Why? Why should I give any consideration to others unless I see in it some benefit for me?
I see two ways of interpreting this question. One is “what is there that will force me to give any one consideration.” The other is “What would motivate me to consider others.” For the first interpretation of the question the answer is that there is nothing forcing you to consider others. My previous post was all about motivation that comes from holding value in others.
For that matter, until you can explain why Spock is not right in saying that a person should behave however he sees fit I see no reason to believe that “moral behavior” is a meaningful term.
I’ve not seen what Spock wrote and don’t know that it is wrong or right. I’ll let Spock defend his own words.
I would agree with you if you were talking about sustainable social behavior but not when you talk about moral behavior. If I am part of the in-group, why should I care about an out-groupie? If
If “should” here is asking what is there forcing you to do so once again the answer is that there is nothing forcing you. If you are asking what would motivate you to do so I’ve got an answer that extends from an example I mentioned in the previous post that I made.
Focusing on the United States history over the past hundred years there were times when the same moral considerations were not given to the out groups. In-group/out-group lines were drawn on race, gender, and religion. What would motivate some one in the group with more power to care about those in his out-group? Peaceful demonstrations can bring attention to the suffering imposed on a people for unequal treatment. Once that suffering is visible and in in the minds of some then their sense of empathy may cause their treatment of the people to change. This won’t happen to every one. Some have been shaped by an environment in which an unequal view of the out group has been nurtured.
You can’t force some one to care. Your first question is relevant here. You asked “Why should I give any consideration to others unless I see in it some benefit for me?” Changes in whether individuals in a society make decisions is impacted when penalties are attached to behaviours that are seen as bad. Within the USA’s history I can bring up a number of different negative reinforcers that were used to address the unequal treatment of people of different ethnicities , genders, and religions, and there is continuing effort to change how people think of homosexuals. Activities and punishments that have made it to ones advantage to consider others has included peaceful and violent protest, boycotts, monetary penalties, legal action, hate crime laws, and more. These things do not force some one to have genuine concern for some one else, but rely on some one having concern for the self (or one’s group).
You keep talking about moral behavior but you cannot define it or explain why I should adopt your definition.
If “should” here is asking about obligation then as mentioned above there is nothing obligating you to use the definition that I do. You can use your own to. Though if your usage of the word is radically different than that of others there may be obstacles encountered in communication. If should is talking about motivation then my reply is that I am not motivated to try to motivate you to adopting the definition that I use. To avoid ambiguities I will make known how I use it.
Demonstrate that morality exists before you attempt to say what constitutes moral behavior.
Within my arguments the usage of “moral” has been limited to being an adjective, not a noun. As an adjective in this context “moral” means concerned with judgement of goodness or badness in action. Since the original question is on “being good” I’ve concentrated on good. Note that there’s no part of that which is dependent on the definition of “morality.” Yes, “morality” is a related word but not a word I invoked.
Sociopaths may be antisocial but that doesn’t make their behavior immoral. I understand why their behavior is disapproved of - because it is dysfunctional - but what makes it immoral?
I’m assuming here you are asking me to evaluate a sociopath that has performed an action knowing it would be harmful or deadly to some one else (if the sociopath is minding his or her own business in general I’m not inclined to see their behaviour with evaluating for goodness or badness). No, it doesn’t make the behaviour
immoral. So I haven’t called it immoral. It might be
amoral (not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments) since the person thought to be a sociopath may not have a sense of empathy or remorse that can be a significant motivator and guide for concerning our selves with good and bad behaviour. The behaviour of a sociopath would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
I introduced information on the sociopath because I anticipated mention to a person that has no concern for others and gets enjoyment from things that bring pain and serious harm to others (rape, murder, so on). Such behaviour hints of the person possibly having a mental disorder and probably not some one that most of us can justifiable evaluate using our experience with others.
