# Without repercussions, would we have morals?



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 21, 2010)

I had a little discussion with some friends the other day.

Let's say you knew the world is ending in a week. All life would cease to exist. The reasons don't matter; nuclear war, giant comet/asteroid, self-destruction caused by that thing in the air from Shyamalan's _The Happening_ (horrible movie, by the way).

What _wouldn't_ you do? I don't ask what would you do, because each of us probably have a thousand things we would (like to) do. So what wouldn't you do? Steal? Kill? Pillage and plunder?

There are a lot of things most of us do not do because it's 'wrong'. But why is it wrong? Certainly one reason is that if I, say, steal my neighbour's car, it's wrong because I am unfairly depriving him of something that is rightfully his. He worked for it, he earned it, he bought it. And I'm taking that away from him. Repercussions, in other words.

The thought of repercussions (both to yourself, and others) are, I feel, a large part of what motivates us to live a life with morals and ethics. But if the world is ending, are there repercussions? It seems to me that the repercussions are, at best, minimal. I've always wanted to own a Ferrari. So what's stopping me from going down to my nearest dealer, smashing the windows and driving off with a gorgeous 599 GTB? And if someone tries to stop me, I'll whip out my handy Swiss army knife and stab him in his doomed little heart. The world's ending in a few days, anyway, so where's the harm?

So what wouldn't _you_ do. More importantly, _why_? I'll go first: (assuming the disclaimer that I might change my mind depending on someone's given example.) Nothing. I think I'll do anything and everything that I feel like. And I realise that calls my moral character into question. (Or does it...? Perhaps there is no such thing as morality in this scenario.)

NOTE: I don't want to discuss this from the point of view of religion or God. Not because I have anything against them, but because that would be a pretty open and shut case. Don't steal because it's a sin. Done and dusted. In the interest of debate, let's leave religious beliefs out of it.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jul 21, 2010)

Without repercussions, would there be a "we" to discuss the question?

So, the world is ending next week, what do I do? (Yes, I know; take the next train to Fribourg, everything happens ten wears late there.) Spend money as if it's going out of fashion (because it is)? Massive Saturnalia, rape, loot, burn? Not my style, although previous ends of the world have shown that a certain sector of the population will take this route, and no few of them will not survive to see if the termination succeeds this time, or is another damp squib. Repent my sins for a move up in the queue for paradise? Go round trying to convince others to repent theirs? (Waste of time, anyway. Any entity capable of judging humanity would have to recognise the cynicism of such calculated 'sincerity'.)

What on Earth would be worth stealing? If you're so desperate to drive a Maserati, rent one. Your credit cards won't be coming up for review before it's irrelevant. 

I suppose if there's someone you really want to torture to death, now would be a good opportunity; but, unless the act gives you pleasure it's hardly worth it for a week's difference.

I'm going down to the cellar, but not to get blind drunk; there are a couple of bottles I laid down twelve years ago, and it would be a pity not to try them.


----------



## HareBrain (Jul 21, 2010)

You can pretty much define a psychopath as someone whose impulses are only controlled by the thought of repercussions to himself.

DA said he would do anything and everything he feels like. But that's a long, long way from saying there's nothing he wouldn't do (unless he actually is a psychopath, which I doubt). The question is, what governs what we "feel like" doing, and how would that change if the world were ending? I don't think it would change much.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 21, 2010)

chrispenycate said:


> Not my style, although previous ends of the world have shown that a certain sector of the population will take this route, and no few of them will not survive to see if the termination succeeds this time, or is another damp squib.


In this scenario, we'll assume that the world is 'definitely' ending, and is not a false alarm. (Can't say I've ever heard of a "damp squib", but then again, most things you say go over my wee head.)



> What on Earth would be worth stealing? If you're so desperate to drive a Maserati, rent one. Your credit cards won't be coming up for review before it's irrelevant.


You know, that's a good point. Since money is worthless (or at the least, worth less), spend away. In fact, the rental place and showrooms will probably let you have them for free. Money would be irrelevant. "Can I have that GTB?" "Sure, what do I care?" So I suppose there's no need to steal, then. Gee, I hope you haven't killed this discussion already. You and your damn logic and sense...



> I suppose if there's someone you really want to torture to death, now would be a good opportunity; but, unless the act gives you pleasure it's hardly worth it for a week's difference.


Oh, it will. It will.



> I'm going down to the cellar, but not to get blind drunk; there are a couple of bottles I laid down twelve years ago, and it would be a pity not to try them.


Not unless I get there first...


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 21, 2010)

HareBrain said:


> You can pretty much define a psychopath as someone whose impulses are only controlled by the thought of repercussions to himself.


That's why I said repercussions to yourself and others. The former is selfish and narcissistic (I don't know if it's necessarily psychopathic), but the latter is something we're all encouraged to do.



> DA said he would do anything and everything he feels like. But that's a long, long way from saying there's nothing he wouldn't do (unless he actually is a psychopath, which I doubt).


I appreciate your faith in my mental stability.



> The question is, what governs what we "feel like" doing, and how would that change if the world were ending?


Exactly.


----------



## The Judge (Jul 21, 2010)

Perhaps instead of the world ending -- which would produce a frenzy of lawlessness on the one hand and evangelical piety on the other -- the question should be focussed on the individual more.  If the world is going to continue, so looting the Ferrari showroom is still a no-no as far as the salesmen are concerned, but you know that you will die in exactly one week's time, what would you do?  Or even more explicitly, if you could do anything and get away with it, what would you do?  That's the real question.

Personally, I don't think I'd go round stealing, but I would certainly max out a few credit cards which I wouldn't have to worry about.  (And even then, I'd want to be assured my estate could meet the debts.  I'm honest like that.)  But I can think of people I would happily kill.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jul 21, 2010)

> Not unless I get there first...



If you can make it, I'm happy to share. It's not as if it were going to be any use afterwards. But it involves driving through France, and considering how the French drive when they *do* have to worry about fines, and points on their driving licence…

But do you notice what a civilised, sane choice you'd be making? A little simple pleasure that doesn't do anyone else any harm? Eat a good meal, leave the washing up, drink a couple of good glasses, listen to some music, perhaps make love, ignoring the smoke of burning empires.

It can't make a difference in the long run, because there isn't one, but there's no need to introduce extra suffering into anybody else's life. I just don't have anybody I desperately want to get revenge on, so I can aim for the maximum short term personal pleasure.



> then again, most things you say go over my wee head.


And I apologise if my word choice makes my arguments hard to follow; I write like that because I talk like that, because I think like that.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 21, 2010)

The Judge said:


> but you know that you will die in exactly one week's time, what would you do?


For funsies, how about the other way? If Person X were to die in exactly one week's time, would you rip him off? He's dying anyway. (I know, I know. I'm a horrible person.)

On a serious note, though, the question of what you would do if you could get away with it is important, but slightly different.

If the only thing that's stopping you from doing a Bad Thing is the selfish concern of repercussions _to you_, then that is one thing. But in my scenario, it's not just you. Since the repercussions to others also affects our moral/ethical behaviour, it makes me wonder if that would be influenced if (since the world is ending) your behaviour wouldn't really have repercussions on them, either. If it was just you dying, you might still not do Bad Thing, because you know that the other person might suffer. But if he's dying, too, then...



> But I can think of people I would happily kill.


None here, I hope?



chrispenycate said:


> If you can make it, I'm happy to share. It's not as if it were going to be any use afterwards. But it involves driving through France, and considering how the French drive when they *do* have to worry about fines, and points on their driving licence…


Maybe the end of the world is exactly the stimulus to set them straight...



> And I apologise if my word choice makes my arguments hard to follow; I write like that because I talk like that, because I think like that.


No need to apologise; I'm sure it's more to do with me than you.


----------



## HareBrain (Jul 21, 2010)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Since the repercussions to others also affects our moral/ethical behaviour, it makes me wonder if that would be influenced if (since the world is ending) your behaviour wouldn't really have repercussions on them, either.


 
But if we're restricting the discussion to those actions that genuinely wouldn't have repercussions on anyone else either, I don't see the ethical dilemma.


----------



## River Boy (Jul 21, 2010)

Surely a moral person would find committing an immoral act unpleasant? I don't have a repressed need to harm someone that I avoid because it's illegal.

I hope that the best of us have a grasp of humanity without rules and regulations - the worst of us are a different matter.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 21, 2010)

HareBrain said:


> But if we're restricting the discussion to those actions that genuinely wouldn't have repercussions on anyone else either, I don't see the ethical dilemma.


Well, I mean no repercussions in the sense that there will be no _lasting_ repercussions.

If Mike kills Jack's wife, Jack will surely be pissed/devastated. But he'll only be pissed/devastated for a week, then we'll all die.

So the repercussions, technically, are still there. I suppose I should say these repurcussions are temporary, rather than non-existent. Do these temoprary repercussions have the same impact on our morals? Wouldn't you be a *little* more willing to kill Jack's wife in this scenario, then you would normally? From one-in-a-quadrillion to one-in-a-billion, let's say?

Basically, what I'm getting at is essentially what you touched on in your earlier post. What is it that governs our morality, and how (if at all) would that change in an apocalyptic scenario?


----------



## Moonbat (Jul 21, 2010)

I think I might fall off the wagon, if its only for a week then being an addict wouldn't hurt that much. Maybe I'd even try some harder stuff, the real junk!

I don't think I'd hurt anyone, well not anyone that didn't deserve it, I might go and hang around near some yobs and see if I can't get myself into a fight (although I'd probably lose, so that's no good).

Defnitiely wouldn't rape anyone, I might steal a few things, but what use are material possession if you've only got them for a week.

It would be interetsing to see if someone moral lost all morals and did something appalling and then spent the last week in a self-tortuous situation. As you say there would be temporary repercussions.

I realise that I mainly said things I would do, rather than those I wouldn't, but you could reverse them.

I wouldn't stay on the wagon
I wouldn't hurt anyone, but I wouldn't resist punishing those that were rude


----------



## Peter Graham (Jul 21, 2010)

> For funsies, how about the other way? If Person X were to die in exactly one week's time, would you rip him off? He's dying anyway. (I know, I know. I'm a horrible person.)


 
Probably not.  Because repercussions go much deeper than a fear of punishment or being biffed on the nose by an enraged ex-Ferrari owner.  Each of us has developed our own moral code and I for one would feel jolly guilty about ripping anyone off.  It doesn't matter if it makes no difference to them or if I can get away with it.  It's just not the sort of thing I do.  I don't see that just having a green light to do it would effectively undo 40+ years of slow moral and mental development.



> On a serious note, though, the question of what you would do if you could get away with it is important, but slightly different.


 
I think it's pretty much exactly the same situation.  What we are really asking is whether our innate consideration for others and/or basic human decency is prompted by any more than the fear of repercussions.  And that depends on how we define "repercussions".  If repercussions include guilt and the sort of tormented self-analysis and loathing which made _Crime and Punishment_ run on for so many thousands of turgid, leaden words, then you might be right.  But if by repercussions we just mean retribution, then I think you are wrong.



> Since the repercussions to others also affects our moral/ethical behaviour, it makes me wonder if that would be influenced if (since the world is ending) your behaviour wouldn't really have repercussions on them, either


 
You still underestimate our strength of character.  if the world is ending, I should like to face it as Peter Graham, High King (Elect) of Rheged and Fellow of the Royal Society of Curmudgeons.  Why on earth would I suddenly want to tank down the M6 at enormous speed in an Italian motorised phallus, or go and take hideous revenge on some hapless no-mark who might have upset me twenty years ago?

But, of course, none of us know what we'd _really_ do in this situation.  My guess is that it would involve a lot of disbelief and running around _in modo_ headless chicken.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## HareBrain (Jul 21, 2010)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Basically, what I'm getting at is essentially what you touched on in your earlier post. What is it that governs our morality, and how (if at all) would that change in an apocalyptic scenario?


 
I think what governs our morality is, as Peter says, decades of conditioning (by oneself and others) including the gradual discovery of empathy.

However, this training can be undermined by several things, one of which is stress. And the knowledge that one's life will be over in a week could well provoke extreme stress. The thing is, I've never been under such stress, so I don't know how my moral conditioning would be undermined by it. I imagine, based on my reactions to less stressful situations, that I wouldn't go out of my way to do anything that might violate my normal moral code, but that I would react more extremely if I got into any kind of confrontational situation.

But that might also be the case in a high-stress situation where the world wasn't going to end, and there still would be long-lasting repercussions. I don't know, but I suspect that the lack of repercussions wouldn't be a strong influence.

And I don't think I would harm someone just because they were only going to suffer another week and then die. That might mean they would spend the whole of their precious remaining time suffering. That's horrible. Devil's Advocate indeed.


----------



## The Judge (Jul 21, 2010)

Peter Graham said:


> Each of us has developed our own moral code and I for one would feel jolly guilty about ripping anyone off.  It doesn't matter if it makes no difference to them or if I can get away with it.  It's just not the sort of thing I do.


Ditto.  But I think that if the situation went on longer than it might be different, for me at least.  If one was to be transported to live in a society in which theft etc was commonplace, I think most people, no matter how good and upright, would find themselves slowly submitting to the norm.

As for killing people who themselves had only a week or so to live.  Very possibly.  They would come under the heading of see-the-look-on-their-faces-before-they-die instead of do-the-world-a-favour deaths.



> Fellow of the Royal Society of Curmudgeons.


Wow.  That's one I really want to join.  What feats of curmudgeonosity do I have to prove before beng admitted?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 21, 2010)

Peter Graham said:


> Probably not. Because repercussions go much deeper than a fear of punishment or being biffed on the nose by an enraged ex-Ferrari owner.


Again, I'm not referring to the fear of punishment. I was also including repercussions to the victim. Perhaps empathy is a better word. 



> Each of us has developed our own moral code and I for one would feel jolly guilty about ripping anyone off. [...] I don't see that just having a green light to do it would effectively undo 40+ years of slow moral and mental development.


Ah, but where is this guilt coming from? Why would you feel guilty? What are the factors that affected your four decades of moral and mental development?

It's all relative, isn't it? Something is 'wrong' because it's not 'right'. But what helps us decide between wrong and right? Our education, teachings, environment, society, upbringing and whatever else. And what are those based on? In a vacuum, there would be no wrong or right. If no action in this world ever had any effect on anyone (hypothetical; not saying that's the case in End of Times), then there is no wrong or right. Everything just... is. 



> But, of course, none of us know what we'd _really_ do in this situation. My guess is that it would involve a lot of disbelief and running around _in modo_ headless chicken.


That I agree with. We can never really know what we would do in a given situation until we're in that situation. So you might just find yourself tearing down the M6 at enormous speed in an Italian motorised phallus, Peter...


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 21, 2010)

HareBrain said:


> And I don't think I would harm someone just because they were only going to suffer another week and then die. That might mean they would spend the whole of their precious remaining time suffering. That's horrible. Devil's Advocate indeed.


My name being what it is, it's entirely possible I'm arguing a point I don't really believe in.

Or I really could be a cold-hearted b*****d.


----------



## HareBrain (Jul 21, 2010)

The Judge said:


> Wow. That's one I really want to join. What feats of curmudgeonosity do I have to prove before beng admitted?


 
Do you remember those credit-card offers you used to get through the post that said "Good news! You have been pre-approved ..."?


----------



## Peter Graham (Jul 21, 2010)

> Wow. That's one I really want to join. What feats of curmudgeonosity do I have to prove before beng admitted?


 
We'd be glad to have you on board!  All you need to do is answer the following questions with a yes or no.  Award one point for a yes and no points for a no:-

1.  Do you fear change?

2.  Are you the sort of person who might take time out of their busy day in order to write to local newspapers to bemoan apostrophe abuse?

3.  Do you smell faintly of dog biscuits and/or tobacco and/or gin?

4.  Would you say that Eminem is less of a hard-edged rapper living at the cutting edge of the musical zeitgist and producing a corpus of gritty, post-modern commandments for the disaffected generation and more of a potty mouthed little squit who could do with a pair of properly fitting trousers and a couple of years of National Service?

5.  Do you prefer poultry to teenagers?


If you have scored four or more points, you are in and most welcome!

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Peter Graham (Jul 21, 2010)

> Ah, but where is this guilt coming from? Why would you feel guilty? What are the factors that affected your four decades of moral and mental development?


 
Don't know, because I just would and don't know althougth I could hazard a few guesses.  I may not be able to explain _why_ I feel like I do, but I can say for sure that I _do_ feel that way and that to feel any other way would be most un-Peter Grahamely and therefore not to be tolerated.




> It's all relative, isn't it? Something is 'wrong' because it's not 'right'.


 
No.  It's not at all relative.  I can only speak for myself.  I don't divide up solely into wrong and right - far too simplistic.  Some things are neither wrong nor right.  Speeding, for example.  



> But what helps us decide between wrong and right? Our education, teachings, environment, society, upbringing and whatever else.


 
Amongst other things.



> And what are those based on? In a vacuum, there would be no wrong or right.


 
But we don't live in a vacuum, and nor would we even if Armageddon was beckoning.  If what you are saying is "_all human empathy is borne out of the fact that we are social animals and is little more than a means of ensuring that we all get along_", then I'd probably agree with you.  But if you say "_the complex bonds of human interaction would snap in an instant if we only had a week to _go", I'd disagree.  Some bonds would snap for some people - even perhaps for most people.  Pragmatic requirements would lead to behaviour which would not be countenanced normally.  But those behaviours would be manifestations of the same complex model of human interaction which already exists.

Now, where is that Ferrari dealership?  

Regards,

Peter


----------



## The Judge (Jul 21, 2010)

Peter Graham said:


> If you have scored four or more points, you are in and most welcome!


I scored ten!   or should that be  


And while we're writing to obscure publications bemoaning the decline in standards:


Peter Graham said:


> ... an enraged ex-Ferrari owner.


... or even an ex-owner of a Ferrari, perhaps (unless the flying manhood-substitute has been wrapped around a tree at the end of the M1 by this point).


----------



## Peter Graham (Jul 21, 2010)

> ... or even an ex-owner of a Ferrari, perhaps (unless the flying manhood-substitute has been wrapped around a tree at the end of the M1 by this point).


 
I wish to protest most strongly!

I would postulate that a Ferrari owner is a description - like a dog owner. Therefore, anyone who no longer owns a Ferrari (as it has been TWOCed by a drooling numpty who has wrapped it around the toll gate at Norton Canes after being asked to pay money to use the Queen's highway) is an ex-Ferrari owner. The fact that the Ferrari has also ceased to be is irrelevant for the purposes of the discussion, although perhaps has more relevance for its twonky (ex) owner, who will now be obliged to use public transport and mix with the hoi polloi.

Regards,

Peter

PS: Please attend Curmudgeon Hall, London Wall, London, BAA (Humbug) for induction. On arrival, ensure that you make a number of salient observations about the state of London traffic, the congestion charge and the quality of the air, before launching into an almost wholly unrelated diatribe about Red Ken's newts or Boris Johnson's extramarital furtlings.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Jul 21, 2010)

This question has been asked by everyone from the Marquis de Sade, to Nietzsche, to Andre Breton, but I believe that the latest findings in evolutionary science are pointing toward a positive answer. Apparently, as a survival adaptation, our species is hard-wired to have an innate sense of morality and justice.


----------



## Starbeast (Jul 22, 2010)

*A week until the....End of of Earth*

Hmm, I don't have to go to work, no bills to worry about...and do what I want. Well..........


I'd continue my daily prayers, eat what ever I wanted, watch dvds, and relax...finally.....



......*then wait for the Almighty GOD to take me home...............................*


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 22, 2010)

Peter Graham said:


> No. It's not at all relative. I can only speak for myself. I don't divide up solely into wrong and right - far too simplistic. Some things are neither wrong nor right. Speeding, for example.


The simplicity was deliberate, just to highlight the contrast between two acts. I can't really be bothered (nor am I capable of) listing all the various notches that exist between the unimaginably evil and the ultimate good.

And everything _is_ relative. You said, "I _do_ feel that way and that to feel any other way would be most un-Peter Grahamely". The reason un-Peter Grahamely exists is because of how it contrasts with what you know and consider to be Peter Grahamely. Everything is relative. Even speeding.



> But if you say "_the complex bonds of human interaction would snap in an instant if we only had a week to _go", I'd disagree.


Well, no, I don't think they'll snap in an instant. In all honesty (well, not 'all' honesty, but enough for what is required here), the one week I (arbitrarily) gave is probably too less for that. But at some point, I think it will happen.

Ultimately, my question isn't really about the end of the world, and not about what changes could occur in the human psyche in a week. It's more about wondering what the reasons for our morality and ethics are, where do they come from, and would a sufficient external strain result in the excision (or at least suppression) of a trait which many (not me) consider to be innate.



> If what you are saying is "_all human empathy is borne out of the fact that we are social animals and is little more than a means of ensuring that we all get along_", then I'd probably agree with you.


Essentially, yes, that is what I'm saying. Or at least, it's a part of. Perhaps that is not the sole source of empathy, but it is certainly a significant one. Probably the most significant one.

And that is why I disagree with:



Curt Chiarelli said:


> our species is hard-wired to have an innate sense of morality and justice.


Now, if I were to be shown some convincing evidence towards that, then I would gladly accept. Who am I to disagree with a bloke in a white coat? Otherwise, I don't believe these are innate; I don't believe we are born with them. I believe morality and ethics are traits we acquire.


----------



## Peter Graham (Jul 22, 2010)

> And everything _is_ relative. You said, "I _do_ feel that way and that to feel any other way would be most un-Peter Grahamely". The reason un-Peter Grahamely exists is because of how it contrasts with what you know and consider to be Peter Grahamely. Everything is relative. Even speeding.


 
If by this you mean that everyone has a different opinion, then of course you are right. But that is hardly an earth-shattering revelation and doesn't help us in this discussion. I can only speak for what_ I_ would do and why _I_ would do it. The fact that other people may have different views is irrelevant. My morals and ethics (although see below) are my own and, for me, they are fixed points of reference. Relativity doesn't come in to it.

By way of explanation, wealth is also a relative concept. But that doesn't leave me personally feeling any more (or less) wealthy. I judge my wealth by reference to my own income and expenditure. _I_ judge myself to be wealthy (and not just in monetary terms), and whether or not others would agree with me is entirely otiose. 



> I don't believe these are innate; I don't believe we are born with them. I believe morality and ethics are traits we acquire.


 
You frequently call on others to justify their positions. What is _your _evidence for this assertion?

I suspect that _morality_ and _ethics _could be argued as no more than descriptive tags for certain behaviours which allow us to co-exist as a co-operative species (as per my last post). Because those behaviours are perceived to be beneficial, they are seen as positive and desirable. But that says more about what we as a species need than it does about whether such behaviours (if they existed in your putative vacuum) _are _objectively 'good' in any deeper sense.

A hive of honeybees is a good example. Worker bees exhibit entirely selfless behaviours for the good of the hive, often (in fact, usually) at the cost of their own lives. But honeybees don't have the necessary cognitive faculties to be seen as acting in an overtly moral or ethical way - they are just being honeybees. I dont see why it needs to be so very different for humans. We can dress it up in the fashionable language of psycho-gibberish, choice, personal conviction and personal morality, but ultimately we are just being humans. And that's all we know how to be.

Regards

Peter


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 22, 2010)

It's relative because you would base your judgment as compared to something else, right? Not necessarily some_one_ else, but something.

In the wealth example you give, that is still relative. And I don't mean relative to me. You consider yourself wealthy because you might have X amount of money, and you have a loving and caring family, and you're happy with your life (I'm guessing). That is still something which is relative to if you didn't have those things, right?

Let's say your reason for considering yourself wealthy is because you have a family that cares for you. So then, if you didn't have said family, you wouldn't be wealthy, right? So it is relative. Not in the sense that you are or are not wealthy according to what I say, but simply because you have a set of criteria in your head by which you judge yourself. You have perspective, and perspective is something I consider to be relative.



> You frequently call on others to justify their positions. What is _your _evidence for this assertion?


I "frequently" do no such thing. I might disagree with certain opinions or beliefs, but I don't really recall asking anyone to "justify" their position. With the quoted text in question - Curt Chiarelli mentioned something about there being studies that showed morality was innate, and that left me curious as to what those were. That's all. 

Opinions are opinions, and everyone is entitled to their own. That's why I used the words "I believe" when I made the statement. If I had proclaimed it to be a statement of undeniable fact, then I agree that I would need evidence. But I didn't, so I don't.



> But that says more about what we as a species need than it does about whether such behaviours (if they existed in your putative vacuum) _are _objectively 'good' in any deeper sense.


But isn't that sort of what I'm saying? I, too, am arguing that morality or what is or is not 'good' is not objective. It's subjective. Subjective to what, as you said, we as a species need to 'get along'. For survival, for success, for happiness.


----------



## skeptical (Jul 25, 2010)

An interesting and quirky fact relating to human behaviour may be relevent.

To Kill or Not to Kill | The Progressive

I quote the relevent bit.

_"There was a well-known study—well known within the military, anyway—done directly after World War II by retired Colonel S. L. A. Marshall, author of Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command in Future War. He discovered that even in the thickest of fire fights, the vast majority of soldiers did not fire their weapons. (Based on interviews with the soldiers themselves, Marshall estimated that within the average unit under fire, only 15 percent of men actually pulled their triggers. Even within the most disciplined units, he found that average rose to not more than 25 percent.) Marshall discovered that it was not fear that prevented these men from engaging their enemies, but humanity. All of them reported a keen reluctance to kill."_

So even in a fire fight, where there is no consequence for shooting to kill, only 15% will do so.

Thus, in the scenario presented, a maximum of 15% of the population will actually be prepared to kill anyone.

What would I be doing?   Running like hell to avoid that 15%!


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 25, 2010)

skeptical said:


> What would I be doing? Running like hell to avoid that 15%!


That makes two of us.

By the way, _The New York Times_ had a related op-ed piece a few days ago.

Among other things, the article seems to confirm what Curt Chiarelli said in his post: that perhaps morality is (at least to an extent) innate. Here's the relevant passage:



> Paul Bloom of Yale [...] and his colleagues conducted an experiment in which they showed babies a scene featuring one figure struggling to climb a hill, another figure trying to help it, and a third trying to hinder it.
> 
> At as early as six months, the babies showed a preference for the helper over the hinderer. In some plays, there is a second act. The hindering figure is either punished or rewarded. In this case, 8-month-olds preferred a character who was punishing the hinderer over ones being nice to it.
> 
> This illustrates, Bloom says, that people have a rudimentary sense of justice from a very early age. This doesn’t make people naturally good. [...] But it does mean that social norms fall upon prepared ground. We come equipped to learn fairness and other virtues.


 
Very interesting.

Either way, I'm flattered that the NY Times pays such close attention to what I have to say.


----------



## mosaix (Jul 25, 2010)

Devil's Advocate said:


> I'll go first: (assuming the disclaimer that I might change my mind depending on someone's given example.) Nothing. I think I'll do anything and everything that I feel like.



How about incest?

And I think you're cheating a bit with the 'that I feel like'. If you don't 'feel like' doing something, then maybe that's your moral compass kicking in?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 25, 2010)

mosaix said:


> How about incest?



Under Clause 17b of the End of World bylaws ("assuming the disclaimer that I might change my mind depending on someone's given example."), I'm going to go ahead and say, "No".

Of course I'm cheating. 

It's the end of the world; I'm allowed!


----------



## mosaix (Jul 25, 2010)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Under Clause 17b of the End of World bylaws ("assuming the disclaimer that I might change my mind depending on someone's given example."), I'm going to go ahead and say, "No".



Clause 17c allows the question - Why not?

I submit m'lud that the only possible answer is because the witness has morals. 

The case for the prosecution rests.


----------



## jojajihisc (Jul 26, 2010)

Morals and repercussions are, for me, not interdependent. So, yes, even without repercussions we would still have morals. Of course, it is impossible not to have repercussions because all the word means is that something happens at least in part due to some event. This is a basic and unavoidable physical law. A quote from Plato relates to my point pretty closely, in particular the first half of the quote.

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."


----------

