Question for DS and Others Regarding Morals/Ethics

[BluffTHIS!]

David, you have stated in a recent post that all morals are axioms. Also, in PG&L in the essay on crime and punishment, you also state that regarding the different types of people who do or do not violate the law for various reasons, the most reprehensible are those who walk around without committing heinous acts solely because of the possibility of being caught and punished. So my question to you is:

-Given that you have no religious practice, then if you are guaranteed that you will not be caught and punished, and in fact never be found out so that the least result of your reputation suffering could not happen either, then what moral/ethical code do you possess that would urge you to not to commit murder, rape or theft, and what is the source of that moral/ethical code?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
David, you have stated in a recent post that all morals are axioms. Also, in PG&L in the essay on crime and punishment, you also state that regarding the different types of people who do or do not violate the law for various reasons, the most reprehensible are those who walk around without committing heinous acts solely because of the possibility of being caught and punished. So my question to you is:

-Given that you have no religious practice, then if you are guaranteed that you will not be caught and punished, and in fact never be found out so that the least result of your reputation suffering could not happen either, then what moral/ethical code do you possess that would urge you to not to commit murder, rape or theft, and what is the source of that moral/ethical code?

[/ QUOTE ]

Notready and I have been having some good discussion on this exact topic in David's thread. I suggest you refer to those posts for a more detailed answer, but here is a sample of our discussion:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Basically, i'm confused as to why you conclude that there must be an absolute right or wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying there must be, I'm trying to indicate the consequences if there isn't. If there's no ultimate law, and especially if there's no ultimate Lawgiver, then there's really no intelligible law at all. The prohibition to murder is of no more logical significance than the speed limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes this is sort of true. But why can't people create and enforce laws based on personal best interests and survival. This would be intelligible and practical. That is basically how our world works today. For example, why haven't I commited murder even though I don't believe i will be morally punished if do? The asnwer is that I simply don't believe its in my best interest to do so. I also believe its in my best interest to help others by protecting against people who believe that murder is in their best interest. Further, laws are derived from basic philosophical principles that do not require an ultimate law giver or absolute measure. Laws only require foundational, consistent principles. The principles i've outline are survival and individual rights. For example, we create laws that respects the rights of individuals to do as they wish as long as they don't infringe on the rights of another. This is logically derived principle used as a tool for surival created by people to look out for their individual interests. What is wrong with this model?

[/ QUOTE ]

[BluffTHIS!]

I realize there are posts concerning this matter in that thread, but like David has pointed out, side issues emerge which are better addressed in their own threads.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
I realize there are posts concerning this matter in that thread, but like David has pointed out, side issues emerge which are better addressed in their own threads.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with you starting this thread and just wanted to add my contribution, which happened to be already posted in another thread. I really enjoy these topics and like that you're making a sperate discussion for this issue and i look forward to reading the other replies.

[David Sklansky]

The reason I don't do bad things to people even if I could gain slightly from it, is because it makes me feel bad to see others suffer. Same reason as most people. They don't need laws, Kant or Jesus to do the "right" thing. And even those who don't have empathy toward others are better off being nice, not because of Jesus, but rather because of Axelrod.

[Girchuck]

From practical point of view, this hypothetical situation is extremely unlikely. So unlikely, that one could never be certain when such situation arises. On the other hand, empathy with other human beings offers several significant advantages in daily life. A side effect of empathy is that one feels bad about harming others. Therefore, the gain from harming others has to be big enough and the risks small enough to outweigh the bad feelings. As the saying goes, decent people do not betray their friends for small rewards.

[evil_twin]

[ QUOTE ]
what moral/ethical code do you possess that would urge you to not to commit murder, rape or theft, and what is the source of that moral/ethical code?

[/ QUOTE ]

Empathy.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I don't do bad things to people even if I could gain slightly from it, is because it makes me feel bad to see others suffer. Same reason as most people. They don't need laws, Kant or Jesus to do the "right" thing. And even those who don't have empathy toward others are better off being nice, not because of Jesus, but rather because of Axelrod.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically how you should or should not treat others is soley dependent upon both whether you gain or not and how it makes you feel? If this is the case then, regarding those persons I quoted you mentioning in that essay who do not commit crimes soley because of the risk of being caught and punished, why should they in fact be punished for committing crimes just because they don't feel the same empathy you do? Should they be punished for lacking a feeling?

[Jake (The Snake)]

They need to be punished so society can function.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reason I don't do bad things to people even if I could gain slightly from it, is because it makes me feel bad to see others suffer. Same reason as most people. They don't need laws, Kant or Jesus to do the "right" thing. And even those who don't have empathy toward others are better off being nice, not because of Jesus, but rather because of Axelrod.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically how you should or should not treat others is soley dependent upon both whether you gain or not and how it makes you feel? If this is the case then, regarding those persons I quoted you mentioning in that essay who do not commit crimes soley because of the risk of being caught and punished, why should they in fact be punished for committing crimes just because they don't feel the same empathy you do? Should they be punished for lacking a feeling?

[/ QUOTE ]

they should theoritically be rehabilitated if possible. we have to prevent people from infringing on other people's rights, either through punishment or rehabilitation. Unfortunately, the ideal justice doesn't exist.