4 ms·

"Are we good because we want to be good, or are we good because we just don’t want to be punished?" It's interesting he brings up this point. I once took a lea

"Are we good because we want to be good, or are we good because we just don’t want to be punished?" It's interesting he brings up this point. I once took a leadership class at my University, and in the class my teacher once said, "do you follow the speed limit because if you don't you'll get a ticket or because it is the right thing to do?" He then followed it by saying, "If you follow it because it's the right thing you're crazy." When I heard this I was just hoping he wasn't applying it to things other than the speed limit. Sometimes I feel you have to do the right thing, because it is the right thing. Another similar case was when I was reading my economics book which said altruism only exists due to incentives, and it wouldn't exist otherwise; I personally believe there are people who act altruistically despite incentive going either way. Although, I also find personally if I do the right thing despite incentives for me to lie or do otherwise people will often make up the difference.

mcguire 9y ago
I respectfully suggest that, if he left it at that, there is something wrong with your teacher. Further, I'll suggest that there is something wrong with that take on altruism, simply because that's not how altruism feels.
- johnsonjo 9y ago
  Genuinely curious, what part did I get wrong about altruism? How would you describe it?
  - mcguire 9y ago
    The idea that it only exists due to incentives. Behaving altruistically doesn't feel like it depends on external rewards. In fact, one of the reasons I chose not to be altruistic is the costs of doing so.
    - johnsonjo 9y ago
      Yeah I think that's true. Maybe the point my economics book was trying to make was altruism doesn't exist and it only appears to exist due to incentives. I agree with you true altruism shouldn't depend on incentive. Also, I disagree with my economics book I believe true altruism does exist. I just believe people aren't perfect, but their desires and character can make them truly altruistic.
moosey 9y ago
There is an alternative to "I don't speed because I might get ticketed" and "I don't speed because it's the right thing to do", and it's "I don't speed because it benefits me when everyone drives carefully." It can be argued that altruism itself generates dividends for the whole of society, and thus acts of altruism can be seen as self-benefiting, adding a middle that isn't otherwise considered. A good example might be: "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because I'm forced to." vs. "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because it's the right thing to do." There is yet another option of "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because it has economic benefits and because I don't want to personally deal with the homeless everywhere I go." The last one might sound heartless, but I think that it might appeal to more conservative members of society, and it also turns out to be true.
- johnsonjo 9y ago
  Good argument. To me the reason for not speeding due to it being a net benefit to society is just a specific case of speeding due to it being the right thing to do. One point I got from your argument (though not directly stated) is that it's often important to clarify why the thing you are saying is the right thing to do is in fact right. I feel your understanding of altruism seems to coincide with a utilitarianism standpoint of it is the right thing if it creates the greatest sum total happiness for society. I feel Utilitarianism is close to defining what is right, but if you have ever studied it Utilitarianism has some flaws (when I say this I don't mean to attack your personal standpoint on altruism/right only Utilitarianism in general.) Often these flaws can be fixed with a more rule based approach to Utilitarianism. I personally like Utilitarianism's approach, but probably take a more Aeristotelian approach which is more along the lines of it is the right thing if it makes me act in a more virtuous manner. Aeristotle believes those of truly virtuous characters wouldn't desire to do wrong things in the first place.
  - Jach 9y ago
    If you taboo the words "virtue" and "virtuous", what are you left with? Seems like it can be reduced to utilitarianism. If utilitarianism is "what is right is that which maximizes utility according to this utility function", this idea of virtue maximizing can be restated as "what is right is that which maximizes utility according to this utility function, which states its highest utility is that which makes me act more virtuously, with these comparison heuristics to determine 'more' or 'less' virtuous". My own criticism of utilitarianism is that utility functions aren't always objective, and for different people or different contexts can output different values. If you can agree on a function it can be a useful tool in moral reasoning (and especially uncovering inconsistencies if you've agreed to a few functions then find a contradiction with intuition and what the calculations say) but typically we want to know how we should agree on a function in the first place.
Tactic 9y ago
You should do the right thing because it is the right thing. However, with speed limits your teacher framed the question incorrectly. There is not right or wrong to a speed limit. 35 miles an hour is no more right than 38 miles an hour. The real question is why do we obey a law when there is no clear right or wrong to it? In the case of the speed limit our right/wrong choice is to obey the law or not. (And while speed has no right or wrong unsafe driving absolutely does, which could be unsafe due to the speed.)

mcguire 9y ago

I respectfully suggest that, if he left it at that, there is something wrong with your teacher. Further, I'll suggest that there is something wrong with that take on altruism, simply because that's not how altruism feels.

johnsonjo 9y ago
Genuinely curious, what part did I get wrong about altruism? How would you describe it?
- mcguire 9y ago
  The idea that it only exists due to incentives. Behaving altruistically doesn't feel like it depends on external rewards. In fact, one of the reasons I chose not to be altruistic is the costs of doing so.
  - johnsonjo 9y ago
    Yeah I think that's true. Maybe the point my economics book was trying to make was altruism doesn't exist and it only appears to exist due to incentives. I agree with you true altruism shouldn't depend on incentive. Also, I disagree with my economics book I believe true altruism does exist. I just believe people aren't perfect, but their desires and character can make them truly altruistic.

moosey 9y ago

There is an alternative to "I don't speed because I might get ticketed" and "I don't speed because it's the right thing to do", and it's "I don't speed because it benefits me when everyone drives carefully." It can be argued that altruism itself generates dividends for the whole of society, and thus acts of altruism can be seen as self-benefiting, adding a middle that isn't otherwise considered. A good example might be: "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because I'm forced to." vs. "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because it's the right thing to do." There is yet another option of "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because it has economic benefits and because I don't want to personally deal with the homeless everywhere I go." The last one might sound heartless, but I think that it might appeal to more conservative members of society, and it also turns out to be true.

johnsonjo 9y ago
Good argument. To me the reason for not speeding due to it being a net benefit to society is just a specific case of speeding due to it being the right thing to do. One point I got from your argument (though not directly stated) is that it's often important to clarify why the thing you are saying is the right thing to do is in fact right. I feel your understanding of altruism seems to coincide with a utilitarianism standpoint of it is the right thing if it creates the greatest sum total happiness for society. I feel Utilitarianism is close to defining what is right, but if you have ever studied it Utilitarianism has some flaws (when I say this I don't mean to attack your personal standpoint on altruism/right only Utilitarianism in general.) Often these flaws can be fixed with a more rule based approach to Utilitarianism. I personally like Utilitarianism's approach, but probably take a more Aeristotelian approach which is more along the lines of it is the right thing if it makes me act in a more virtuous manner. Aeristotle believes those of truly virtuous characters wouldn't desire to do wrong things in the first place.
- Jach 9y ago
  If you taboo the words "virtue" and "virtuous", what are you left with? Seems like it can be reduced to utilitarianism. If utilitarianism is "what is right is that which maximizes utility according to this utility function", this idea of virtue maximizing can be restated as "what is right is that which maximizes utility according to this utility function, which states its highest utility is that which makes me act more virtuously, with these comparison heuristics to determine 'more' or 'less' virtuous". My own criticism of utilitarianism is that utility functions aren't always objective, and for different people or different contexts can output different values. If you can agree on a function it can be a useful tool in moral reasoning (and especially uncovering inconsistencies if you've agreed to a few functions then find a contradiction with intuition and what the calculations say) but typically we want to know how we should agree on a function in the first place.

Tactic 9y ago

You should do the right thing because it is the right thing. However, with speed limits your teacher framed the question incorrectly. There is not right or wrong to a speed limit. 35 miles an hour is no more right than 38 miles an hour. The real question is why do we obey a law when there is no clear right or wrong to it? In the case of the speed limit our right/wrong choice is to obey the law or not. (And while speed has no right or wrong unsafe driving absolutely does, which could be unsafe due to the speed.)