Is all morality ultimately contingent on self-interest?

[fessie]

I think this argument is the one where the SDMB empirical rationalists (yes, I know I coined a new phrase) will find themselves running out of steam.

A few weeks ago people jumped all over me for asserting that there is such a thing as a soul. But I don’t think it is possible to establish a moral code without a spiritual component, albeit an informal one.

Operating purely out of self-interest isn’t the same as having a moral code - according to that logic there’s nothing to prevent one from being opportunistic, exploitive, manipulative and deceitful if one is confident of not being caught. Following the letter of the law rather than its intent, using fine print and misleading advertising to cheat people legally - these are fine examples of self-interest morality. How about exploiting children, the elderly and the mentally disabled? There was a time when it was pretty easy to get away with such things - why would that have changed, if it weren’t for a morality based on something more than self-interest?

And if it’s just all about self-interest, then how can a person ever be wrong? Caught, yes; but wrong, no.

I also don’t think it’s a simple matter of parental training & societal pressure - otherwise you wouldn’t have seen any abolitionists in the South. Or hippies from wealthy families.

I propose that human beings are hardwired with a soul that enables us to experience a sense of a larger reality, an energy of life - “the force”, if you will. And once we’ve gotten to know ourselves and our beliefs we can see beyond our immediate needs to a greater sense of “right” and “wrong”. That sense sometimes causes us to act against our immediate self-interest in order to achieve a larger goal of which we are a part. A belief in something more than our selves. It takes time and effort to develop such a sense, which is why the threat-of-Hell shortcut has been so often employed.

The fact that people attach a value meaning to certain altruistic acts (saving someone’s life, doing good without being recognized for it) and despise others is, to me anyway, clear evidence that a spiritual reality beyond self-interest is exerting an effect.

Anyway I don’t think the vast majority of people are operating purely out of self-interest. Otherwise the worst elements of the free market would be running rampant & no one would object to kiddie porn, torturing animals, or shooting paintballs at nekkid womens. We’re a lot more than just reasonable machines.

[bbart4]

*Originally posted by fessie *

And if it’s just all about self-interest, then how can a person ever be wrong? Caught, yes; but wrong, no.

Is right or wrong and absolute?

[QUOTE]
That sense sometimes causes us to act against our immediate self-interest in order to achieve a larger goal of which we are a part. A belief in something more than our selves.

[QUOTE]

Why would we believe in something more than ourselves?

Anyway I don’t think the vast majority of people are operating purely out of self-interest. Otherwise the worst elements of the free market would be running rampant & no one would object to kiddie porn, torturing animals, or shooting paintballs at nekkid womens.

The fact is most people object to these things and social repercussions are a real deterrent.

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

Simply put: in who’s interest other than our own could we possibly act?

Even if we turn our lives over to the Christian God and pledge to live our lives exactly as the Bible tells us to, we are STILL making this decision for ourselves, having decided it is in our best interest to do so.

Even if you THINK you are only acting in the interest of your god, or acting in the interest of the little boy who is drowning, you are doing nothing other than deciding it is in your self-interest to consider the interest of the god or the boy.

[Ramanujan]

*Originally posted by fessie *
Operating purely out of self-interest isn’t the same as having a moral code - according to that logic there’s nothing to prevent one from being opportunistic, exploitive, manipulative and deceitful if one is confident of not being caught.

what if one has no desire to be a manipulative, exploitative, and deceitful person?

would it not then be in their own best interest to behave “morally”?

you, too, oversimplify the position. we act morally because we don’t want to be an immoral person. it might be hard-wired, it might be social. but it is contingent on self-interest. if it weren’t, we simply wouldn’t act morally.

[Philster]

Your OP is timed just after www.aynrand.org posted an article in which they restated their long held position that protecting the US self interest is the moral thing to do.

If you didn’t spin off this thread from www.aynrand.org, then you can find some insight by visiting this: http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/foreignpolicyandselfinterest.shtml

titled article: " foreign policy based solely on America’s self-interest is not simply practical, but moral–which is why any “humanitarian” mission, such as the proposed campaign in Liberia, is a moral crime."

[robertliguori]

I would also humbly submit that human interactions aren’t zero-sum: Pissing off people is rarely in your best interest. As it is more pleasant for me to be around happy people than otherwise, I selfishly do stuff to make the people around me happy, or at least not unhappy. No right or wrong required.

[fessie]

Yeah, fine - so why is it difficult to ignore pleas for help from absolute strangers? Why do people give of themselves without getting anything in return? Why bother having a SDMB with the goal of fighting ignorance?

I think calling everything “self-interest” is too simplistic - if it touches your life in any way, then yes there has to be an element of your self in it, by definition. You can’t interact with anything without being involved in it yourself - so in a way, there’s only one way to answer the question because of the nature of the question. However there’s plenty of stuff we all do that isn’t really about us.

[Trjckster]

I believe morality is an extension of pack behavior, it has evolved to allow collections of creatures to live together and cooperate for individual and group benefit. While one individual in the group may suffer from obeying these taboos, the group survives and since the individual likely is either related or has relations in the group his/her DNA continues to replicate.

Perhaps it is not in our personnal interest to be moral, but the interests of our DNA, thus making morality a shackle to control our own awareness?

[Ramanujan]

*Originally posted by fessie *
Yeah, fine - so why is it difficult to ignore pleas for help from absolute strangers? Why do people give of themselves without getting anything in return?

how many of those people do you believe actually don’t get anything in return? if they’re not doing it because it’s something they want to do, then they’re either behaving randomly or are being compelled against their will.

I think calling everything “self-interest” is too simplistic - if it touches your life in any way, then yes there has to be an element of your self in it, by definition. You can’t interact with anything without being involved in it yourself - so in a way, there’s only one way to answer the question because of the nature of the question.

because of the nature of morality, it can’t but be contingent upon self-interest. whose interests might your actions depend on, if not your own? it’s a matter of perception.

However there’s plenty of stuff we all do that isn’t really about us.

the point is, in the end, it is really about us. it’s not simplistic; it’s simple. anything we do, we either want to do, we are compelled to do, or we are behaving randomly. decisions we make are examples of things we want to do. helping out at a soup kitchen may not make you money, but if you are claiming that all humans care about is material possessions (not social well-being, for example), our positions probably differ too radically for this to end in mutual agreement.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by Ramanujan *
the point is, in the end, it is really about us. it’s not simplistic; it’s simple. anything we do, we either want to do, we are compelled to do, or we are behaving randomly.

GE Moore has a very interesting argument against this notion of morality (specifically, what “good” is) in his work, Principia Ethica.

He specifically attacks the more general stance of this viewpoint which he calls “the naturalistic fallacy”, which is equating “good” with some other quality.

Alas, the specifics of the argument escape me at the present time, but I’ll dig up some of his more pointed comments later if there is interest. Specifically he attacks JS Mill’s conception of utilitarianism, which is what a lot of people seem to go for. I don’t think Moore’s arguments will require any significant shifting for this thread.

[TVAA]

To paraphrase a famous naturalist whose name escapes me at the moment:

If we had evolved from honeybees, we’d think it perfectly natural and correct for the vast majority of the population to be sterile slaves who supported a ruling class who assassinated each other to gain power.

[Aankh]

*Originally posted by erislover *
GE Moore has a very interesting argument against this notion of morality (specifically, what “good” is) in his work, Principia Ethica.

Doesn’t Moore state* that man possesses an intrinsic moral sense which perceives goodness? And further, that goodness is in itself a complete concept which cannot be defined in terms of some other concept?

Well, given the rather subjective nature of what constitutes goodness, I have reservations about the former. Regarding the latter, well, I have my questions.
Take, for instance, the case of something that is hard. How do we know it is hard? Because when we touch it with our finger, it doesn’t give way. In fact, the pad of our finger seems to depress if we push down. This message is relayed to the brain which decides that the object is hard. It is knowledge based on some form of perception: here, a physical sensation.
Now, take something good. How would we know it is good? Because it causes us physical pleasure, or fulfills a certain need (whether directly or indirectly), or stimulates a positive affect.

To me, it seems that one cannot say goodness cannot be defined and just is. There has to be a frame of reference, and this frame of reference seems ultimately to be one of self-interest.

• It is possible that I have Moore all wrong, or oversimplified. Set me right, if I am.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by aasna *
Doesn’t Moore state that man possesses an intrinsic moral sense which perceives goodness? And further, that goodness is in itself a complete concept which cannot be defined in terms of some other concept?

Moore definitely states that good is a complete, or should I say atomic?, concept that is not itself decribable by appeal to other concepts, yes. He describes “the naturalistic fallacy” to be the fallacy that “good is [blank]”, and insert “pleasure” for blank to get an idea.

Well, given the rather subjective nature of what constitutes goodness, I have reservations about the former.

Moore was most certainly a moral realist, but I see no reason why his line of inquiry is incompatible with epistemological (and thus moral, to any realist) relativism.

Now, take something good. How would we know it is good? Because it causes us physical pleasure, or fulfills a certain need (whether directly or indirectly), or stimulates a positive affect.

Here is a small bit that might help further this line of inquiry:

From The Principia Ethica, all emphasis original, all spelling errors mine:

There remains one point which must not be omitted in a complete description of the kind of questions which Ethics has to answer. The main division of those questions is, as I have said, in two; the question of what things are good in themselves, and the question to what other things these are related as effects.

…

The paradox [I have just explained but which **erl** decided to snip], to which it is necessary to call attention, is that the value of such a whole bears no regular proportion to the sum of the values of its parts.

To me, it seems that one cannot say goodness cannot be defined and just is. There has to be a frame of reference, and this frame of reference seems ultimately to be one of self-interest.

By that line of reasoning, everything can be reduced to “self-interest” in which case “self-interest” is itself an indivisible concept. But because it would be at the root of everything, it would cease to be a meaningful description.