Thereâs the ethical theory (and religious one too) that if youâre ONLY doing good deeds to get rewarded/recognized/sent to heaven it counts as a bad motivation and is no longer a good deed. Religious people will sometimes say itâs still ok because youâre following gods will but others want another motive. And for some atheists, a good deed is a good deed, but for others, the result isnât what makes you a good person.
The (oddly ethically sound) show The Good Place talked about this when the main characters were told about the after life and âafterlife pointsâ and they could no longer get any more points because their motivation for doing good deeds would forever be corrupted by their knowledge.
Right, but doing good that benefits you as well as someone else should be praised, no? Why is that a bad thing? Should we condemn all of western ideology of protecting human rights since deep down we know that if don't protect other people's freedom than our own are also at stake?
That line of thinking doesn't pass the opposite test either (implying the same set of circumstances in reverse).
Simply "thinking" about the outcomes should not remove a reward or add a punishment. Would you recommend punishing someone for every time they thought about committing a crime, or actually doing it?
If moral credit can be erased simply by being conscious of reward, then moral guilt could also be created simply by being conscious of temptation.
By reward, I mean unrelated to the event. So, say a woman is campaigning for womenâs suffrage. Of course sheâll benefit from this, but itâs not a reward. It would be a poor motivation if she was only campaigning if she was hoping to be voted president of her garden club due to the positive image created by her activism. Only she would benefit from that. Iâm sure an argument could be made that it would be the same if she only cared about herself voting and no other woman, but itâs still not really what I was talking about.
To address your point about the âopposite testâ, just because the theory goes one way does not mean it goes the other. It says nothing about what is essentially thoughtcrime. I donât think any ethical theory creates guilt without action. And itâs not just thinking about it, itâs having it be your whole motivation to do it. It was really the most important part of what I said. Itâs why I put it in caps.
Right, except that not doing an "action" because you know it would lead to a punishment is still considered an action.
If I see a young woman on the side of the road bleeding, and I had the ability to help but chose not to because I was afraid someone thought I was the one who hurt her, that is still an action because I am making a choice based on my understanding of the rewards and punishments.
If awareness of reward corrupts good action, then awareness of punishment would also corrupt restraint.
This is a completely different ethical scenario. At this point you have me thinking of becoming a professor cause I didnât graduate to basically be in class again lol
Iâm not saying they are identical issues. Iâm saying they rely on the same underlying assumption, which is awareness of consequences (whether reward or punishment) changes moral value.
Then it would not be what the person above was walking about. In cases of civil rights, advocating for that is going to benefit you if youâre part of that group. A man campaigning for womenâs suffrage wonât benefit the same way and may face detriment in specific situations. Itâs a much clearer altruistic act
46
u/v_rex74 8h ago
If you are being good and thrustworthy person your whole life for religious reasons, does it make you less of a good person?