Somebody please help me sort out my thoughts about ethics and human nature

[brentspeak]

A criminal sees a couple of cops nearby, and decides to abandon his plan to rob the nextdoor bank. However, if the cops had not happened to be present at that moment, the criminal would have gone ahead and robbed the bank.

A politician, most likely Republican, on the day a law is passed that allows him to do so, gladly accepts thousands of dollars from a corporate lobbyist on the condition that he, the politician, will do what he can to kick out a bunch of families from their neighborhood, so that a brand-new condo complex can be built. However, if the law had not been passed, the politician would not have dared to accept the lobbyist's dough, for fear of jail and/or losing reelection.

A tenured professor decides he will only grant a certain amount of "A's" for the students in the class - a quota. He knows he can't be fired for doing this, and so he does it. However, if he knew he could be fired for restricting the number of A's he gives out, he would not have limited the number of A grades awarded.

A corporate board of directors, knowing that they are the top dogs and that no one can fire them, decide to award themselves massive pay raises, despite having done a pathetic job of running the company. (These people are almost certainly Republicans!) However, if the board of directors knew that they would face serious consequences, such as being sued, they probably would not have raised their own pay.

Brokerage firms, on the day that a law is passed that will allow them to do it, begin the practice of allowing their brokers to sell customers stocks without having to reveal that they themselves are shorting the stock, a clear conflict of interest. But if the law had not been passed, and it was clear that the brokerage firms would get in trouble for initiating the practice, the firm would not instruct its brokers to hide important information from customers.

................................................

As an admittingly naive person who does his level best to behave ethically in life regardless of whether or not something is legal, not legal, a security camera present, a security camera not present, etc -- is this how the world is run? Society, in general, will behave any way they feel like it, regardless of the public good, if laws or various factors are in place so as to minimize that they would suffer consequences? And that they would "behave themselves" only with the real threat of suffering the consequences?

(Somehow, I believe this is also true in the psychology of economics, but that's another topic.)

[CrispyQ]

1. What's that old saying?

Locks only keep the honest people out.

Contemplating human nature is depressing.

[achtung_circus]

2. Not that simple and I would take issue with your characterization

of "bad people" as most likely Republican. There are good people in either party and bad people are present in both parties. An overly partisan view of the world is bound to be wrong.

As someone who has spent many years in enforcement I use the following, it is a pyramid, and the proportions of the various sectors varies from society to society and from "crime" to "crime".

Correct action is defined as something against which there is a clear legal and moral imperative.

The vast proportion of people will perform the correct action because it is correct.

A second, smaller proportion will perform the correct action because there is a law against that action.

A third, still smaller, proportion will perform the correct action because there is a law against that action and there is a likelihood that they will be caught and punished for failure to do so.

A final proportion, doesn't care. The law doesn't apply to them. That is why murders still occur, even in jurisdictions with the death penalty.

This is the simplest example. It holds true (in my mind) for offenses ranging from speeding to murder.

For what it's worth.

[marions ghost]

14. dupe sorry

[marions ghost]

15. You missed an IMPORTANT group...

--The group that knows there is a law against the action but ALSO knows that the law is not enforced (or victims cannot afford to sue) and there is a very LOW likelihood that they will be caught and punished. (They WOULD care, if they thought they would get caught).

I think this applies to the majority of white collar crime (which has a far greater impact on society than street crime and yet goes unprosecuted more often than not).

[achtung_circus]

16. All of these groups are subject to subdivision.

"A third, still smaller, proportion will perform the correct action because there is a law against that action and there is a likelihood that they will be caught and punished for failure to do so."

Still, point taken.

[sui generis]

3. It all comes back down to self-interest and competition

Half of us believe the best way to get ahead is to take advantage of everything, every loophole, every mistake, every oversight, every law, regardless of whether it is innately "right" or "wrong".

The other half believes that we all benefit from cooperation, from "fairness", and from not taking advantage of the system.

And yes, we are split along ideological and political lines as a result.

The "me me me" guys blindly equate "the law" with ethics and morality regardless of how absurd some of those laws are. If I have a million dollar life insurance policy and I designate my life partner as the beneficiary in a state that constitutionally doesn't recognize civil unions or even domestic partnerships, the insurance company can say they don't need to do anything but refund premiums . . . to my next of kin, and not think they're doing anything wrong. That's moral values for you.

The "we we we" guys think that law ultimately should exist as an extension of the golden rule, driven ultimately by values of human decency and fairness.

There is nothing you can do to straighten your own thinking. Some people align themselves with power, authority, and even "ultimate authority" in the form of religion merely because it is powerful, and not because it is good.

Don't be afraid to judge others in this regard. Ultimately, you yourself are the best barometer of what is fair and decent if you are concerned with fairness and decency, and that is a battle between "us" and "them" that will never be over.

[marions ghost]

19. agreed

We live in a society where legality rules morality--in a large number of people. In other words, if you can get away with something, you have the right to do it.

A good book on this subject is "The Cheating Culture--Why more Americans are doing wrong to get ahead"--by David Callahan

Callahan blames it on "the dog-eat-dog climate of the past twenty years: an unfettered market and unprecedented economic inequality have corroded our values ...the 'Winning Class' has created a separate moral reality where it cheats without consequences--while the 'anxious class' believes choosing not to cheat could cancel its only shot at success in a winner-take-all world."

[SteppingRazor]

4. Yeah, that about covers it...

People (most people, anyway) follow the law for the avoidance of punishment, not for any high-minded ideals about civil obligations.

There was a social-psychologist (forget his name) who had a theory of levels to this, much like Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It went something like
1. People don't follow laws (i.e. babies. Don't know any better)
2. People follow laws for fear of immediate authority figures (parents)
3. People follow laws for fear of larger authority figures (police)
4. People follow laws out of fear of punishment
5. People follow laws out of obligation to society
6. People follow laws out of desire to do the greater good

Etc., etc. with each tier including less and less people.

[MsUnderstood]

5. Wow 2 totally different school of thoughts on inherent good

One says most will do good, other says most will do bad. . .what a philosophical delimma!

[SteppingRazor]

6. I tend to believe most people are swine...

Without some foorm of punishment -- even if it was just simple social ostracization -- most people would murder whoever they damn well pleased.

If there was no punishment for anything, and no laws, humanity would get very ugly very fast.

[MsUnderstood]

7. I can't believe that way

I feel there are different levels of evil but I can't believe we would be murderous and horrible without laws because that is the idealology pushed onto us by many religous groups:

a) We need laws
b) The bible has laws
c) The bible is right
d) Atheists are wrong

I think people can think and act without big brother watching them. I think constricting our movements is what causes the trouble.

Deny someone a glass of water and they are suddenly very thirsty.

Of course you have people who interpret situations different so you have to have guidelines that will direct us how to live.

*sigh* philosophy is never ending of "but then. . ."

[brentspeak]

8. That's the awful realization I'm getting

While I believe there's a sizable proportion of the world' population that will "do the right thing" simply because it's the right thing to do, there's a slight majority of the world that will only do the right thing because they're afraid they may get caught. Otherwise, for the latter, all bets are off.

My lifelong naive mind is having a hard time accepting this.

[achtung_circus]

17. and sometimes "correct action" involves

say, looting a Wal Mart to feed our family. Survival of ourselves and our genes may be the greatest biological imperative of all.

on edit: stupid typo

[applegrove]

9. I don't agree. Some people would never steal (okay from Mom's purse

when you were adolescent). Some people would just never break most laws. Some people would never lie, cheat, etc. Some people don't play games.

There is a continuum. Some people just don't get any pleasure or reward from doing bad things - if they have a choice.

[AlienGirl]

10. The people who are honest for honesty's own sake are rare

I believe everyone has the potential to be that kind of inherently honest, honorable person, but most never quite make it there, probably because they're never taught that it is possible to do so and still survive.

Tucker

[applegrove]

12. I think people are more honest than you portray. Of course the rule

of law exists. Of course when there was anarchy people took what they wanted. But they were hungry or at a loss.

I just don't believe that cooperating is somehow in the minority. Human beings have altrusim. Cooperating is good for survival. And like many things that are good for survival - it feels good.

[marions ghost]

20. but what if YOU believe in fairness and cooperation

and try to live by that, but then the people directing and controlling things (whether it be at local or national level) are not only NOT living by that belief, but they are USING you for their own ends. This leads to a sense of betrayal that is profound, as we see in the case of the current administration. 'Cooperative' types have been easy prey for the predators in the food chain.
Lord of the Flies.

[applegrove]

22. You try to stay away. You hope the people who are followers see the

err of their ways. You speak out if you come across a time when you have the choice. We see the media and Dem leaders being very cautious. Nobody wants to die or be destroyed. One person cannot do it alone.

Unfortunately there are people out there. And normally they are not revered. But when power gets corrupted - you are in trouble. For a while. Sometimes you just try and make it through. Sometimes you lead a very different life. If you fall apart - you cannot help but retreat. You hope for the day there are more of you. And if there are - more people who know - then perhaps you have a chance.

[marions ghost]

24. I'm hoping that day has come

11. intention to do what you think is good or right

will keep you way out of these dilemmas. I think we all have our paths toward being fully developed humans and you have to have strong intention to do what is right. To make a great sacrifice to help others is to become saint-like, which is several levels above most humans. After that, I think you don't come back to earth, but help guide from a higher region.

If you are just "following the law", that is not always the "right" thing, obviously.

[Rex]

13. I live by the 'life is inherently not fair' rule.

Sometimes people make it so that life is much fairer for some than others. Sometimes when those people get away with making life unfair they do it again and again and again. Soon it becomes so F'n unfair that the inequality level is at an all time high and they just start ignoring fair and unfair altogether.

Soon they build a 24/7 propaganda machine and call it 'fair and balanced'. Life also does not exist in a constant state of equilibrium. If you allow things to progress, unnaturally, then it becomes possible to say...ignore clear cut conflict of interest instances. Once that is established then heave ho and sail into the wind because the sunset is upon you.

[porphyrian]

18. It's complexly simple.

First there are laws, which are rules devised and passed by legislators, often for ulterior motives. Laws themselves are not necessarily good, right or just. They do, however, dictate what is supposed to be enforced, and to some extent, the penalties for breaking them. Then you have morals and ethics, which define what's good or right to do in a given situation. Morals and ethics do not necessarily have anything to do with laws. Your examples seem to be primarily about people obeying laws, but acting immorally or unethically.

To directly answer your questions, I would say is run by self-serving people who are less concerned about morality than how their appearance of morality affects their remaining in their desired position. Whether a society obeys its own laws or not depends on how fair and just it perceives those laws and the people handing them down to be and how brutally they are enforced. Unlike what the republicans would have us believe, the empirical evidence proves that the severity of punishment has little or no effect as a deterrent. If it did, there would be no murders, especially in states with capital punishment. If laws were made by legislators who really represented the citizenry instead of selfish and corporate interests, if those laws were enforced fairly and if judges handed down sentences without bias, fitting the individual crime rather than a prescribed rubber stamping, society in general would obey them.

[jbm]

21. definitions of virtue..

Liberals believe that people can choose to be virtuous all on their own, and that most people will err towards the good. A virtuous person to a liberal is one who analyzes the situation and chooses the path that he at least believes to be the 'right thing'.


Conservatives believe that human nature is not inherently good, and the path to virtue lies in strict obedience to laws and commandments and our 'superiors'. They don't do situational ethics. The law is the law and it's wrong to disobey.

[H2O Man]

23. Some people have

an internal locus of control, others have an external locus of control. In theory, the goal is to have people who hold ethics inside; this is probably something instilled by the family. Thus, the foundations for social character are built based on how children are valued. More, it implies that as each generation replaces the next, the social character of each culture will reflect and pass on what was instilled in their childhood.

Until fairly recently in human history, human beings were raised in the "natural world." Human beings were raised with constant contact with other people, with animals, plants, the ground, and water. In recent times, concrete and blacktop define the "world" for many people. Contact with animals, plants, the ground, and flowing water has been reduced, quite often to "vacations." The extended family was reduced to the nuclear family, which was reduced to the shattered single parent family, to meet the requirements of corporate interests.

In most of human history, each individual had a place in a social web; that place had both rights and responsibilities. The person's identity was often enhanced by "vacations" of isolation, to look within. That produced a range of social characteristics, summed up by something Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman taught me when I was young: "Think for yourself, act for others."

Today, in America, most children spend extraordinary amounts of time in front of a screen: either the tv or a computer. Their brains are being programmed in an unnatural manner. A large number of children and youth are experiencing a form of loneliness and isolation that is not a normal part of "being a teen." They are being programmed to exist in the concrete world.

I would venture that a large part of the instilling of the internal locus of control has been lost. That's why people raised on tv often experience difficulty in telling the difference between what is real, and what the Bush administration/corporate society tells them is real. In today's dog-eat-dog culture, the ability to straddle the lines of acceptable behavior, to gain personal "power" at the expense of others, is considered a strength. To suggest that human beings have alternative modes of social construct is viewed as naive. To live by internal control is viewed as weakness.

[leftofthedial]

25. Here in post-Reagan Murka

you are what is known as a loser, a schmuck, an easy mark.

[marions ghost]

26. right

my impression too..it is considered dumb nowdays to leave yourself vulnerable --by expecting others to follow "golden rules" and community values.

So if someone takes advantage of you, you deserved it. I see this attitude all around me and it is very depressing. :-(

[leftofthedial]

27. it is horrible and unsustainable

it rots away the very foundation of civilization

I always try to do the right thing

and I almost never fail to pay a price for doing so.

My advice to you is to trust least those who moralize the loudest.

[marions ghost]

28. I get your point

some people--often those who 'moralize the loudest'--are really good at selling the illusion that they are just SO concerned with doing what is right and correct. Highly skilled at keeping their real agenda hidden they fool many people around them. These are the skunks who know exactly what they are doing and are very good at it, even proud of it. They are often in visible positions of power.

And then what you also see is the shining ones with little haloes who are quieter about adhering to high-flown morals but just as sleezy. They think of themselves as having the HIGHEST integrity and would be bewildered if challenged on that. They often pose as friends or colleagues but wait for little opportunities to use that friendship to their own ends.