Why do you do good?
Do you do good things just to receive good back? Do you do good not to do bad? Or do you fear or just want to avoid the negative consequences of doing bad? Basically are you motivated by extrinsic reasons or intrinsic?
As a society wouldn't we all be better off doing good with no expectation of good happening back to us? If so, how do we get people to buy into that when we are so controlled by extrinsic rewards or lack of negative consequences? Lately, I find myself interested in Buddhism. I have read bits and pieces about it and noticed the whole idea of karma for years. Wouldn't this go against the idea of karma?
Of course, who is to say what is good as well? What one considers good or bad could be totally different than another and what makes one persons' values better or more important or legitimate than anothers? Should we trust someone to dictate what is good? And therefore, if one is doing good for the sake of good, is it really good to others? Would the world in fact be a better place then?
This is mainly a bunch of questions. I guess I have no real substance to this blog. I just wonder as I teach and use rewards to motivate my students to behave or listen knowing full well I'd much rather foster an intrinsic value for doing good, behaving positively or listening in class. The thing is: how do I do this?And are we even capable of doing good just because it is good?
4 comments:
I believe, unfortunately, that people are motivated by anything one can conceive EXCEPT altruism...
I contend that no one does anything JUST because it is good. Everyone, I believe, is motivated almost exclusively by self-interest. This may be a dim view of human nature, but a realistic one I think. Even if something seems altruistic, doesn't the agent only do x for someone else because doing x makes him feel good about himself?
The idea proposed here is called Egoism...
James Rachels, Thomas Hobbes, David Gauthier, Nietzche, Alasdair MacIntyre, and even Ayn Rand have touched on egoism in their writings...
Keep it coming Sven.
Your view may be dim but realistic. Many times I think this view is the correct one. Thinking in this way is what prompted me to ask these questions.
You seem to be asking the rhetorical question: "As a society wouldn't we all be better off doing good with no expectation of good happening back to us?" But, what is the basis of that assumption? Why would it matter for society if people did good without expectation of good in return? Isn’t that the whole point of a good society that you do good with expectation that others do good as well, so that we can live in harmony? Maybe that is why so many religious systems seem to have that as a tenant of their beliefs, like Buddhism and Hindu karma and Christianity’s golden rule.
So I'm doing research for my Ethical Egoism paper (your blog popped up in a search)and thought I'd comment. While Rachels shows arguments in favor of egoism, his refutations are much more convincing: 1. Most philosophers haven't paid much attention to it (egoism) because it endorses wicked actions, if those actions benefit the person who does them. 2. It can't handle conflicts of interest. 3. It's logically inconsistent. 4. It's unacceptably arbitrary. #4 is the strongest argument -- if we can find no difference between ourselves and others, that is the deepest reason why our morality must include some recognition of the needs of others and why, ultimately, Ethical Egoism fails as a moral theory.
Thanks for the opportunity to participate in your dialogue!
Post a Comment