ayase said:
So which is it, selfish or a facade to treat others with respect and courtesy because you like to be treated in the same manner? You can't know whether people deserve your respect and courtesy or not until you get to know them - So why presume the worst of them initially?
I have a pretty dismal view of humanity myself, but I'm convinced there are exceptions to the rule. If you hold a negative view of every single person before you've even go to know them you're going to spend your lives alone and in constant conflict with everyone around you.
I operate on different presumptions, but the answer I usually reach is the same. I do not presume the worst of people. Because other people have instincts as well, they have an urge to feel "right". They will act in accordance with their morality, however artificial that may be. I do the same, only I do not attribute any great importance to said "morality" and I simply call it instinct. The only difference is that I don't try to justify my conduct through morals, but through instinct and utilitarian thinking.
CitizenGeek said:
Derfel said:
There are no 'good, decent things'. The concept is man-made and therefore highly artificial.
So you don't believe there is any such thing as morality, or moral people? I think you're taking the concept of moral skepticism a little too far. I can accept arguments that morality is not intrinsic to humankind, and is rather conditioned by society but I find it almost impossible to even consider that there is no such thing as selflessness and morality. There are many instances of people giving up their lives for the benefit of others, and there is no way to spin that as being selfish which leads me to believe morality is a very real thing, not just a mask for selfishness.
I do believe in a weak concept: morality in the subjective sense. Objective morality (normative ethics), however, is a completely different matter. It would be extremely conceited to claim that we have the authority to declare normative morals that shall bind everyone. Religious persons often argue with scripture, but let us admit, those arguments are extremely weak and unless you accept the numerous presumptions (God exists, God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, etc.), they must fall.
Clearly, society on a grand scale does not accept these presumptions as a body, so you cannot derive your morality from religion (of course, as a person you can, but no one is, by law, obliged to follow that). In addition, many people have views pertaining normative morality, but they often conflict. There is huge inconsistency, and frankly, that doesn't really make normative morality very persuasive. We are human beings, far from unfailing and omniscient and in the absence of any external source, we can only use our own imagination to create morality. That morality will be, unavoidably, arbitrary. No matter what you decide, no matter what your definition of right and wrong may be, it will be arbitrary.
For the reason outlined above, I chose to side with utilitarian thinking and behaviourism. My views as to what shall happen do not fundamentally differ from yours or from most other healthy-minded people. The difference is the reasoning behind. People should be advised and encouraged to carry out acts that have a positive effect on society, of course, helping the elderly is just one of them, but whenever you help someone, you do it for your own gratification. If you genuinely felt bad after helping someone (in the sense of feeling something akin to guilt), despite understanding that what you did was a positive act, you would probably not repeat it in the future.
Yes, people die for others. Many animals die for their offspring, do we attribute to these animals any morality? Not really. It is their instinctive reaction. In our case, it is the same: instinct. It might seem more complicated, but it really is not. We do in fact have a few more thought processes, but all those processes serve one purpose, to provide our instincts with the most accurate data possible. We cannot escape from our instincts yet, we can suppress them, but not escape yet.
When you do something you consider morally correct, you feel some sort of satisfaction. If you felt no such satisfaction (whilst thinking about the act you wish to carry out, doing it and afterwards once you have perpetrated the act), you would simply not carry out such acts. This very feeling that drives people to carry out acts perceived as morally correct is caused by our instincts. Behaviourism.
