Is all morality ultimately contingent on self-interest?

Great Debates
21

While a certain part of our moral tendency can be explained by an innate concern for our fellow beings, there also seems to be a human tendency to internalize the values of those around us, so that even though we might not expect to get caught for certain transgressions, we still feel bad about it. Similarly, even though we don’t expect any material gain for sacrificing our lives for a cause, some of us will still do it. This isn’t what I would normally call “self-interest”.

On the other hand, I think morality often serves the useful purpose of advancing self-interest by advancing the interests of the group. If I had a choice of cultures to join, all other things being equal, I would prefer to join one in which people help each other out and make occasional sacrifices for the group benefit than to belong to one that was strictly dog-eat-dog. This would be true even though I was required to internalize the group moral system and would run the risk of having to make serious sacrifices myself. The reason I would prefer such a group is simply my own self-interest - the average happiness of people in a group that cooperates is going to greater than in a group that does not.

When moral principles from different groups are in conflict it makes sense to me to support the principle that most benefits humanity as a whole, since this serves our overall self-interest. Arbitrary sexual taboos, dietary restrictions, or required rituals are the sorts of principles that there is no point in promoting.

22

I can not see how “doing nothing” would be in the man’s self-interest. I think it would be in his self-interest to at least attempt to save the drowning child. And why do you suppose this man would behave any differently if someone else were present?

23

Moral codes as with all Laws must be anchored to a Reference. If one’s personal anchor is Satanism, obviously one’s personal anchoring point is going to be different from Christianity. So the debate that follows is really “What is Truth?”

All proposed personal truths in and of themselves are circular reasoning; that is circular reinforcement. Validation of truth in the School of Law, School of Engineering and Technology, School of Science or School of Life requires an attempt to make that “truth” fail: Validation of Truth requires an Opponent. Truth shines brighter under cross-examination, all other narratives fall by the wayside with their inconsistencies.

Ultimately validation of an abstract moral lens comes at checkout time, when the abstract becomes the concrete.

Civil Laws are laws that allow a large number of people to share the same space and are usually referenced to a moral/religious anchor. China-Budaism, India-Hinduism, USA-Christianity and etc.

Debate over Civil Laws of a Nation are meaningless, when that Nation is undergoing a Paradigm-a moral reference shift.

The United States and Western Europe has enjoyed the benefits brought about by The Reformation. But they are now in the midst of a Paradigm-a dismantling of the anchoring points that allowed for growth. They are self destructing from the inside out.

But on a lighter note, thanks for this great Website and all the great thought provoking questions!

Have a great day! :slight_smile:

Mark Kroger

24

umm…what?

25

Quite simply, it would be safer for him to do nothing, and he obtains no personal benefit from saving the child.

I would think this was obvious – because people often behave differently when they’re under someone’s scrutiny. I’m just trying to head off the predictable objection that some will raise; namely, that this man must have been shamed into saving the child, and it therefore acting in his own self-interest. If there is nobody present to attest that this man could have saved the child, then we can sidestep that irrelevant objection.

26

I refer you to my post a little further up. (No, not the “umm…what” thing. Further up.)

27

What did Kant say on this subject? If you can will that YOUR action is the action ALL people should take in this particular situation, then you are acting morally. Something like that :slight_smile:

28

Quite simply, it would be safer for him to do nothing, and he obtains no personal benefit from saving the child.

I put to you the same question I ask to JThunder: So what? Why should I act morally?

Personal question: Positing you are a strong swimmer, would you save this hypothetical child? I would, as I am reasonably sure that I would come out better than if I had stood there and let the child drown. I don’t need a moral code to tell me that helping other people perpetuates a zeitgeist in which I stand a better chance of being helped, should I need it. Incidentally, you still haven’t answered me in anything other but a loop: if not because doing the right thing is ultimately best for you, then why do it?

29

Without trying to delve too deeply into mysticism, the definition of ‘self’ that we use makes a great deal of difference.

30

I think that statement is a bit simplistic, wouldn’t you say? Why should self-interest necessarily imply personal physical safety? We, as humans, also seem to have mental and emotional safety or self-interest to consider. Depending upon how we perceive ourselves – which is relevant to the second part of your post:

– we may, or may not be comfortable mentally and emotionally if we choose to not save the child (because we are always being observed no matter how far from others we are; this thing we call consciousness, or self-awareness is part of our every waking moment). So we may choose to save the child to ensure our mental peace.

Now you might say that a person having trouble living with himself because a child drowned in his presence when he might have been able to prevent that drowning is suffering as a result of not acting morally.

However, this brings you back to “what is moral?”, or “why does this person feel bad?” The answer to the first question is “morality is what we are taught concerning right and wrong”. The answer to the second question then becomes “the bad feeling arises from going against what we are taught concerning right and wrong”. This, as robertliquori pointed out, is a circular argument. And yet, in it, we clearly see that self-interest is at play: in our perception of ourselves, and in our perception of society’s perception of us, and so on ad nauseam.

Now, since moral codes have differed, and still do, among the various societies/cultures of the world, I’m quite comfortable believing there is not and cannot be such a thing as an absolute morality for humanity. Instead, each culture invents or develops or adapts a morality to lubricate the interpersonal frictions of their members, and attaches penalties of some sort to the violation of that morality.

In other words, to ensure some degree of peace in society so that individuals may go about the business of taking care of their needs, it is in the self-interest of individuals and of society to attempt (or at least appear to attempt) to adhere to an arbitrary code of behaviour we refer to as morality.

So, my conclusion is that, yes, all morality is contingent upon self-interest.

31

I do not agree. I would give my life for some things with the thought of it being a moral choice. Since I won’t be around to enjoy the after-effect of doing so, this action is not motivated by self-interest, at least how I understand the term, unless we create a tautology that it is always in your self-interest to do the right thing, which isn’t very interesting.

The question “Why should we do what is right?” is answered by “That is what we call ‘what we should do’.” I would consider a matter of definition, but then, I don’t have a messy absolute morality hanging over me so maybe it is easier for me to just define questions away. :wink:

32

I can’t believe I said “lubricate the interpersonal frictions of their members”. What the hell is that?

Anyway.

erl said:

Why?

I’m not being facetious. I’ve been known to act against my physical self-interest because I felt it was “right” to do so. But I suspect that may go back to self-perception.

Why do people like you and I, who believe there is no absolute morality, sometimes endanger ourselves for what we think is right?

33

We are all born amoral, our morality is shaped by the society and the environment we grow up in. If we decide to stay amoral we are labeled cowards, dimwits or assholes. If we decide to become an immoral individual, we become prisoners. So society teaches us we should be moral. So you ask WHY should you be moral? You learn the answer in the maturation process, you want to belong to the moral persons society and not one of the alternatives.

34

this sounds like it came from someone who doesn’t believe a father ever loved a child.

JThunder, you are, and always have been, far too simplistic in your considerations of morality. what is being discussed here isn’t even inconsistent with moral absolutism.

suppose we do have a set of what is “right” and what is “wrong”, and suppose that set comes from a supreme authority. what reasons, then, does a person have for following the moral code? because it came from above? that alone doesn’t seem like a reason. because i must, if i ever want to get to heaven and all its glory, and stay the heck out of hell? that seems a bit more motivating.

“because it’s the right thing to do” again falls short (though having a reason for doing it might very well make it the right thing to do). there is no motivation in the actual code. otherwise everyone would always do “the right thing”. instead, one must want to do the right thing in order to do it.

so, when you say “because it’s the right thing to do”, you really mean “because it’s the right thing to do, and i want to do the right thing.” how can you not concede that?

35

IMHO, it is inexplictable that everything we do is in some fashion derived from self-interest, however abstract. This however is not however necessarily a bad thing, as often what is beneficial to the individual is beneficial to the whole. Ambiguity and conflict only occur then when one’s individual self-interest is in conflict with anothers self-interest. Morals are then the result of the process of maximizing (and equalizing) the self-interest of both parties.

Thereafter, whenever one party’s benefit (self-interest) greatly outweights the other party’s, physical conflict often erupts at this perceived injustice. And as it is rarely a benefit to self-interest to be in physical danger, it is in the self-interest of everyone maximize everyone else’s self-interest.

36
  1. ** Accipiter1**, what is *inexplictable *? I’ve never heard of it and neither has Merriam-Webster On-Line.

2)** JThunder**, you seem to see self-interest as only relating to physical well-being - health, wealth, and so on. If those ways are the only way your self-interest can be served, then you are missing out on a lot of what makes life precious to most of us!

I personally have no religious beliefs, but by most western peoples’ standards, I am a fairly moral person, because my own level of self-comfort requires it of me, regardless of whether or not I would be caught in immorality. You may believe that this is because it is The Right Thing To Do, but I think that what The Right Thing to Do is varies with the society and more immediate environment in which a person is raised, and that person’s own character as developed.

I personally DO have an absolute as well as a relative moral code; that is, to me, some things are ALWAYS wrong under any circumstances, while others depend on situation. BUT I don’t think there’s some great set of Tablets in the Sky that makes my idea of absolute morality ***THE Absolute Morality. ***

As the OP suggested, I believe that we all pursue morality out of self interest. But fortunately, the self-interest is often dependent on self-image rather than self-aggrandizement. Unless, of course, you’re a Republican.:smiley:

37

I can only speak for myself, but all my morality derives from self-interest. Certainly varying degrees of interest and counter weighed with circumstances obviously.

I treat my fellow man well because it is how I feel they should be treated and how I wish I were treated. It makes me feel good to be treated in particular ways, and I feel good when I know that I contributed to making another person feel good.

I don’t kill because it is not necessary for my survival. It is also not something I would wish done to me. Were I thrown into a pit and told that I kill or be killed, my survival outweighs the others feelings by a wide margin, but does nothing to say of my guilt. After all, he was just wanting survial as well.

I follow the laws because it makes my life easier and stress free to do so, and allows me to pursue my other interests.

I would risk my life to save another person as well. It would make me feel good and such to be seen as a savior, and I would hope other people would risk thier life to save me as well.

Self interest all of it. It is a self interest that benifits all though, not just myself. The long term consequences are more important than the short term.

I would imagine that it could be seen that a person that is good because they are religious is doing it out of self interest too. They want to get to the afterlife that is preferred by thier religion I am sure if God said “I would prefer you to not murder, but it won’t be counted against you” it would be a different story. (since so many Christians think that people restrain themselves from killing only because God says not to)

38

Is morality ultimately contigent on self intrest? They key word is the bolded one. Morality is based on self intrest, but I wouldnt say it is ultimately contgient on it. I would think most people also take into account the feelings of others and not just themselves when confronting a moral delimma.

39

incidentally, i wonder how often people who “risk their lives” to save someone else actually believe they will die from that course of action.

i would imagine the very few who do continue only because they would not wish to live with the idea that they did not risk their lives. that is to say, they are motivated in much the same way a person who chooses to commit suicide is.

40

Sorry, it was mispelled, the correct spelling is inexplicable (drop the t). Basically means incapable of being explained, interpreted, or accounted for.