On Morality

[cowhead]

my whole take on 'why people do bad things' has more to do with the biological hardwiring versus the sociological mold into which we are 'forced'...

case in point (and where i have done some of my worst work) is along the sexual lines, you are hardwired to reproduce.. the desire is at the core of the being (like food... like shelter.. it's there) however in society at large (atleast around here) sex is considered 'unclean' or 'unholy' etc etc. (which in my opinion there is little that is further from the 'truth'..)

I don't think it has to do with the definition of 'evil' persay.. but why do you do something that you KNOW is wrong?

so I'm coping out with the biology agruement )

[Catwoman]

Originally Posted by cowhead

my whole take on 'why people do bad things' has more to do with the biological hardwiring versus the sociological mold into which we are 'forced'...

Thank you!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Cowhead, if I was on the jury, with that defense, your client would burn.
Oh BTW, sex is only dirty/unholy, if you're doing it right.

Originally Posted by cowhead

my whole take on 'why people do bad things' has more to do with the biological hardwiring versus the sociological mold into which we are 'forced'...

case in point (and where i have done some of my worst work) is along the sexual lines, you are hardwired to reproduce.. the desire is at the core of the being (like food... like shelter.. it's there) however in society at large (atleast around here) sex is considered 'unclean' or 'unholy' etc etc. (which in my opinion there is little that is further from the 'truth'..)

I don't think it has to do with the definition of 'evil' persay.. but why do you do something that you KNOW is wrong?

so I'm coping out with the biology agruement )

In my opinion, sex between two consulting adults who have been honest with one another - like no lies about "love" if that emotion is not felt, no lies about an unsuspecting S.O. hidden away somewhere, etc. - has absolutely nothing wrong with it. Its only when the act of sex somehow brings harm to oneself or the other partner or a third, unsuspecting party like a betrayed spouse or an unwanted child - THEN it becomes wrong.

[Cyber Wolf]

I see at least two levels that right/wrong can stand on.

First, there's societal perception of right/wrong. A society functions because if guidelines and rules that it imposes on itself. Bear in mind, these can be ANY rule or guideline. Second, there's the individual perception of right/wrong. A personal morality functions because if the guidelines and rules one imposes on oneself. Again, these can be ANY rule or guideline.

This being the case, the whole what is good/what is bad issue becomes largely subjective. And in THAT case, the reason why good people do bad things is because that's how its perceived by someone looking on, based on his/her morals which are influenced by (not necessarily molded after) the person's society's morals.

Let's say Mr. Generic here is a 'good' person; he's a fine philanthropist, attends church regulary and often, loves his mother, dotes on his wife and kids, is a favorite among his coworkers, etc... What if Mr. Generic does 63 in 55 mph highway zone? Is this a bad thing? Yes, because it's clearly stated the legal speed limit is 55 and he's going faster than that, a lawbreaker. Breaking the law is 'bad'. No, because the traffic is moving at 60-65 and he isn't posing a hazard by blocking a lane on the highway. Helping to reduce congestion on the highway is 'good' (can I get an AMEN, No. VA residents!). It's all how you (or the person next to you) look at it.

[Catwoman]

Fine. :p

[Beestie]

Originally posted by Catwoman

I felt it necessary to establish a definition of 'good' and 'bad' before I proceeded with an answer.

Why? SM asked why people do things that they think are bad not that you or I think are bad. No definition is necessary.

I think people go against their own code for at least two reasons: expediency and rationalization.

Its easier to trespass through the neighbor's yard (despite the fact that she asked you not to and you agreed) because its raining, its cold, you are in a hurry to get home and help your ailing mother and the neighbor is out of town and won't know the difference.

You steal a pen from the office supply cabinet with the advance justification that your raise was smaller "than you deserved."

People violate their own code when they take a superior position to the code - they temporarily (or permanently) re-write the code to assimilate the circumstance at hand.

I think there is a third that I'm having a hard time articulating but it goes something like someone giving themselves a "pass" - they knowingly violate the code and decide that a "just this once" now and again is ok and no further deliberation before or after occurs. Sort of an advance acknowledgement that we know we aren't going to finish our life with a perfect scorecard so, since I've been good lately, a minor transgression every so often is to be expected and is ok.

[smoothmoniker]

what the hell time in the morning do you people get up?

Steve, Cat, here's the dichotomy that I'm trying to parse. It's an internal/external question. Without trying to dance among the angels on the question of universals, there seem to be generally normative moral principles that most people hold internally - I shouldn't kill, I shouldn't sleep with my brother's wife then kill her, I shouldn't stand on the street corner and openly mock the homeless, then kill them. You know, the basics.

My question is this. Since every functional moral code is an internal "ought", is it an internal impulse or an external pressure that causes them to step outside that sense of “ought”?

The “good person” handle is just shorthand for somebody whose normal intent is to adhere to that internal moral sense.

-sm

[Catwoman]

Originally posted by smoothmoniker
My question is this. Since every functional moral code is an internal "ought", is it an internal impulse or an external pressure that causes them to step outside that sense of “ought”?

The “good person” handle is just shorthand for somebody whose normal intent is to adhere to that internal moral sense.
-sm

The very nature of 'ought' is not instinctual or predisposed. It is taught, dictated. If you believe every moral code is based on 'ought' rather than instinct, then 'stepping outside' the 'ought' is actually regressing to instinctual behaviour. So the answer to your question would be 'good' people (and I take note of your meaning) are just the same as any other person but who have better control over their instinct. When this control slips, they are considered 'bad', deviant, or insane.

I'll 'stop' using inverted 'commas' now.



edited to say I'm never up early but I do live in England which would explain the time difference...

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by Catwoman


The very nature of 'ought' is not instinctual or predisposed.

He used the word internal, not instinctual.

I'm guessing that he is fishing for why we think people do things that are against what we know, as a person not an animal, are wrong.

[glatt]

The answer is laziness.

At least, that's the answer for me. It's usually easier to do something bad than to do the right thing. The laziness can be a physical laziness, or it can be a mental or emotional laziness too.

On some level, I want to do bad things. I recognize that they are bad things. Sometimes, my willpower is greater than my urge to do a bad thing, and sometimes the urge is greater.

I have no desire to commit murder. In addition, the risks of doing so are very high. So the willpower needed to counter comitting murder doesn't have to be very great to keep me from killing someone.

I do like to surf the web. Doing so at work is really stealing from my employer. I think it's wrong. I do it anyway. I do it because my desire to do it is greater than my willpower to stop. Basically, I'm too lazy to put forth the effort to stop myself. If my boss happened to say that I have a new project that I had to finish in an hour, I would suddenly be motivated to find the willpower to stop.

[xoxoxoBruce]

A person or people can act in accordance with the principles of evil (amorally, malevolently) but to assert that they are evil, or that evil has 'taken hold of them' is pure fantasy.

That's because you've never met my ex.:p

[Catwoman]

Originally posted by Troubleshooter


He used the word internal, not instinctual.

I'm guessing that he is fishing for why we think people do things that are against what we know, as a person not an animal, are wrong.

...

Right.

1. People are animals.

2. 'What we know' aka socialisation often conflicts with our instinct.

3. 'Badness' occurs when we reject a rule (esp. a moral rule).

4. We reject this rule because there is a conflict between the rule and our instinct.

5. Instinct is internal, as is our set of 'should's', or moral values. The entire conflict happens internally, and is manifested externally in 'good' behaviour when the two align, and 'bad' behaviour when they do not.

6. I use the internet at work. I shouldn't, because my environment dictates that this is wrong. Internally, I do not consider it to be wrong. My instinct does not align with my 'ought to'. My behaviour is bad. I know it is bad. I am bad because I have allowed my instinct to dictate my actions.

7. People allow their instinct to dominate action when the desire outweighs potential social 'punishment'.

8. Because the ratio of desire:socialisation is different for everyone we each commit different levels of 'crime'.

9. Put simply,

Instinct - Socialisation = Crime

10. Good people are able to rationalise the crime because although they know it is 'bad' in terms of their environment, they do not feel internally that it is wrong.

In that sense, good people never do bad things.

[ladysycamore]

To put a small twist on the original question:

"Why do bad things happen to good people"?

[jinx]

Because reality does not discriminate.