Moderately Interesting Ethical Discussion

So I've been thinking.....


The feminism thread and drunk rape thread was predominately fueled by ethical conflict.

While contemplating this I found my self asking "Why rationally should I be ethical?"


Every reason I could come up with had something to do with the consequences stemming from the way others perceive you and your feelings toward others.

This implies that the reason to be perceived by others as moral is rational self interest and that morality itself is about positive consequences for you. (Such as by not stealing you gain the trust of others and can form a society that produces more goods than you alone)

Yet egoism is a often reviled philosophy, this is understandable. 

It would seem that if rational self interest if the reason to be moral then there is no reason not to be immoral by the standards of others if these moral standards are no longer beneficial to you.


In other words if If I am imprisoned for a murder I did not commit I am morally obligated to kill my guards so I can escape. (So long as the pain I feel from taking a human's life doesn't outweigh my pleasure from my freedom)


This obviously has disturbing implications.


So, thoughts?

Frans de Waal discusses this in his book "Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved".

You will find that much of ethics is founded in the competition amongst groups. Helping your group (through ethical behavior) increases its chance for survival and thereby also yours.

rebelsquirrell said:

While contemplating this I found my self asking "Why rationally should I be ethical?"

Click to expand...

To prevent being shunned, ostracized or killed for the liability you are. Next question.

I should be ethical in order to help create the world as I would see it. It does not matter if I will benefit from it.

rebelsquirrell said:

In other words if If I am imprisoned for a murder I did not commit I am morally obligated to kill my guards so I can escape. (So long as the pain I feel from taking a human's life doesn't outweigh my pleasure from my freedom)

This obviously has disturbing implications.

So, thoughts?

Click to expand...

This makes about as much sense as most of ancimelons posts.

I'm with Kevlar here, that's pretty ridiculous 

Besides, when you kill the guards you are then a murderer making you "morally obligated" to sit in jail.

Splintert said:

I'm with Kevlar here, that's pretty ridiculous 

Besides, when you kill the guards you are then a murderer making you "morally obligated" to sit in jail.

Click to expand...

The reason being?

For the greater good?

For arbitrary deontological rules?

God told me not to?

Moral intuitionism?

I won't be able to live with myself? (Self interested reason)

I don't want a murderer in society? (Self interested reason)

other?





These two hit the nail on the head

FrisianDude said:

rebelsquirrell said:

While contemplating this I found my self asking "Why rationally should I be ethical?"

Click to expand...

To prevent being shunned, ostracized or killed for the liability you are. Next question.

Click to expand...

Duh said:

Helping your group (through ethical behavior) increases its chance for survival and thereby also yours.

Click to expand...

Both of these are self interested.

I cannot foresee a reason to be ethical that does not hinge directly  on some sort of personal satisfaction.

Mage246 said:

I should be ethical in order to help create the world as I would see it. It does not matter if I will benefit from it.

Click to expand...

By virtue of making a world you see fit you will benefit from this world, perhaps not much but there can exist no pure and absolute altruistic action. At minimal you will be rewarded with a warm fuzzy feeling.

Albeit it would be irrational for you to create this world unless the mental anguish and guilt you experience from not creating the world would outweigh the pain endured in your world.




Enlightened self interest shows us that working with others tends to lead to better outcomes for the self. Remove the benefit from working with others and this leaves you with no rational reason to obey any moral framework other than your own. 

rebelsquirrell said:

Mage246 said:

I should be ethical in order to help create the world as I would see it. It does not matter if I will benefit from it.

Click to expand...

By virtue of making a world you see fit you will benefit from this world, perhaps not much but there can exist no pure and absolute altruistic action. At minimal you will be rewarded with a warm fuzzy feeling.

Albeit it would be irrational for you to create this world unless the mental anguish and guilt you experience from not creating the world would outweigh the pain endured in your world.




Enlightened self interest shows us that working with others tends to lead to better outcomes for the self. Remove the benefit from working with others and this leaves you with no rational reason to obey any moral framework other than your own.

Click to expand...

This is all BS and doesn't logically follow. It's just assumptions based on your worldview.

Also, the only rational reason to obey any other moral framework than your own is out of fear of punishment for not doing so. Rational =/= ethical. If your own moral framework is inferior, you should change it, then continue to follow it. If it is superior, you should follow it even if it results in punishment. Although it is not necessarily unethical to choose self-preservation, as a superior ethical framework that does not survive is pointless.

Mage246 said:

rebelsquirrell said:

Mage246 said:

I should be ethical in order to help create the world as I would see it. It does not matter if I will benefit from it.

Click to expand...

By virtue of making a world you see fit you will benefit from this world, perhaps not much but there can exist no pure and absolute altruistic action. At minimal you will be rewarded with a warm fuzzy feeling.

Albeit it would be irrational for you to create this world unless the mental anguish and guilt you experience from not creating the world would outweigh the pain endured in your world.




Enlightened self interest shows us that working with others tends to lead to better outcomes for the self. Remove the benefit from working with others and this leaves you with no rational reason to obey any moral framework other than your own.

Click to expand...

This is all BS and doesn't logically follow. It's just assumptions based on your worldview.

Click to expand...

Don't attempt to show this invalid or anything.

You didn't show anything. You just said "no, it has to be this way".

Mage246 said:

You didn't show anything. You just said "no, it has to be this way".

Click to expand...

Altruism the "The belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others." in its pure form would by definition have to have no reward.

I dare you to conceive of any action deemed altruistic that does not involve the reward of the feeling of helping others. Those who altruistically help people obviously feel compelled to help.

I also dare you to give me a rational reason to care about being ethical that doesn't have some sort of self interest in mind.


Then you can show me your square circle and rectangular triangle.

Self-interest is things that serve the self. That provide an actual, objective benefit. It should not be considered to include things that do not serve the self, that in fact may harm the self. It should not include benefits that are not true benefits, that in fact have no objective benefit. You are simply using semantics to justify your characterization of altruism as contradictory.

If I am in a blizzard and I give my coat away to a child of a stranger, is this not selfless and disinterested? Your facile interpretation of the words claims that simply the satisfaction of having lived up to my own worldview is a benefit. But this benefit is entirely outweighed by the fact that I will now suffer from the cold. That I could in fact die from it. It is objectively not in my self-interest to give away my coat, and therefore this is an example of altruism. Practical self-interest is the only relevant measure of self-interest. What will actually help me is in my self-interest. Unless I am suffering from depression or a similar lack of happiness, or the thing I do costs me nothing I need and yet still increases my happiness, an increase in my happiness is not necessarily in my self-interest.

Continue drawing your triangles with four sides, if it pleases you. Gasp, I guess that means it must be in your self-interest! 

Altruism isn't something which very easily fits into pure rationality. Scientifically, one can ascribe it to giving to the community out of self-interest in order to receive in turn, but that explanation doesn't really do it justice.

Mage246 said:

Self-interest is things that serve the self. That provide an actual, objective benefit. It should not be considered to include things that do not serve the self, that in fact may harm the self. It should not include benefits that are not true benefits, that in fact have no objective benefit. You are simply using semantics to justify your characterization of altruism as contradictory.

If I am in a blizzard and I give my coat away to a child of a stranger, is this not selfless and disinterested? Your facile interpretation of the words claims that simply the satisfaction of having lived up to my own worldview is a benefit. But this benefit is entirely outweighed by the fact that I will now suffer from the cold. That I could in fact die from it. It is objectively not in my self-interest to give away my coat, and therefore this is an example of altruism. Practical self-interest is the only relevant measure of self-interest. What will actually help me is in my self-interest.

Click to expand...

I did not deny altruism exists, rather I denied pure altruism exists.


A warm fuzzy feeling serves the self, feelings constitute part of well being. You admitted living up to your world view was indeed a benefit, and by having harms outweigh the pleasures that it was indeed altruism,  however it was not pure altruism. 



I merely maintain altruism to be irrational unless the benefits to you out way the costs to you. (aka not altruism)

I may part with my coat to the stranger, but this has done me little service.

However if I part with my coat to save my wife who I would not wish to live without it would not be altruistic.

My death is nowhere near as bad as life without the Mrs.

Perhaps I could live without her, yet when she looks me in the eyes while holding me for warmth I realize that I couldn't live with myself if I didn't give her the coat and let her suffer. This is not a altruistic action, as it is rational.

Suppose I can both live without her and will not feel ant empathy and sympathy for her and did not offer my coat.

This would make me a ****, a rational ****, but still a ****.

The hypothetical me who did not give up the coat is a monster from my real life perspective. However evilsquirell from his own perspective did the rational and therefore moral thing.

A single self alone is the sole arbitrator of what is moral for him to do, this will necessarily be a rational outcome. When actions fail to be rational, say I punch a cop in the face without weighing the consequences, then they are unethical.

Prisoner's Dilemma breaks the whole rationality = ethical argument.

Splintert said:

Prisoner's Dilemma breaks the whole rationality = ethical argument.

Click to expand...

"Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of speaking to or exchanging messages with the other. The police admit they don't have enough evidence to convict the pair on the principal charge. They plan to sentence both to a year in prison on a lesser charge. Simultaneously, the police offer each prisoner a Faustian bargain. If he testifies against his partner, he will go free while the partner will get three years in prison on the main charge. Oh, yes, there is a catch ... If both prisoners testify against each other, both will be sentenced to two years in jail."

It seems rational that one prisoner should turn on the other, guaranteeing that you do not serve the maximum sentence.

That being said uncertainty would not break rationality.

All actions have a degree of uncertainty.

I could get hurt while at work, was it irrational of me to go to work today if I got hurt?

Sure uncertainty would break rationality, rationality is based on the premise of having a degree of certainty of an action and its consequences. In this case, it would seem rational on the surface if one were to accuse the other prisoner to get out free, but the inherent rationality of this is also questioned by the fact that if you both testify against each other you both serve a sentence. So then it comes down to a question of ethics and morality, as Splintert said.

Vermillion_Hawk said:

Sure uncertainty would break rationality, rationality is based on the premise of having a degree of certainty of an action and its consequences. In this case, it would seem rational on the surface if one were to accuse the other prisoner to get out free, but the inherent rationality of this is also questioned by the fact that if you both testify against each other you both serve a sentence. So then it comes down to a question of ethics and morality, as Splintert said.

Click to expand...

If you both testify one of two things is going to happen

A: You go free

B: You dodge the max sentence.


That's a degree of certainty of an action.

You're not getting the point of the exercise.

Vermillion_Hawk said:

You're not getting the point of the exercise.

Click to expand...

So tell me.

I see no reason to not avoid the max sentence.