I haven't read Plato's Republic, but a few college professors think I have.
I have read parts of it. I recently read a chunk where Glaucon argues that no one would choose moral behavior for its own sake "but only for the sake of some reward or result which flows from [it]."
Glaucon explains that if it were up to us, we would act immorally, meaning we would do things that would benefit or gratify ourselves and in the process screw everybody else.
However, since everyone would act immorally, each individual would end up getting screwed way more than they would screw others. To avoid mutually assured screwing, we came up with "laws and mutual covenants." Sounds a lot like Kant's categorical imperative. Not that I've read any Kant (a few college professors think I have).
So he's saying no one really wants to behave in an ethical manner; if there were no consequences, we'd all steal, kill, and fornicate.
I took exception to this. Even as an agnostic, I want to act ethically. I don't want to screw everybody.
But why? Ethical behavior isn't a simple pleasure. I don't act ethically because it tastes good like red velvet cheesecake from Junior's in Brooklyn. Being ethical doesn't feel good like taking a nap.
To a great extent Glaucon is right. I'm moral because I get a cookie for being moral. I get the cookie of being accepted by - and acceptable to - other humans. Basically, I don't embezzle money from my employer because I don't want people to think I'm a dick.
Arnold H. Glasow (whoever the hell that is) said, "Live so that your friends can defend you but never have to." That's the reward, the result, that I'm after by acting ethically.
I can think of some exceptions, however. The other day, I bought a Junior Cheeseburger Delux and a Crispy Chicken Sandwich (tomatoes added) at Wendy's. The math whiz in the drive through gave me an extra dollar in change. I immediately recognized it and immediately returned the extra dollar and immediately felt pretty fucking good. Like taking a nap.
