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.
Nice piece. Have you done any research on ethics vis-a-vis primatology. ...Franz de Waal, Madison Monkeys, prison population demographics etc. etc?
ReplyDeletebtw: I will probably steal your "college professors think I read it." line
Michael - I have researched Mr. de Waal exhaustively by performing a Google search and watching a TED video. Animal behavior has interested me for a long time, especially thinking of how it relates to God. If God hates extramarital sex, then animals really piss him off. Thanks for pointing me in his direction! http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html
DeleteNot sure who said it, but it makes sense.. "there is no morality without context". I think we make our own context within which we can fit our own ideals of morality. Be nice, get a cookie; have a penny, give a penny; do good, take a nap and sleep well. works for me.
ReplyDeleteJoanie - I'm with you. I try to live my life according to what works for me - what works in my context. But I also find myself getting frustrated when people I interact with don't play by the rules - "the rules" being my rules from my context. I got lied all the time in 1999 as a car salesman because people assumed they were walking into a context where they were being lied to. We have a drive for fair play in ethics. That's what Glaucon was getting at in Plato's Republic, and that's what Frans de Wall was seeing in primates. Can't explain it, but it affects me.
DeleteI actually think we as humans do need rules - a framework - for living our lives happily. Imagine a weekend that went on forever - after a while, it wouldn't be so great anymore. You would have nothing to wake up for. No raison d'etre. I feel like the rules in society, that we as a whole implement and enforce, keep us all happier and more secure. Kind of like the rules we give our kids make them feel happier and more secure. People want to live in a fair society. That is why we all get so bent out of shape when someone cuts us off in traffic or skips a line.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, great concept for a blog!