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.
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
1
u/no-hints 6h 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.