Kuruharan
Quote:
|
However, virtue is more worth striving for because it is beneficial to more than just your own selfish self.
|
Well, a capitalist would say that the aggregation of wealth is to the benefit of society, since the wealth trickles down to the benefit of all. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
But, to be serious, I don't disagree with you. I agree that it is a worthy aim to strive for virtue (virtuosity?), and that is why I can find inspiration in works such as LotR.
And this accords with my theory since, as is implicit in your statement, virtuous behaviour is generally beneficial to society as a whole, rather than just the individual, and therefore worthy of our aspirations.
Of course, when I say "my theory", I am really just making it up as I go along. As I said earlier, I find it difficult to accept that morality is imposed upon me by a being whose existence I doubt. But at the same time, I firmly believe that morality is not a human construct. Which leaves me with little choice but to believe that it is a pattern of behaviour which forms the basis for the development of human society because it is generally in society's interests (and the interests of the individuals within it) to follow this pattern. The rest of it just follows from there, apart from some vague recollection that I have of "natural law" from my studies of philosophy of law at university, a concept which I seem to remember appealed to me at the time.
But where I struggle is in the kind of situations that are characterised by the example that you have given, where a seemingly moral act (rescuing the man hanging from the cliff) would not necessarily benefit society and might be to the detriment of the individual. My theory, in its basic form, would demand that the bystander weigh up all kinds of variables, many of which will not be readily apparent. Is the person in danger beyond the age of procreation and therefore possibly of little further benefit to society? Is he perhaps a thief and a murderer? Or is he someone whose prolonged existence is likely to benefit society? What are the risks involved in saving him? Is it more likely than not that the prospective rescuer would succeed in accomplishing the rescue without loss of his own life, or is there an appreciable risk that both will die in the effort?
But the reality is that the bystander will not spend much time weighing up such considerations. More often than not, he will simply act on an instinctive basis. And, while it is by no means a given that the bystander will attempt the rescue (this depends perhaps where he falls on my sliding scale), I think (or like to think) that, more often than not, he will, regardless of the considerations outlined above.
So, why would he do so when his actions might not benefit, and might in fact be to the detriment, of society and himself? Well, I tried to explain this in terms of moral actions (because they benefit society) eliciting positive feelings within the individual (in the way that a contribution to charity might elicit a warm feeling). My hunch is that this positive internal reaction to moral behaviour has become so developed in us (or perhaps I should say some of us) that it is triggered even by actions that go beyond the original basis for moral behaviour (the benefit to society). Does this mean that highly altrusitic behaviour is selfish? Well, if you don't believe in a higher authority, then I think that it does, yes. But is that necessarily a bad thing when it results in behaviour that most of us would view as "the right way to act". And I should reiterate that I believe that most virtuous behaviour is actually to the benefit of society.
Quote:
|
I guess that I am also trying to say that I feel that you did not really address the question that the phantom asked above.
|
Well, I'm sorry if that is the case. To sum it up in a nutshell (something that I'm evidently not very good at doing [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] ), moral behaviour is preferable to immoral behaviour because:
- it benefits society (and as society benefits, so do the majority of people who live within it - that's why we live in societies; and
- because it stands a better chance of bringing greater reward (materially, physically and spiritually) to the individual.