Why do we do good?
We have society and social contracts that tells us what behavior is correct and what isn't, and we punish or frown upon those that do bad. But is there any good we do when nobody is looking other than to make ourselves feel good? Is morality driven by punishment? Any exception if that were largely true?
Comments (137)
"Evil" and "good" are just how recklessly one achieves their own self-benefit
We like each other. We care about each other. We have empathy for each other. We live with each other. What more reasons do we need to help people?
Do we? You need to examine this. There are actually many moral codes and perspectives operating at once in most cultures. And what is 'frowned upon' by some members is encouraged by others. Divorce, free love, abortion, capital punishment, women's rights, homosexuality - humans are all over the shop on these issues depending on religions, cultures, education, region.
But in more general term humans are social animals who live in tribes, like other animals, especially chimps. Is it any wonder that we work to find ways of getting on together and setting boundaries? It's also pretty hard to rear children if you don't have empathy.
There's this belief, true/not you decide, that good has something to do with being inexperienced (naïve) and foolish. It's a big bad world once you step outside the safety and comfort of your home.
However, a case can be made that to be good actually requires a whole lot of brains. We're wired to be selfish (so says evolution and other sources); so, to be good (altruistic) one has to find an ingenious way around this obstacle of self-centeredness, oui? One has to be really very clever to be both selfish and selfless (good).
Why do we do good?
One possible answer: It's challenging (intellectually)! Brain teaser: How can a black cat become white while staying black?
To impress those we like that they may stay in our lives?
We do things for the tribe because the tribe does for us? So what makes it good versus simply advantageous?
Interesting.
I never said it was 'good'. In fact there are many people that think ethical positions all fall under a form of reciprocal altruism. If you play nice with others, you benefit. And we know that often there is safety and strength in working together. Hence common wealth.
I think the idea of the 'good' is a more primal or idealist notion and who knows what all that means?
The foundation of society itself I believe is compassion springing from self-interest, bear with me, compassion does not arise unless one identifies the self in others. It does have its imperfections, as where a society limits this identification to the members of its own group, letting the rest of humanity remain to it, largely objects. Society is largely a survival tactic in response to a harsh uncaring environment and the life of kinds huddles into to groups, the less similar one is the less identification with, thus the less compassion evoked, and one then is an outsider due to little compassion on the part of others.
Schopenhauer once said that the identification of the self in others is a metaphysical realization that can just hit you on a one-to-one level. This seems particularly applicable to instances where people risk their lives to save others risking sometimes almost certain death. This falls in line with another thread in which I stated that the essence of life is all the same, it is but structure and form which has adapted to environment context which makes essence look different, and also limits identification with and thus limits one's ability to feel compassion for. Another aspect of why we do good is that it is not self-less, if you have this identification going on with another self. We make the assurance of their well-being a goal of our will, and have a desire to fulfill our own will to reach its satisfaction.
Yeah, that's the idea I subscribe to.
I think if one is to follow the concept of selfishness through to the extreme, they'll eventually have to come to the conclusion that the best selfish thing one can do is to indeed work with others.
I didn't say there were no other reasons to help people, only that we don't need any more.
I don't understand. The reasons I gave were personal, emotional reasons, although I think they are based in human nature. They have nothing to do with trying to be good. Or looking good.
So being more intellectual equals more good and less instinct?
I agree with the sentiment for the most part but am not crazy about the term 'true morality'. Where's your evidence? This seems to be simply a presupposition you have settled on (no doubt based on some reasoning) but it does not carry inherent truth value.
I generally hold that how actions impact upon the flourishing of conscious creatures is the best foundation for morality. But this requires making the decision to accept this presupposition.
It's more than making ourselves feel good.
Doing good gives our life meaning.
Again, that's merely satisfying one's appetite, and has nothing to do with ethics or morality.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Now you are getting there.
You didn't address any of this.
I can't share this presupposition and perhaps don't fully understand it. I see morality as being in relationship with others. Your view sounds a bit like a version of the saying: you can't love anyone until you first love yourself.
Quoting Garrett Travers
You are embedded in a society, surrounded not just by others but in a world that is created by others. The very words you are using to posit this argument have use only within the context of that society. You have no choice but to concern yourself in the lives of others.
Again, pursuing the satisfaction of your desires is neither here nor there morally; until it involves others. And it always involves others.
Hence starting with an individualist mindset is fraught with contradiction.
Your own health, prosperity, success, happiness, and peace are experienced, for better or worse, by those around you. The self-generated body of behaviors designed for individual achievement of well-being and happiness are mere appetite until the other is considered.
By all means, look after yourself. But don't mistake that for acting morally.
So, when you are alone morality isn't a factor?
Something like that. It takes brains to be good because we're designed to be bad; so we have to come up with ingenious workarounds for the problem of our nature (inherently selfish) - that, I reckon, is not easy [a problem (only) geniuses to solve].
Quoting Garrett Travers
What you do on your own has a moral dimension in virtue of any effect it might have on others, either directly or indirectly. That includes the inclinations and desires one chooses to feed. There are very few things that do not have such an impact.
"The self-generated body of behaviors designed for individual achievement of well-being and happiness are mere appetite until the other is considered."
The "other"-generated body of behaviors designed for "other" achievement of well-being and happiness are mere slavery until the individual is considered.
This is an incoherent statement.
What you do has first and foremost an effect on you. What you do is not something that can be experienced by others, as you are confined to your consciousness, as I am to mine.
If someone ponders privately some violent act, say against women, but does not commit, then nothing of moral significance has occurred. But if your contemplations lead you to a misogynist attitude, then they have a moral component.
Quoting Garrett Travers
That isn't so. Your acts have an impact on others.
Effects inform your morality.
Quoting Banno
This is what you said: If somone ponders something, but doesn't commit it, then nothing of moral significance has occured. But, if you ponder something that leads you to ponder something, then they have a moral component.
This is completely incoherent.
Quoting Banno
I didn't say your "acts," I said only you can experience your experiences.
Your brain is all over the place.
My apologies; I hadn't realised you were hard of thinking. In your terms:
If somone ponders something, but doesn't commit it, then nothing of moral significance has occured. But, if you ponder something that promots an attitude that leads to immoral actions, then they have a moral component.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Not mine. I did assume you capable of inference. Again, my mistake.
Notice you say actions now, or, as I said, behavior?
You didn't say that. You said: Quoting Banno
That's not action.
Again, your brain is all over the place. You are completely incoherent in your thoughts.
As I said, I made the error of thinking you could make an inference, and I apologise.
I won't bother you further.
If it's the thought that counts, there's no need to translate that into action i.e. it's rather extravagant to do good, oui?
So, again, why (do we) do good?
What's the difference between
1. I want to give the beggar some money (think good).
and
2. I give/gave the beggar some money (do good).
?
Actions speak louder than [s]words[/s] thoughts!
There seems to be a very good reason why there's a causal break between thoughts and actions. It acknowledges the uncertainty inherent in ethical causation (utilitarians might need to address this issue).
Kavka's toxin puzzle & thought police.
Chew on that.
Only if what you do has impact on others. If you working alone leave nails on a deserted country road for passing cars in the night then this act can be assessed morally.
If "making ourselves feel good" is the cause for doing good, then have a ball.
Also...
a) many are taught to do good for righteousness' sake -- do good because it is good
b) mirror neurons facilitate empathy
c) we want to do good things
SO, the answer to "why ought we do good?" is "because good is what we ought do".
That sounds like an appeal to authority and it requires demonstration. Can you show us citations for 5 philosophers who hold your position?
Quoting Garrett Travers
I don't see how this (or other forms of self-harm) is unethical behaviour, except in how it might effect others - e.g.,using health services that others might need, etc.
Quoting Tom Storm
That's because you didn't follow what I was saying. One only has to utilize the utilitarian ethical framework, only one among many mind you, to demonstrate that ethics/morality is not confined to interpersonal relations. YOU don't see how it is unethical, but the ethical framework provided by utilitarianism demonstrates how it is unethical, because smoking decreases utility in the form of heal for both the individual smoking, and those who he/she may be smoking around. YOU don't see how it is unethical because your concept of ethics is binary, either interpersonal, or not a domain of ethics. Do you see what I'm saying?
(nota bene: There are many, many ethical frameworks out there from which to draw your conclusions upon, depending on how compelling they are.)
He is channeling Ayn Rand, where "morality" is a personal to do list:
The "teleological" measuring stick is me, myself, and I.
To whom exactly we ought?
Quoting Garrett Travers
Maybe it is just your wording in here, but what I am attempting to say is (and it's a yardstick, not a theory) that what we call morality is the result of people interacting with other conscious creatures - this can be direct or indirect interactions.
Quoting Garrett Travers
So your position is ternary? I should not say that 'me, myself and I' can't be in the domain of ethics - what I properly should say is that I have not yet heard convincing arguments for why it should be. I am not a utilitarian. It would be helpful if you to make the case for or provide citations for your argument.
Yep.
There's perhaps in some an overhang og Christian morality, in which self-harm is frowned upon. But even that relies on one's relationship with another, in their case a supposed all-seeing god.
Quoting Paine
He may well be, but that overemphasis on individualism is is rampant in neoliberal and conservative circles, it's most amusing version being the sovereign citizen.
Quoting dimosthenis9
An ill-formed question. Whomever.
But, it's not. Morality encompassess the behaviors I engage in privately, as I have the power to impact my life in ways both beneficial and deleterious, and because I am confined to my body and am its sole proprietor with sole responsibility over my well-being.
Quoting Tom Storm
No, not trinary, multiferious. Meaning, I apply numerous standards for ethics. But, the idea that you need an argument to determine that your behaviors have an impact on your own life, and that there are ethical deliberations for approaching your own behavior, even though the idea of ethics is fundamentally the idea of how to "live the good life," that's not something I know how to address. Especially if you have no problem saying that such ethical deliberations are possible between humans. That quite literally doesn't make sense. And I don't know what you mean on the citation thing. What do I need to cite for?
We're wired to be selfish? By our selfish genes? Any act of altruism being selfish in nature in fact, because we are ordered so by our genes and memes who only want to procreate, replicate, and reproduce.
An ill-formed answer. So during my one and only life I ought to "whoever".
Hmm..good luck with convincing people with that.
Quoting Banno
Simply ridiculous.
And guess what? My objection isn't that we ought to do good indeed. But the excuses you give are lame. Almost theistic.
I've asked clearly for you to provide refences of philosophers who hold your position about the self and morality. Since you are the one who says all reasonable philosophers think this way it is only reasonable for us to see a reference or two. In my reading of James Taylor, John Rawls, Peter Singer, Martha Nussbaum and Iris Murdoch I have not encountered this. I am not saying it isn't there but please show us how it's an aspect of any inherent framework of morality.
That you and some others may hold this position is perfectly fine by me. It just won't be part of my framework unless I hear a good argument for why it should be.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Well several people here seem to agree with it so it isn't such a strange notion. Not making sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
That would be my view too.
Weed.But the actual weird thing is that you find them incoherent without any boost at all.
What exactly is incoherent? That I think that we ought to do good but I disagree with the childish reasons you give for that?
We ought only to ourselves. To none else. And it's a deeply selfish thing to act good at the very end.The one who acts good receives the most at the end.
Just tell you that cause there won't be later.
I'm not sure what you think it is that I have asserted is my position. I argued that there are multiple frameworks of ethics that encompass more than just interpersonal behavior. The example I gave was Utilitarianism, as just a basic example. You can find how that is in the first sentence of this source on the subject: https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/utilitarianism#:~:text=Utilitarianism%20is%20an%20ethical%20theory,good%20for%20the%20greatest%20number. Quoting Tom Storm
What position? That ethics applies to more than just interpersonal relations?
Quoting Tom Storm
An appeal to popularity isn't an argument.
I am not arguing that my position is popular, I am arguing that others understand it so it can't be incoherent as you seem to dogmatically suggest.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Of course. But you know what? I don't think this is going anywhere. I think we should move on. I have made my argument and you don't agree. This is a philosophy forum. So what... :wink:
-G
The example given here: "Thus, morality is the self-generated body of behaviors designed for individual achievement of well-being and happiness." is a Randian expression of what people really talk about when they talk about morality. Many Libertarians, like Hayek for example, argue against institutional controls of exchange without making such a claim or writing an epistemology to explain their view of what constitutes tyranny.
What I have read of the "sovereign individual" book on systems is that it seems to be 'amoral' to the extent that self-interest is taken as a presupposition and there is no need to compare that with any telos of how the world of people should be.
Quoting Garrett Travers
It strikes me as a bit odd to refer to my self-care in terms of ‘morality’ unless that term is being used so broadly as to take it out of the realm of ethics as it is conventionally understood. Self-care is generally associated with ethics to the extent that cari h for oneself enhances one’s ability to care for others.
I have in mind contemporary philosophical discussion of ethics. My point is not that self-care is divorced from interpersonal ethics for modern thinkers , but that they are tied together in a dependent relationship, with the ethical aspect of self-care being for the sake of interpersonal ethics. Those philosophers for whom this is not the case, that is, for whom self-care is not subordinate to the interpersonal, tend to reject ethics as unjustifiable ( Heidegger, Nietzsche)
No, that is also not the case. Jeremy Bentham and Mills divised an ethical framework to cover both individual and interpersonal ethics (Utilitarianism). The Stoic ethical framework is almost exclusively predicated upon individual behavior. The Objectivist framework, being the most comprehensive ethical framework to date - with perhaps the exception of Kantian ethics, is predicated almost exclusively on individual flourishing and well-being. The Kantian perspective even makes room for individual ethics in the form of the hypothetical imperative. I could go on. Again, I have no idea how you guys are generating this stuff. This is completely ahistorical. Would you mind elucidating me on the source of these kinds of claims? It sounds very, very Christian to me. I suspect that particular gravity well maybe a primary culprit here. Not sure, though, yet.
The principle of responsibilities to others was constantly set on the balance whereby the good of the individual was conditioned by the needs of the community.
Quoting Garrett Travers
That’s right: Right actions are those that are likely to result in the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
What makes individual pursuit of pleasure ‘right’ is that it also benefits the totality.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Yes, but my focus is on modern ethics.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Objectivism, unlike utilitarianism, is agent-focused. But both view individual satisfaction of desire in relation to the collective. The ethicality of self-interest is defined by its comparison with. the interest of the whole. The self makes no sense except against the background of a community of selves and their values systems . So the ‘ought’ of ethics, whether it be centered around individual desire or the group, is an achievement of culture and operates in the context of specific material practices and social relations.
No, what makes it right from the utilitarian perspective is that it increases utility. It isn't one dimensional as you put. The more the better, but at base value it is a metric that is applicable at the individual level.Quoting Joshs
Okay, what particular ethical model are you talking about?
Quoting Joshs
The ethicality of self-interest is defined by the maximization of the self, as standardized by the self within the Objectivist framework, not by comparison with the whole. The self is the only thing that can make sense, as the whole you keep referring to is comprised of self's, there is no whole without its constituent elements, that's you as an individual and I. Regardless of whether or not any practice is an achievement of culture, it is only individuals that can enact codes of ethics, the whole cannot do so, because the whole does not have brain or cpu, only indiviudals do. My whole point here was that relegating ethics exclusively to interpersonal relations is both binary and demonstrably inaccurate across ethical frameworks. Ethics is the domain of both arenas, public and private.
That being said, it is not I that is saying that ethics is exclusively the domain of the individual, it is the people arguing with me that are claiming that ethics/morality is exclusively the domain of interpersonal relations. I am saying that ethics begins with the individual and extends outward into society to encompass both him/herself, as well as others.
The passage does address the ethical issue of why the guardians should give up some portion of their pursuit of individual happiness for the greater good. Socrates says that they would not see it as a sacrifice if viewed as artists working with what is theirs to work upon. The happiness that comes from that devotion is a personal benefit as well as a communal one.
Quoting Garrett Travers
I understand that Plato is writing of a 'City of Words', but Thrasymachus was not proposing an alternate form of life as something apart from "normal culture." His shtick was that talk of Justice is a way to sugarcoat the reality of power, where the people who win call the shots and the talk about right as a common good is a story to make people feel better about it.
I get that it addresses what Socrates and the rest wanted to force the members of the Just City to do, but the Just City is itself secondary to Plato's Person, the ethics of which are defined by the triunal body of: wisdom to reason, courage to spirit, and temperance to appetite. All of which are first and foremost individual pursuits that, if achieved, will naturally produce harmony between people. So, it doesn't matter if you use Socrates, Plato, or the vast majority of all ethical philosophers as examples, it is clear that the idea that ethics is exclusively the domain of interpersonal relations is ahistorical and demostrably false and this passage from The Republic above has nothing to do with Platonic or Socratic ethical theory on its own, but only in relation to the proposition of the Just City.
Quoting Paine
I'm quite aware. I merely placed they're names together because they were the one's having the conversation. That still doesn't address any point of mine.
Doesn't giving our life meaning also self serving?
Nothing to do with it?
Ethics has nothing to do with just polity?
I am getting an ice cream headache.
The values of the individual are organized and shaped via interaction with a larger culture, so the individual is already operating within that larger framework in enacting an ethical code, whether they realize it or not. That was Nietzsche’s argument against utilitarianism.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Except you can’t disentangle the private from the public, even if you are Ayn Rand. Btw, do you find her work valuable to your ethical approach?
I'm going to need you to read with a bit more attention to detail. I reiterate: this passage from The Republic above has nothing to do with Platonic or Socratic ethical theory on its own, but only in realtion to the proposed Just City.
I will also reiterate another argument of mine you missed: Ethics is quite literally the branch of philosophy that seeks to develop systems by which individuals should live, being informed both by personal reasons and interpersonal reasons.
Meaning, I in no way implied that ethics has NOTHING to do with just polity. You misunderstood me entirely.
This is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter how values are shaped or within what culture an individual lives. Each individual chooses to direct their own behavior as they enact it. It isn't possible for others to act for you. Meaning, ethics is an individual practice because ethics implies an established body of behaviors, or actions. Your actions and standards can be informed by others, but only you can enact them. This is clear, as only you have control over your body. Ethics emerges first from the individual, then to those surrounding the individual. Again, the whole is comprised of thinking/acting agents (humans), the whole doesn't produce thinking/acting agents, anymore than society produces humans, as opposed to individual mothers.
Quoting Joshs
Yes, I most certainly can. My body is private, as in exclusively mine. My house is private, as in exclusively mine. My art, my theories, my values, my interests, all exclusively mine. Private is that which no access is granted to without the consent of the owner. This includes my labor. My labor is mine exclusively, not yours, or society's. The problem isn't that I can't disentangle them, the problem is that you can't disentangle them.
Quoting Joshs
Considering that Rand's ethical epistemology is the single most comprehensive and sophisticated epistemology generated since Immanuel Kant, I would say her work is invaluable to my ethical framework, just like Kant's, Hume's, Mill's, Locke's, and all others. However, I'd say hers is far more sophisticated than Hume's and Locke's, and every bit as groundbreaking Kant's and Mill's.
You will have to show me where Plato decouples ethics and politics in the manner you propose.
The passage I cited supports the idea that people should live: "being informed both by personal reasons and interpersonal reasons." Noticing that these interests conflict in life is central to what ethical considerations must deal with by actual humans.
Ah, the Geeks.
It seems worthwhile at this point to make reference to my thread on Idiot Greeks.
Everything you think is shaped by your wider culture , even as your own ideas represent a variation on that larger thematics. Your choices and freedom
are constrained by that larger frame. In order to grasp that you would have to know how to read Kant, James, Hegel , Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche and many others.
Quoting Garrett Travers
No, I’d say Rand failed miserably to understand Kant, and instead represents a bastardized version of 18th century pre-Kantianism.
Your body and house are private only in so far as you obey the laws of whatever society you're in. If you violate those laws, or if you simply give the state good reason to think you've violated them, your body and possessions are no longer exclusively yours to do with as you see fit. We can never completely disentangle from society, unless we're off in the woods somewhere, and even then, you can be subject to eminent domain.
I'm not just nitpicking. In a society, we all agree that our privacy and property rights aren't absolute. We can lose those rights pretty easily if the other members of our society suspect we're up to no good. I think that's what the other poster was talking about with his comment about entanglement.
Quoting Paine
It's quite literally the basis of his ethics, expounded upon across multiple works. He doesn't decouple them, it's that the political aspect of ethics is entirely secondary to individual happiness and flourishing through knowledge, as he regarded ignorance is the greatest evil. Here's some material on it: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics/
Mind you, that almost all ethical theories start from the premise that ethics is an individual pursuit meant to produce the greatest happiness for said individual first and foremost. I seriously don't know where everybody is coming up with the opposite, it's ahistorical completely.
Quoting Paine
Yes, and I, being very careful about how I approach things and always making sure that I am doing so from as many angles as possible, have never disagreed with the idea that noticing these interests conflict is central to ethics. I am arguing against the notion that ethics is exclusively predicated on such considerations and that individual ethics are not a thing. Which is what just about everyone here has been arguing for, for some truly bizarre reason of which I still have no clarity on.
The fact that there are forces in the world that can implement overwhelming force over me to steal my house and enslave my body, does not negate the fact that they are mine and not everyone else's. This kind of argument has no place in an ethical discussion. We aren't discussing the violation of an individuals rights. We're talking about the difference between public and private and how the two concepts can be disentangled. Not what justifies, or what can be used to revoke property from people and enslave them. I genuinely have no clue why you even said this.
No, I understand it, it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what has shaped my values. What matters is what I choose to do. My actions are solely the result of me having initiated them. I don't care how much culture has influenced my thought, I choose what I choose based upon the values I've chosen to adopt as the result of the application of my own reason.
Quoting Joshs
Understanding Kant is useless because his conclusions are predicated upon too many false premises. However, one can glean the gist of what he is attempting to make the case for, but failing to do so in the most sophisticated way imaginable. The only useful concept he ever generated was the hypothetical imperative.
Quoting Joshs
Oh, yeah? In what manner?
Because there is a tension between your bodily/property rights and society's right to govern itself. You belong to a society, and you presumably (are you an anarchist?) agree that society has a right to imprison you and take your stuff if conditions warrant it. You do not have an exclusive right to your body and possessions. You've agreed that you will voluntarily give up those rights (again, assuming you don't shoot it out with the cops if the police ever do show up with a warrant) if society has a good enough reason. I also assume you won't fight to the death to defend your house against eminent domain.
Also, you're kind of a jerk.
May have something to do with his being an Ayn Rand devotee. Often those two go together.
Quoting RogueAI
Societies are inanimate concepts, they do not govern themselves. The country I live in was predicated upon the right of the people to not only govern themselves in pursuit of their own interests, but to be at the helm of a government that would accomodate the freedom of the individual constituents to govern themselves.
Quoting RogueAI
I do not belong to a society, I belong to myself. I live in a society. No, I don't agree that society has a right to imprison me, unless I am a clear and present danger to other individuals with sovereign boundries.
Quoting RogueAI
Yes, I do. You're not me. I tell you about my body, not you tell me. That's how slavers think.
Quoting RogueAI
To the death, maybe, depends on the situation. Eminent Domain is an abomination of government and a violation of individual sovereignty, I will expect an inordinate sum of cash.
Quoting RogueAI
Because I pointed out that it didn't make sense for you to interject with a completely irrelevant point about the ability to simply steal my property if you want? I think you've confused our roles.
Is this supposed to be an argument? Some people thought something was idiotic? Well, I think that people who predicate their ethics on benefiting others are buffoons. See how that works?
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
And also Roger Ebert reviewing Atlas Shrugged:
"For me, that philosophy reduces itself to: "I’m on board; pull up the lifeline."
Obviously not.
It was intended as a barely concealed insult.
This is specifically why codes of ethics are even created, to ensure that you have a good life for as long as possible.
Good, got a little worried there.
Of course you do, you rugged individualist.
Glad we're understanding. You wouldn't want me to think that you actually believe that you are the property of me and your other countrymen, would you? That you belong to us?
The Standford essay points to how difficult it is to separate the inquiries. I was hoping for a pithy reference to actual text to illuminate your point.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Maybe a little Aristotle will demonstrate my dissatisfaction with your categories:
I don't know if "individual ethics" are a thing or not, But the concept does not seem to apply to at least one classical author. A counter example to consider would be most welcome.
The Stanford essay clearly distills the gist of what is the predicate for any following ethical deliberations. That gist being first the pursuit of individual well-being from whence all other ethical deliberations follow. Which is specifically what I've been arguing. Ethics begins with the individual and extends outward to the rest of society.
Quoting Paine
You've come to the wrong conclusion and this is because you've jumped to book six to make your argument, instead of relying on what every book beyond book one is predicated upon regarding "the good," namely:
"If this is the case, and we state the function of man to be a certain kind of life, and this to be an activity or actions of the soul implying a rational principle, and the function of a good man to be the good and noble performance of these, and if any action is well performed when it is performed in accordance with the appropriate excellence: if this is the case, human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete." - Nichomachean Ethics bk.1 http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html
In other words, individual excellence and rationality are the primary virtues from whence the rest of his deliberations are predicated upon. Not unlike our dear Plato expounded upon above.
Quoting Paine
Only individual ethics are a thing, as only individuals can perform ethical actions. Collectives cannot. Even if collectives did work in unison to achieve an ethical outcome, they would be nothing more than a large conglomeration of individuals independetly choosing to make that decision alongside one another. Meaning, it is not possible to apply ethics to the broader society before first applying ethics to the individuals comprising society. So no, the concept most certainly applies to Aristotle, it is the predicate for every other aspect of his epistemology.
Where?
Quoting Garrett Travers
So, who notices these virtues? What are they? Courage, Honesty, Loyalty, Fidelity, or What? Where does serving the 'individual' fit in?
Quoting Paine
Literally from the first paragraph onward. The entire essay is about how he formulates his ethics over the course of many works. What is predictaed upon what and when newer ideas of his emerged.
Quoting Paine
Who notices these virtues? Serving the individual? I don't know what you're talking about. My claim was that, much like Plato, Aristotle predicated his ethics first and foremost upon the achievement of individual excellence, or virtue. And that the passages you cited can only be attained when individuals do so. There is no bk.6 without bk.1, in other words. As far as what the virtues are, here's a quick video that goes over the entire epistemology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQVatXqEjPM
I wasn't claiming that someone other than an individual could be a virtuous person. The question is what those qualities are. They are described by Plato and Aristotle as largely exhibited through actions done with and for other people.
Is this your question?:
Is it self-serving to live a meaningful life?
Quoting Paine
Didn't say you were. What everyone here seems to be arguing, is that ethics are exclusively the domain of interpersonal relations. Whereas I am and have been arguing, that that isn't true. Ethics is primarily an individual pursuit; how could it not be? You can't be ethical to others if you aren't an ethical person privately, it's pretty straight forward.
Quoting Paine
That has never been any question you and I were addressing before your last statement to me.
Quoting Paine
No, they are not. We have already established that. They are described as actions of individual pursuit: wisdom, science, temperance of hunger, excellence of character etc. The actions described as virtuous in relation to other people are the natural result of the above sought individual traits and the above traits are a requirement to fulfill any ethical goal to others.
Again, this is what I was saying: "I am arguing against the notion that ethics is exclusively predicated on such considerations (that being the well being of others primarily) and that individual ethics are not a thing."
And this is what you were saying: I don't know if "individual ethics" are a thing or not, But the concept does not seem to apply to at least one classical author. A counter example to consider would be most welcome.
Addendum:
"Now this would seem to be in agreement both with what we said before and with the truth. For, firstly, this activity is the best (since not only is reason the best thing in us, but the objects of reason are the best of knowable objects); and secondly, it is the most continuous, since we can contemplate truth more continuously than we can do anything. And we think happiness has pleasure mingled with it, but the activity of philosophic wisdom is admittedly the pleasantest of virtuous activities; at all events the pursuit of it is thought to offer pleasures marvellous for their purity and their enduringness, and it is to be expected that those who know will pass their time more pleasantly than those who inquire. And the self-sufficiency that is spoken of must belong most to the contemplative activity. For while a philosopher, as well as a just man or one possessing any other virtue, needs the necessaries of life, when they are sufficiently equipped with things of that sort the just man needs people towards whom and with whom he shall act justly, and the temperate man, the brave man, and each of the others is in the same case, but the philosopher, even when by himself, can contemplate truth, and the better the wiser he is; he can perhaps do so better if he has fellow-workers, but still he is the most self-sufficient. And this activity alone would seem to be loved for its own sake; for nothing arises from it apart from the contemplating, while from practical activities we gain more or less apart from the action."
- Nicomachean Ethics bk.10 ch.7 http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.10.x.html
Don't worry. You aren't the only one who believes that. Being ethical is mostly and for all a work that you have to do with yourself. As to realize why being ethical and doing "good" is the "right" thing to do mostly for your own self! It's a deeply pure Egoistic thing.
To say that someone must be ethical cause someone else says so (God for example) or cause we "ought" to society or to anyone else are childish fairy tales,that can never be taken seriously even from the same people who just think they are good. We ought only to ourselves in this life. And none else.
That's why we see all around us such a huge hypocrisy from people thinking or pretending to be ethical and doing "good" but at the end they are full of shit.
Doing "good" is a constant fight with ourselves in our every day actions .A tough one. It is a continuous exercise and not a permanent state. We can never be sure that we do "good" all the time or that we belong to the "good group" of people. But the effort towards that is what actually matters and what grow us bigger.
You can't force someone to be ethical, by imaginary divine punishment or silly stories about social debt to others and things like that.
It should be a personal choice from the individuals. Only that way it makes sense and it actually works both for the individual and the social benefit.
I haven't been arguing that. The references I have made point to how the good for oneself is interwoven with the good of others. The realm of the virtue of being just is directed toward relationships with others. As your citation of the Ethics states:
[quote="Garrett Travers;648171"]the just man needs people towards whom and with whom he shall act justly, and the temperate man, the brave man, and each of the others is in the same case, but the philosopher, even when by himself, can contemplate truth, and the better the wiser he is; he can perhaps do so better if he has fellow-workers, but still he is the most self-sufficient. And this activity alone would seem to be loved for its own sake; for nothing arises from it apart from the contemplating, while from practical activities we gain more or less apart from the action."[/quote]
What you have been arguing is that moral value is measured primarily by the return of personal investment as outlined by Rand's epistemology. Aristotle just disagreed with her in this passage.
No, that's what Plato, Aristotle, and I have been arguing. You have been arguing this: "The realm of the virtue of being just is directed toward relationships with others."
This is not true. It is primarily individual and secondarily interpersonal. That's what I have been arguing, not you.
Quoting Paine
Aristotle is specifically stating that the contemplative pursuit of wisdom, knowledge, and virtuous activities is the primary attribute of philosophic self-sufficiency. That, although the domain of interpersonal relations is important, as people need one another, much better and wiser is he who seeks virtue through his own contemplation. In other words, ethics is primarily an individual pursuit and interpersonal relations is secondary. Aristotle agrees with me, Rand, and just about every single ethical philosopher of all time. You're getting this confused because, instead of reading that entire segment that I sent you, you only read and underlined what you thought made your point, which it did not.
The value of self-sufficiency, as the highest good for the philosopher, is not the grounds for the conditions that require ethics. As Aristotle says in Politics 1253a:
The Randian vision is one of a God who fell to Earth.
No, it's ethics qua ethics, not a pre-requisite. Nobody made that argument. You're not understanding much of what I say to you. The value of self-sufficiency that Aristotle is emphasizing in bk. 10 is a precondition for ethics on an interpersonal basis. Again, you cannot be good to others if you are not good yourself. It's not possible.
Quoting Paine
No, it is quite literally a comprehensive, in fact the most comprehensive and sophisticated since Kant, epistemology predicated entirely on the biological nature of Man as a mammal living on earth, bound to a body that requires resources to live and procreate - the biological imperatives that drive all of evolution - that asserts that each individual has responsibility for first and primarily himself. Which his nature would clearly demosntrate, as each individual is bound to a single, mortal body, with a single, limited consciousness that is constatly at threat of bodily injury if said individual does not use his singular means by which to evade misfortune: his reason. Nothing to do with God whatsoever. Actually, it is probably the most straight forward and scientifically sound ethical epistemology to date, cutting out all mysticism, all hyperbole, and all emotional slop.
True enough. But that observation is not the same as saying that the moral values needed to be an ethical person can be derived from oneself first and then extended to others. The reference to Aristotle's comparison of man to a God was to show the problem of such a derivation, not invoke a divinity.
Oh, of course not. I haven't made that argument. In fact, I have affirmed numerous times that each individual's values are informed by cultural achievements and norms. Nothing wrong with saying that, it's inextricably true. What I'm saying is very simple: it is the individual that exercises ethics, as collectives can't do it, and I can't do it for you; which only leaves you and I independently, e.g. I also cannot take a math test for you, or eat your food for you. Which by the very fact of such implies that ethics begins with the individual, and extends outward. Values, on the other hand, emerge out of societies through time and are dissemnitated onto individuals, by which their particular ethical inclinations will be informed. And I'm serious about this, I've been studying philosophy both formally and informally for almost a decade now, I do not know a single philosopher among the greats that comes to a different conclusion. And most certainly not among the rationalist school.
Is what I'm saying making sense now, and do you accept my position as more closely approximating the truth than the idea that ethics is exclusively the domain of interpersonal relations? (as seems to be the common opinion in this thread)
Yeah, we are full of Mother Teresas here as everywhere else in societies. Ready to sacrifice their lives for the well affair of others.
Weird thing though that with all of them around us, world societies are still full of shit.
Quoting Garrett Travers
That is the case indeed.Anything else is pure hypocrisy. And hypocrisy is the Lord of our times.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Right? As if Mother Teresa was anything short of a deluded holy fool who ended up getting a lot of people killed in very miserable fashion. My thing is, where the hell is this coming from?
Quoting dimosthenis9
I mean, you get your stragglers in philosophy who try to straddle the fence, so to speak, like Kant, who can clearly articulate the hypothetical imperative, which is individualistic, while also presenting you with the ludicrous notion of the categorical imperative, which is entirely self-sacrificial. But, for the vast majority of philosophers, all of the great ones, the individual rational mind and its pursuit of well-being and flourishing is paramount. No question.
Hey, glad to meet a fellow traveller!
-G
Yes, behavior. Our behavior involves others, necessarily. Behavior in accordance with nature--the rational selection of things according to nature--according to the Stoics, includes the due consideration of the effect of conduct on other beings, which are a part of nature.
Quoting Ciceronianus
No, behavior covers both public, as well as private human action. Neither are necessarily contingent upon one another across all circumstances. To assume as much would be to confine yourself to binary thought.
Again, I'm not arguing that interpersonal ethics aren't to be considered. It is the people in this forum that are arguing that ethics is only the domain of interpersonal relations. I am arguing that both are encompassed by ethics, and that ethics is first and foremost an individual pursuit, as the Stoics, one school among many, also contend.
"Because there's a conflict in every human heart, between the rational and irrational, between good and evil. And good does not always triumph.
" Sometimes, the dark side overcomes what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature."
- Apocalypse Now
"You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment."
- Colonel Kurtz, 'Apocalypse Now'.
Part of the source of the disagreement you have been encountering may be that all the the terms involved:ethics, individual, private, public, self, have shifted their sense over the past two millennia of Western philosophy, and particularly in the modern era. For instance, for a Heidegger the ‘self’ is defined as an interaction with a world. So from that perspective, to say that ethics is an individual pursuit is to say that it is inherently about being with others, since that is what the ‘individual’ is. That may sound incoherent to you , but many models within the social as well as the biological sciences have also moved in the direction of seeing the self as a constantly shifting product of interaction with a social and physical environment. If your approach is closely related to Objectivism , you are relying ona model of the self which probably sees it as akin to a computer , which receives data from the world, processes and stores it in relation to desires and goals which are intrinsic to it , and then selects its behavioral options. In this approach, there is a clear cut distinction between self and non-self, private and public. It would seem obvious that such a being’s interests are separable from those of a community seen as some abstract whole. Even if you disagree with the approach, one can model the psychology of individuals according to a different schematics, that is less like a computer than it is an ecological system. You can see how this muddies the separation between private and public, individual and collective.
You’ve probably noticed how politics on the left is more and more embracing such ways of thinking.
Contrast:
One ought have the strength to do the deed out of compassion.
Quoting Joshs
Brilliant Joshs. Yes, you are correct. The seemingly opposing frameworks are, in fact, what is causing a disjunction in this discussion. Now consider this, that even if I use the Objectivist framework - which is to say the traditional, Rationalist school understanding of self that is I, the being apart from you with an independent conscious awareness - the understanding that individuals conglomerate and form communities within which standards, values, traditions, auspices, and norms are shared between and influence one another, does not in any way negate the original, Rationalist framework of I. You see, it's a false dichotomy to have only one, or only the other. The two are compatible. I am an independent rational mind capable of choosing my own courses of actions, and I am also suspended within a vast network of people all influencing eachother. That's the reason we're bumping into so many issues: because one side of this debate is thinking in binary terms, while I have been thinking holistic, Gestalt terms. You following me?
I wonder what Garrett's position is on compassion.
I put it in the "feelings" category. It's not an aspect of ethical reasoning. But, it can serve as a means to ignite moral reasoning, or motivate one to assess the misfortunes of another in the pursuit of a proper course of action. That's about all I have on that one.
My favorite psychologist is a fellow by the name of George Kelly, who many consider to be the founder of cognitive therapy. In his approach , all of our motives and interests are united via one fundamental desire , which is to make sense of our experience of a world which is flowingly changing from one minute to the next. Negative feelings like anxiety, anger and fear are the expressions of a failure to make sense of things , they the current or impending experience of chaos and confusion. Our rational aims involve anticipating events in as far reaching a way as possible by construing replicative patterns in the flux. This goal critically depends on other people, because they are the richest sources of new experience in our lives.
Loving relationships are about a bond of mutual sharing and creative inspiration, which is the ultimate form of anticipatory sense making. Thus, individual happiness is inherently other-centered and other-dependent. Rational choice is driven by motives which are inherently socially oriented in that personal satisfaction depends on construing harmonious patterns in experience. We love others for the same reason that we love ourselves , and do for others for the same reason that we do for ourselves. We are always ‘selfish’ for the sake of a knowing embrace of the world.
The key here is that we can only thrive with others to the extent we can empathize with them , by seeing the likenesses between them and us. So the key issue that ethics has to contend with isn’t the good of the individual vs the good of the group, but how to expand one’s circle of friends by discovering likenesses and commonalities where there appeared to be none.
Again, I understand that interpersonal harmony is a critical element to both ethics, as well as psychological well being, but you are resigning yourself to a singular view of ethics, predicated exclusively on the negative emotions attendant upon neglect, ostracism, incelibacy and all other manner bad things that happen to people to produce such emotion. These are not ethical deliberations you are presenting. I might draw your attention to another of Kelly's theories, that of Personal Construct Theory. He postulated that most people develop throughout the course of their lives a condition he called the naive scientist. The naive scientist is distinguished in his/her character by the limited lens through which he/she views the world as the result of built up negative emotions one accrues through the years. This limited lens of vision is clouded by desires to fulfill that which he/she missed out on in life, or was too neglected to be offered, as well as to bring those desires to other people. It is a unitary lens, or construct that he/she views the world through, and it is not sufficient to either face, or address the coming vicissitudes intrinsic to life. I would refrain from allowing such a limted assessment of ethics dominate your deliberations. There is a reason there are so many ethical theories, and none of them are solely predicated on others. It is a metter individuality vs others, it is a matter of individuality, as well as others in accordance with the particular circumstance at hand.
I'm guessing you aren't familiar with the illustrious Colonel Kurtz?
:razz:
It's a 20th century take on the classic by Joseph Conrad, who was Polish and had nothing to mea culpa for.
And it's a masterpiece.
This formulation is strikingly different from Rand's epistemology. She celebrates a selfishness of ranking what is worthwhile for oneself above other kinds of 'moral' evaluation. Her novels are fawning adorations of such qualities. Charity and compassion are depicted as subtractions from virtue, not simply elective values to be affirmed or not.
That's actually what we all do, cognitively, if given the freedom. Values themselves are not simply an individual phenomenon, but individuals can and do certainly choose their values based upon their inclinations, or application of reason, or even on emotional whim. Rand would have you do so exclusively on reason, but she doesn't make the claim that humans aren't susceptible to the values disseminated on given individuals by society.
Charity is looked upon as something you can choose to do if you wish, but it isn't a virtue. Virtues are core principles that lead to you fulfilling your own values. But, I would say that if you value seeing greater fortune enjoyed by others, then charity wouldn't be a detraction. However, I would probably ask the question why is that you enjoy seeing greater fortune out of others? Is it rational, or is it predicated on a sense of duty? Just as a point of clarification.
Also, I'm not a Randian. I just simply don't disregard her epistemology, as it is comprehensive and sophisticated.
Making ourselves feel good inherently benefits others because it innately optimizes us to be fit to care for another being; in turn keeping the human race in motion. The crux of how the human species has survived so long is through a series of good conduct.
Depressed people for instance, often harm love ones around them without intent unless they self-isolate, which is also self-defeatist to them and that is why we strive to mitigate the effects of depression.
We can take this a step farther, and I pose you to present a scenario that consists of intentionally bad conduct where the harm does not exceed the optimization.
Depressed people are less good? Not sure if I understand your argument. Pete Davidson certainly hasn't made the world better if that's your point? Lol
The benefits to the Ethical Self are intrinsic (re: thriving) in contrast to those of the Instrumental Self which are extrinsic (re: surviving); the latter is necessary, of course, but force-multiplied, so to speak, by the former is sufficient for "The Good Life" – yet the craven likes of Randian sophistry (e.g. rationalizing "cowgirl" neoliberalism) are predicated on an inversion of these priorities and/or Instrumental conduct at the expense of Ethical conduct (e.g. "rugged individualism" über alles).
Depression is only problematic to the extent it is an indifference or apathy to the wellness of self, thereby diminishing the importance of self-interest and self-care. Reduced or absent self-care usually leads to an indifference or numbness to self-harm. Self-harming always harms the loved ones to you; which I suspect is why people 'self-isolate' as a protective mechanism. Not wanting to inflict themselves on others.
I think most depression is more about the world than the self. Self worth would fall under esteem and confidence. I think plenty of artists can be deeply depressed and narcissistic.