The basis of morality - Part Two: Why do people do good things?
Part One of this mini-Morality series dealt with why people DON'T do BAD things. This part deals why people DO do GOOD things.
We've all heard of the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." This is the Christian version of a basis of morality which is espoused by many other religions and philosophies. (Part One of this series could have been expressed as a new, Twisted Rule: "Do NOT do unto others as you WOULD NOT have them do unto you.") The spirit of the Golden Rule can be summed up thusly: "Act, but with empathy." The long version is: "Put yourself in the other person's shoes. Would you want to be the recipient of what you're dishing out? (or fail to receive what you are NOT dishing out?)"
The Golden Rule, however, could be self-serving. You do good, expecting some "payback". But if others could NOT "do (good) unto you", would you "do (good) unto them"? I will call this the Scorekeeper Rule, and will not go any further with it here. (There are also the two interpretations of the Golden Rule which are not in its true spirit: "Do nothing unto others, because you want to be left alone," and: "Be mean unto others because you are a masochist and want to be abused." I will not go any further with these mis-applications of the Golden Rule here.)
[Aside: There is also the Wiccan Rede: "An it harm no one, do what thou wilt." Using 21st Century American English, the Wiccan Rede is: "Do whatever you want to, as long as it doesn't harm anybody." This philosophy is also sometimes cited as another form of the Golden Rule, but it is not. The Golden Rule refers to human interaction, whereas the Wiccan Rede refers to personal liberties, and limits those liberties to things which don't harm anybody. I'm not sure if the Rede prohibits you from harming yourself...]
As in Part One, let's look at what motivates the atheist and the theist - this time to do good things. Can I make the argument that the atheist will do good because either (a) doing good is an integral part of his being endowed by evolution, or (b) failure to do good will result in permanent lockup? Similarly, is it logical that the theist will do good either because (a) doing good is an integral part of his being endowed by God, or (b) failure to do good will result in being sent to Hell to burn for all eternity?
The two (b) options for atheist and theist seem like poor motivation to do good. Why would society lock someone up for not doing good? Why would God condemn someone to an eternity of torment for failing to be nice? Option (a) seems rather weak, too. "Something just motivates me to be nice. I guess it's just part of my nature." It's probably just me and my attitude, but it seems like 'being non-mean' is more natural (or something more likely mandated by God) than 'being good'. What I'm trying to say is: it takes more effort TO DO good things than NOT TO DO bad things.
I recently spoke to a couple of people about this "basis of morality" thing and mentioned that "fear of punishment" seemed like a major reason to be good. But they both came back with, "It makes me feel good to make someone else feel good." Then I realized that there had to be two Parts to this mini-series. I was not distinguishing between "not doing bad" and "doing good". This feels strangely like a therapy session, where I've uncovered a suppressed way of acting - a way of acting which I thought was unnecessary. "People should appreciate it when I don't do bad things, right?" asks the left brain of RussKC. "That's not enough," replies RussKC's right brain, "because you cheat yourself of the satisfaction of crossing the boundary and doing actual good. Absence of 'bad' is not by default presence of 'good'." "But it takes an effort to 'act morally', that is, to not do bad things, right?" the confused left brain wants to know. "Wrong," asserts the right brain, "Most people consider it no effort at all to 'act morally', or to not do bad things, if that's how you want to define 'moral'." It seems left-brain RussKC wrote Part One of this series.
So who wins in this do-gooding contest? Who has more motivation to do good: the atheist or the theist? In this case the theist has more motivation, in my opinion. The atheist gains little in doing good, because it is purely a self-serving way of getting satisfaction in return. There is no really long-term payoff, because reality ends for an atheist at death. For the theist, on the other hand, being good can have self-serving results which last a lifetime, and on into an eternity in the afterlife. The theist can reap the results of doing good ... forever.
We've all heard of the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." This is the Christian version of a basis of morality which is espoused by many other religions and philosophies. (Part One of this series could have been expressed as a new, Twisted Rule: "Do NOT do unto others as you WOULD NOT have them do unto you.") The spirit of the Golden Rule can be summed up thusly: "Act, but with empathy." The long version is: "Put yourself in the other person's shoes. Would you want to be the recipient of what you're dishing out? (or fail to receive what you are NOT dishing out?)"
The Golden Rule, however, could be self-serving. You do good, expecting some "payback". But if others could NOT "do (good) unto you", would you "do (good) unto them"? I will call this the Scorekeeper Rule, and will not go any further with it here. (There are also the two interpretations of the Golden Rule which are not in its true spirit: "Do nothing unto others, because you want to be left alone," and: "Be mean unto others because you are a masochist and want to be abused." I will not go any further with these mis-applications of the Golden Rule here.)
[Aside: There is also the Wiccan Rede: "An it harm no one, do what thou wilt." Using 21st Century American English, the Wiccan Rede is: "Do whatever you want to, as long as it doesn't harm anybody." This philosophy is also sometimes cited as another form of the Golden Rule, but it is not. The Golden Rule refers to human interaction, whereas the Wiccan Rede refers to personal liberties, and limits those liberties to things which don't harm anybody. I'm not sure if the Rede prohibits you from harming yourself...]
As in Part One, let's look at what motivates the atheist and the theist - this time to do good things. Can I make the argument that the atheist will do good because either (a) doing good is an integral part of his being endowed by evolution, or (b) failure to do good will result in permanent lockup? Similarly, is it logical that the theist will do good either because (a) doing good is an integral part of his being endowed by God, or (b) failure to do good will result in being sent to Hell to burn for all eternity?
The two (b) options for atheist and theist seem like poor motivation to do good. Why would society lock someone up for not doing good? Why would God condemn someone to an eternity of torment for failing to be nice? Option (a) seems rather weak, too. "Something just motivates me to be nice. I guess it's just part of my nature." It's probably just me and my attitude, but it seems like 'being non-mean' is more natural (or something more likely mandated by God) than 'being good'. What I'm trying to say is: it takes more effort TO DO good things than NOT TO DO bad things.
I recently spoke to a couple of people about this "basis of morality" thing and mentioned that "fear of punishment" seemed like a major reason to be good. But they both came back with, "It makes me feel good to make someone else feel good." Then I realized that there had to be two Parts to this mini-series. I was not distinguishing between "not doing bad" and "doing good". This feels strangely like a therapy session, where I've uncovered a suppressed way of acting - a way of acting which I thought was unnecessary. "People should appreciate it when I don't do bad things, right?" asks the left brain of RussKC. "That's not enough," replies RussKC's right brain, "because you cheat yourself of the satisfaction of crossing the boundary and doing actual good. Absence of 'bad' is not by default presence of 'good'." "But it takes an effort to 'act morally', that is, to not do bad things, right?" the confused left brain wants to know. "Wrong," asserts the right brain, "Most people consider it no effort at all to 'act morally', or to not do bad things, if that's how you want to define 'moral'." It seems left-brain RussKC wrote Part One of this series.
So who wins in this do-gooding contest? Who has more motivation to do good: the atheist or the theist? In this case the theist has more motivation, in my opinion. The atheist gains little in doing good, because it is purely a self-serving way of getting satisfaction in return. There is no really long-term payoff, because reality ends for an atheist at death. For the theist, on the other hand, being good can have self-serving results which last a lifetime, and on into an eternity in the afterlife. The theist can reap the results of doing good ... forever.
posted by batguano at 8:55 PM
<< Home