Fear of punishment vs. sense of right and wrong

A question

from JoeUser Forums
Situation:
Man A and Man B are at separate tables in a restaurant. Both me notice that the waitress has not charged them for the coffee each ordered. Man A thinks that not letting the waitress know of her mistake is the same as stealing (obtaining w/o paying) and stealing is against my god and I will be punished for the transgression and lets the waitress know. Man B thinks that stealing is wrong and that informing her of her mistake is the right thing to do.

Question: Is it better to act from a “fear of punishment” standpoint or from a “sense of right and wrong” ?


IG
philosophy
12,702 views 36 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
depends. if both wind up doing the irght thing no matter what, who really cares?

you can come up with a situation where one or the other winds up doing something bad (the right thing is not the legal thing or if someone thinks they can get away with it or if their version of "what is right" is horrific).
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
"doing the right thing no matter what, who really cares?"

A good example of sloppy and lazy.

That is the point of the post. Intention is at the very heart of what determines an action to be right or wrong. You may not care adn that's fine, but it only reflects you don't have a defines set of principles to operate from and to determine the quality of your own actions.
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
But, what if there are a set of principle being used by Man B. What if he has internalized them to a degree that they do not have to be referred to?

Also, what if the intention of an action is good, but the intended result is bad?

IG
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't think they necessarily need to be referred to, but they are still able to be expressed if necessary.

As for intent, I believe that intention trumps outcome. If the intent is pure and the outcome bad, then it's a learning experience and one can adjust. If the intent is bad and the outcome good, this still ahs a net negative because the 'actor' has not made any progress.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
So, a person can do foreseeable harm as long as he intends good?

IG
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.


I'm with russellmz2. The motives are meaningless. It's the outcome that matters.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do the ends justify the means?

I say no, the means are the end.

If it is foreseeable harm, then one's intention couldn't be good. If the harm was foreseeable, then the action would be harmful.

a cliche' is a cliche' is a cliche'. How about some original thought, this is the philosphy forum, not retelling old wives tales.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Whatif the forseeable harm comes with an eventual outcome that is an accepted good?

Even if there is forseeable harm, the intent could still be good. If you accept the harm as a step to a greater good, it could be acceptable.

IG
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't disagree. I think the action should be determined on it's own merit without a focus on outcomes. A set of principles can guide each distinct action, the results of whihc can be guessed at but are utterly uncontrollable
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I understand. With regard to the principle though, is there a presumption that they are not inherently flawed. Many people with well thought out principles have done truly horrendous things.

Question, does the process change when the principled action causes harm directly related to the principled action? Does the person commit to the repetition of the action? If the action is based on principle, and the principle as not changed, would the harmful outcome become irrelevant or somehow lessened?

If the harmful action is not irrelevant, then should not the person making the principled decision at least consider what outcomes his actions may create?


IG
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
What if people feel differently than the way you do, Eight? Is that wrong or right?
Who's "set of principles" are better than anyone elses?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think the important thing is to define what the principle(s) is/ are. It's fine if others' are different, but they should atleast be defined and known. Maybe someone disagrees even with this, certainly, but be able to clarify why. So, what are those principles? By what standaard should the good/bad ness of an action be determined?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
how much college do you have under your belt 'eight gates'? i don't mean to sound condescending, and i don't know if you're just trying to promote healthy discussion, but your question is incredibly ambiguous.

in order to answer it completely, we have to consider the following, just for starters:

social norms
cultural influences
religious views
environmental influences
'standards' of conduct

where Mr. A and Mr. B are from, where they live, what kind of household they grew up in, the level of their education, etc etc...

in order for any 'joeuser' to answer this question, their individual background has to be considered as well... the so called 'principles' that you're talking about are going to depend on the indivdual, which is to say that they're going to be different for everyone.

so in other words, there is no 'right answer'... it all depends on the context.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
i disagree. the aspects you mention are irrelevant. and while a specific action may depend on the context, the underlying principle does not. while these things you mention certainly will influence a given individual in a given situation, they are extraneous in terms of ethical principles and determining a universal morality.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Question: Is it better to act from a “fear of punishment” standpoint or from a “sense of right and wrong” ?


In my opinion, if it is a question of ethics, it is far better to act out of your own standards than merely out of "fear of punishment". Your own principles are based on (presumably) reflection and contemplation and should carry more weight. Personally I don't trust people who put the law above one's own moral standards. It's a question of acting from within or without.
Though I'll concede it's a complex issue. Been reading Kant lately?
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
...So I agree with eight gates on this one (if I read you correctly)
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
i disagree. the aspects you mention are irrelevant. and while a specific action may depend on the context, the underlying principle does not. while these things you mention certainly will influence a given individual in a given situation, they are extraneous in terms of ethical principles and determining a universal morality

you are the new King of Ambiguity. that was a good way to completely avoid everything i wrote...

have you considered a job in politics?

while a specific action may depend on the context, the underlying principle does not. that's the most contradictory statement i've heard in a long time...
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry, not contradictory at all, we are talking about two very differt thing there. one is the actor, the context, and the act taken. the second is the principle used to determine the act itself. This is not amiguous at all.

And kudos to Corio. While I am not reading any Kant now (others may be), I am a long time fan, particualrly of his moral imperative where he argues that any act is determined good if it at the same time can be wished to be universal law. A good example of principle outside a specific context.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
any act is determined good if it at the same time can be wished to be universal law
End of quote


Question: Wished to be universal law by all, by the individual or by a select group?

IG
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
In the case of Kant, my understanding is that the actor would, at the time of acting, wish that the basis of the decision to act would be universal law. For example, if I choose to give half my sandwich to another person, Kant's imperative would suggest that I also wish it to be universal law that every sandwich be shared by half with another.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Understood. What would Kant have us do if two actors had seperate universal laws that were in direct opposition to each other.
Both actors considered what they were doing to be good acts.

IG
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, . . . this is speculation at best, I'm afraid. I say this because in my understanding of Kant's general thesis on ethics/morality, this case of opposing priniples would not exists and possibly could not exists. So in a real sense the question is moot. I undestand this is not the case in practice of specific individuals in given contexts, but the fault for this lies in the individuals lack of clearly identified principles rather than in Kant's social theory. i think the important essence of your question though, is by what means to we come to agreement, or at least understanding/ tolerance, when differing views stand face to face.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
since we're bringing the likes of Kant into this, let's talk about the British Empiricts and Associationists, David Hume, David Hartley, and John Stuart Mill who believed much like Aristotle that man is a "Tabula Rasa" (a blank slate)... it's the nature vs. nurture debate's early beginnings...

if man is a blank slate at birth, anything can be written in. this means that his environment and his culture will have the greatest impact on who he becomes. If one is born and raised in America, one will learn American social norms... religious views are a little more tricky, but learned none-the-less.

which brings us to the discussion at hand. When 'Man A' is faced with the decision of whether to tell the waitress about her mistake or not, he will either consciously or unconsciously refer to the 'principles' that he has been taught throughout his life.

consider if Man A was raised in a poverty stricken ghetto, by an alcoholic father and uncaring mother, and never had a good influence in his life. How is he likely to decide?

consider if Man B was born with the proverbial "silver spoon" in his mouth... how would he choose?

so you see that environment and culture has everything to do with these "principles" that you're trying to define... I'm not here claiming that it's cut and dried, or that a flawless prediction could be made based on a person's upbringing... what I am saying is that determining whether to act from a “fear of punishment” standpoint or from a “sense of right and wrong” will depend on one's environment...
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is also true that there exist common (universal) themes of social behavior which are cross cultural or supra-cultural, and independent of environment or upbringing. 'Man' can come into the world a blank slate, but there are also things inherent, though not necessarily a priori, to his/er existence. (i believe)