First, morality is not objective, but it tends towards the objective.. And depending upon how one views self, morality can be a very selfish act... For primitives, having no philosophy of the individual, and seeing the relationship between individual and society in a natural, and more accurate light, to sacrifice ones self for society was the most moral action, and every moral act was more easy, normal and natural for them than for us, because we must first get over the fallacy of the individual...

If I may point out a simple fact: If one consideres themselves human and a part of the human family, then to sacrifice for that community is natural... But it is to ones community, ones nation from the word natal/navel, having a common mother, and so a consanguineous relationship that are truly natural, and demand our loyalty...Since we get our lives from our communities, to offer our lives for our communities is not much... There is a genetic logic to it that is denied by the philosophy of the individual, and that denial has led to many disasters and destructions for many nations... People survive best who survive together...

@Elmud,

You might be right, but I don't quite get it. Could you sum up what you mean?
Are you saying that morality can depend on altruism? I would agree.
As for your last sentence, that is right. But I don't equate better with moral.

This maybe somewhat explain what I meant earlier:

Quote:

Deontological moral systems typically stress the reasons why certain actions are performed. Simply following the correct moral rules is often not sufficient; instead, we have to have the correct motivations. This might allow a person to not be considered immoral even though they have broken a moral rule, but only so long as they were motivated to adhere to some correct moral duty.

Deontology and Ethics: What is Deontology, Deontological Ethics? Ethics as Obedience to Duty and God: Is Being Ethical just Being Obedient?

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

They are different and completely independent. If morality means acting selfish it's not really morality, it's the lack thereof.
Normally acting morally is better than acting selfish, I meant that sometimes there is no other option than to not act morally.
Morality is subjective, but for example giving all your food to the poor would be morally right. You just can't always do the morally right thing, because you would starve yourself.
Same with torture, I would say it's immoral, but we just have to do it to prevent terrorist attacks.

Let's be careful, here. You say to give all of your food to the poor would be morally right, but the wrong thing to do because you would then starve. But there is a problem: you are suggesting that the morally right thing to do is to have no concern for your wellbeing. This seems to be an inadequate account of morality. If the purpose of moral guides is to live rightly, then those guides should not suggest that we needlessly end our lives as occurs in the example of giving all of one's food away. Instead of giving all of one's food, wouldn't the moral thing to do be to give as much as one can rather than everything?

I'll leave the torture issue alone; that question gets into a pragmatic issue and the experts disagree with your conclusion.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;59805 wrote:

you are suggesting that the morally right thing to do is to have no concern for your wellbeing.

No, I'm not. Thats an appeal to negative evidence.

@Elmud,

Well.... I'd refuse the bonus. But then I wouldn't be working for the institution in the first place, so... If you work for the bank, you're in it for the money.

@Bones-O,

EmperorNero wrote:

No, I'm not. Thats an appeal to negative evidence.

Actually, that's not negative evidence. You said:

"giving all your food to the poor would be morally right."

Then you go on to explain that, even though giving all of your food would be morally right, you should not give away all of your food -

" because you would starve yourself."

In this example, you say that the morally right thing to do is to give away all of your food which is to have no concern for your own wellbeing because, as you point out, if you give away all of your food you will starve.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;59821 wrote:

Actually, that's not negative evidence. You said:

"giving all your food to the poor would be morally right."

Then you go on to explain that, even though giving all of your food would be morally right, you should not give away all of your food -

" because you would starve yourself."

In this example, you say that the morally right thing to do is to give away all of your food which is to have no concern for your own wellbeing because, as you point out, if you give away all of your food you will starve.

That doesn't imply that morality means having no concern for ones own well being, only that a concern for ones well being does not imply morality.
That it's not a does not imply b.

@EmperorNero,

So giving away all of your food so that you starve to death is somehow having concern for your own wellbeing?

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;59830 wrote:

So giving away all of your food so that you starve to death is somehow having concern for your own wellbeing?

No, it doesn't have to be. To but it somewhat extreme: Morality has little to do with neither concern for your own or others wellbeing.
The moral decision might be completely independent from what benefits yourself.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

No, it doesn't have to be.

Either the action (giving away all of your food so that you starve) is concerned or unconcerned for your well being. Which one?

From what you have said, because the result of giving away all of your food, the action seems to be taken without concern for your own well being. Yet you deny this. If the result is starvation, something detrimental to your well being, then the action was taken without concern for your well being.

My point is that this does not seem to be moral. To act in such a way, to give away all of your food so as to produce personal starvation, does not seem to be moral - yet you described the action as moral. I'm trying to understand how such an action could be, as you describe it, moral.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;59837 wrote:

Either the action (giving away all of your food so that you starve) is concerned or unconcerned for your well being. Which one?

None of the two. I'm referring to deontology, and thereby the consequence of the action does not matter.

Didymos Thomas;59837 wrote:

My point is that this does not seem to be moral. To act in such a way, to give away all of your food so as to produce personal starvation, does not seem to be moral - yet you described the action as moral. I'm trying to understand how such an action could be, as you describe it, moral.

I admit that I used the wrong words to describe it. I meant that the action to give all your food to the poor can be moral, not that it has to be. Concern for your own or others wellbeing is not the deciding factor. So actions that benefit yourself can be moral and actions that benefit others can be moral, and actions that are self-defeating can be moral. If that is the case, we sometimes have to be immoral to not die. See the story about the samurai, who killed themselves, because their morality was to follow all laws of a governor.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

None of the two. I'm referring to deontology, and thereby the consequence of the action does not matter.

Even if we work under some deontological system of ethics, whether or not the action is done out of concern for one's own wellbeing or a lack thereof is relevant because the impetus for action is the issue, not the consequence.

Also, even under a deontological system, we can ask about the consequences. It's just that the consequences alone do not make the act moral or immoral. In this case, I am simply asking if the action in question, giving all of your food away so that you starve to death, is done with or without concern for one's own well being.

EmperorNero wrote:

I admit that I used the wrong words to describe it. I meant that the action to give all your food to the poor can be moral, not that it has to be. Concern for your own or others wellbeing is not the deciding factor. So actions that benefit yourself can be moral and actions that benefit others can be moral, and actions that are self-defeating can be moral. If that is the case, we sometimes have to be immoral to not die. See the story about the samurai, who killed themselves, because their morality was to follow all laws of a governor.

Their morality was a deontological system - they acted out of duty. Whether or not their ethic makes any sense is the pivotal question: if their ethic is right and justified, then you are right to conclude that one must act immorally in order to live. However, if their ethic is not justified and right, then the conclusion is not supported by the story. It is simply a case of misguided and confused ethics. This is the difference between what is taken to be moral and what actually is moral.

The point I was trying to make at the beginning of this exchange was that the notion that acting morally can be self defeating does not make any sense, regardless of the moral system, be it deontological, utilitarian or what-have-you. The whole idea behind morality is to act rightly, and acting rightly cannot, by nature, be self defeating - if some action is self defeating it is not acting rightly because a self defeating action defeats the purpose of the action.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;59842 wrote:

The whole idea behind morality is to act rightly, and acting rightly cannot, by nature, be self defeating - if some action is self defeating it is not acting rightly because a self defeating action defeats the purpose of the action.

I wouldn't say that 'rightly' excludes 'self-defeating' by nature. Please explain why.

@EmperorNero,

The purpose of following moral guidelines is to act rightly.
To act rightly is good in of itself.
Therefore, acting morally, rightly, cannot be self-defeating.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

The purpose of following moral guidelines is to act rightly.
To act rightly is good in of itself.
Therefore, acting morally, rightly, cannot be self-defeating.

The problem of morality comes down to the definition of self... We consider our selves individuals... Primitives who were much more moral, and more morally conscious considered themselves one of their group, surrounded by enemies, supported by friends... Their group was their identity, and they rightly associated their group with life, and happiness... For such people the sacrifice of self for group was the highest virtue, and that is why Christianity always made such headway among primitives, because he sacrificed self for all, which everyone already accepted as ideal... And they were right in their attitude if not in accepting Christianity because we all get our lives from our groups, and if our groups survive our genes will survive, but if the group does not survive, the chances of our individual genes surviving is minimal... Those, like the Church who have pushed the philosophy of the individual did so on the basis of metaphysics, which is best expressed by Jefferson's: All Men Created... Thinking we were created is obviously not true from the perspective of natives who realized we are born of our groups...

But the philosophy of the individual which has been used to break up communities, breaking the individual free of the authority of his group, but also denying to him group defense and obligations, which are rights, has never worked to the benefit of the individual or his group... People were forced to stand as individuals before the law, and the state; but could be preyed upon by any organized groups such as their ruling class, the church, or corporations... Natural groups were destroyed, and with them the basis of natural morality, and a contrived morality has been inserted in its place that is seldom accepted because the individual is lawless...It is clear from our heroes and outlaws, that all are criminals, or could be considered in that fashion... Though to be correct, these are not heroes, but anti heroes...

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;60064 wrote:

The purpose of following moral guidelines is to act rightly.
To act rightly is good in of itself.
Therefore, acting morally, rightly, cannot be self-defeating.

I don't see how that last sentence follows from the first two.

@EmperorNero,

The first sentence establishes that acting morally and acting rightly are the same. The second sentence states that acting rightly is good in and of itself - that to act rightly cannot be, at the same time, to act wrongly.

As a right action is only self defeating if it is a wrong action, acting rightly cannot be self defeating.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;60138 wrote:

As a right action is only self defeating if it is a wrong action, acting rightly cannot be self defeating.

I like the scholarly approach, but you are assuming the very thing you want to show.
Why does self-defeating imply wrong?

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

I like the scholarly approach, but you are assuming the very thing you want to show.

Yes, and the reason is that you are essentially trying to argue that right can mean wrong. I am assuming that right and wrong have two distinct meanings.

EmperorNero wrote:

Why does self-defeating imply wrong?

Because we are talking about right (moral) acts. A right action is self defeating if and only if the right action is a wrong action.

Maybe the confusion is over the phrase "self-defeating". A self defeating action is an action that accomplishes the opposite of it's intent. If action X is determined to be a right action, action X cannot be self defeating because we have already determined that action X is right.

Philosophy Forum

Take the bonus?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know