i don't think deciding whether to pay for coffee or not is one of 'em...

something else that we haven't even considered are "flexible morals"... there are some who put a price tag on things like this... a .50 cent cup of coffee would cause them to lose no sleep at all, but it's not like they're trying to walk out of Wal-Mart with a new grill that they didn't pay for.

as for the coffee in question, Man C would have just tipped the waitress a little extra and never thought about it again...

the coffee was prob'ly complimentary anyway

I have never lived with "fear of punishment".  Of course, I am also agnostic, so I can't relate to the "fear of God".  But you don't have to have that fear to do the "right" thing when it is cut and dry.  We all know what the major "wrongs" are.  There may be some grey areas (especially concerning personal relationships).  But, for your example, we all know that you have to pay for coffee when you order it.

I have been told before that I am "honest to a fault".  As an example, my husband and I went to a home improvement store.  Some of the things that we were buying were miscellaneous bolts and such.  The cashier decided to be lazy and not look them up and just stuck them in a bag (this was after she fumbled through a book of pictures of different bolts and stuff).  I asked her if she wanted more info, and she said "it's not worth it."  So, I paid for the other things, then took my bag up to the service counter to pay for the other stuff (which was about $20 worth of stuff).  I couldn't leave the store even though the cashier basically gave me a "free pass". 

So, I guess that would be with the "sense of right and wrong" approach.

How many people walking out with a $1.00 or so of "free" stuff does it take before the company loses too much money to keep everyone employed?  It might seem small on an individual basis, but it becomes an issue when you consider the whole picture.

imajinit, where do you get the $.50 cup of coffee?  You can't get a cup around here for under a $1.00.

yeah, and i think that gets us back to the question of intent.

As a child you feared the punishment and you grew to realize the right or wrong. [ans. punishment].............On the lighter side ,You can bet your life the IRS has got a handle on this one,ask them to see the books to know what works, charlie poore.

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

Better in what sense ?

Fear seems to be something that can be overcome - and it involves a degree of risk assessment. This I think is where the comparison falls down because you are describing a fear which is driven by faith in God. So it seems, we are not talking about fear in the classic sense, but more about faith, or... a sense of right and wrong. Does fear of going to hell equate with fear of going to jail. I just don't know - I think they are fundamentally different.

A better comparison might be - a fear of getting caught by the cops.

In which case I would say - because this fear is subject to change, the intention is less "pure".

Of course.. one's personal morals change too.

So there you go.

What I am interested in is the value of actions that are driven by a fear of divine punishment vs. the desire to "do the right thing"

IG

In 'my way' fear of any flavor is a negative energy and actions motivated by it will reflect that. so i believe fear to be an inferior aspect of determining morality.

There are numerous theories on what we base our morals from the wider accepted ones such as Piaget's and Vgotsky's has us placing negative and positive associations with which we base our decisions on. Culture plays a huge role in what our morals are. I like Kant but Universal Morality? Who can say what is universal and what is not. I mean there are the major ones like murder and stealing but once again morality is defined by each individual due to the influences of their environment. No one here is God so no one can possibly define what is the right way to live...

wow I feel kind of responsible for ending a good topic... I might not be the cause but if anyone disagrees with me go ahead it's good hearing opinions

I think the essence of Kant's imperative regarding a universal morality was not to define one, per se, nor to claim that one in fact exists. I think it was intended more as an attitude to be assumed by individuals as a guide for making moral decisions. This isn't in opposition to your comments, just different I think.

I could see atitude being Kant's overall goal yes it seems more feasible to look at it that way like maybe what I am doing is wrong to someone. I try to not hurt other individuals even if my morals don't consider what I am doing as wrong... kind of like empathy I guess..