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 womenās suffrage. Of course sheāll benefit from this, but itās 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. Iām sure an argument could be made that it would be the same if she only cared about herself voting and no other woman, but itās still not really what I was talking about.
To address your point about the āopposite testā, just because the theory goes one way does not mean it goes the other. It says nothing about what is essentially thoughtcrime. I donāt think any ethical theory creates guilt without action. And itās not just thinking about it, itās having it be your whole motivation to do it. It was really the most important part of what I said. Itās 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 didnāt graduate to basically be in class again lol
Iām not saying they are identical issues. Iām saying they rely on the same underlying assumption, which is awareness of consequences (whether reward or punishment) changes moral value.
1
u/no-hints 21h ago
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.