An Interview With A Moralist

[Gary Childress]

OK, trade something else recognized as having value.

Is exactly what I am doing. I am bartering with the thing you value most. Your life.

I'll let you keep it if you give me your cows.

You seem to be insisting on raising the stakes until you reach the absurd. Allow me to assist:

The farmer decides he’ll keep his cows and detonate a nuclear bomb on your ass.

You (the productive member of society who eats food but does not grow it himself) decide to retract your earlier offer out of concern for your survival.

Instead, you (a skilled carpenter) offer to repair the farmer’s barn in return for one cow.

After all the nuclear fallout settles, maybe to look at things from a different angle; there is a farmer on the other side of the river who loses everything in a flood. You didn't. Is there any reason why you should help the guy out if you are easily able to? If you don't, obvoiusly you shouldn't feel pangs of shame or guilt, because, well, that's just some subjective phenomena that doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things and you're an "amoralist". Is that just too bad for him?

And if you do help the guy out, have you actually done anything that was a "good" thing to do? Do you deserve respect,praise or heavenly reward for your deed? Or was that bag of grain you sent him, simply squandered in the name of some human folly called "compassion"?

[RCSaunders]

There's no difference between bartering and extortion in an amoral system.

What does morality have to do with it? Is there no difference between having enough to eat or starving to death in an amoral system. Is there no difference on your math test between the answer "5" and, "7" to the question what is 3 plus 2 in an amoral system? Is there not difference between stepping in front of a car going fifty miles an hour and waiting for it to pass in an amoral system? Is there no difference to an exchange both people agree to and an exchange in which one individual is, "forced," to participate against his will in an amoral system?

Perhaps you don't see any difference. I can see why you might not.

[Skepdick]

What does morality have to do with it? Is there no difference between having enough to eat or starving to death in an amoral system. Is there no difference on your math test between the answer "5" and, "7" to the question what is 3 plus 2 in an amoral system? Is there not difference between stepping in front of a car going fifty miles an hour and waiting for it to pass in an amoral system? Is there no difference to an exchange both people agree to and an exchange in which one individual is, "forced," to participate against his will in an amoral system?

Perhaps you don't see any difference. I can see why you might not.

Well. "Morality" has everything to do with it!

You said the universe we live in is amoral (and so I believed you).

So what do you mean by "morality" when you use that word.

Obviously there's a difference between starving and eating. That's why I am negotiating for your cows - I want to eat them.

[commonsense]

After all the nuclear fallout settles, maybe to look at things from a different angle; there is a farmer on the other side of the river who loses everything in a flood. You didn't. Is there any reason why you should help the guy out if you are easily able to? If you don't, obvoiusly you shouldn't feel pangs of shame or guilt, because, well, that's just some subjective phenomena that doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things and you're an "amoralist". Is that just too bad for him?

Interesting. But let’s say you’re not a strict “amoralist” and you might help your neighbor. Then what incentive would you have to help your neighbor? I mean, isn’t the default position to take an amoral one? Are there some individuals who would do the “right” thing just because it’s the “right” thing, or does there have to be a reward?

And if you do help the guy out, have you actually done anything that was a "good" thing to do? Do you deserve respect,praise or heavenly reward for your deed? Or was that bag of grain you sent him, simply squandered in the name of some human folly called "compassion"?

Give a man a bag of grain and he’ll have food to eat. Teach a man to grow crops and he’ll have food to eat in the future.

[Gary Childress]

Interesting. But let’s say you’re not a strict “amoralist” and you might help your neighbor. Then what incentive would you have to help your neighbor?

Possibly none.

I mean, isn’t the default position to take an amoral one?

For some, perhaps, for others maybe not.

Are there some individuals who would do the “right” thing just because it’s the “right” thing, or does there have to be a reward?

I assume it depends on the individual.

Give a man a bag of grain and he’ll have food to eat. Teach a man to grow crops and he’ll have food to eat in the future.

OK. Then after expending your time and patience and successfully teaching the man how to grow crops, was your time and patience squandered on a human folly called "compassion" or was the sacrifice worth it?

[commonsense]

OK. Then after expending your time and patience and successfully teaching the man how to grow crops, was your time and patience squandered on a human folly called "compassion" or was the sacrifice worth it?

The answer to your question depends on the individual and his relationship to morality. Some will feel that they wasted their time & energy and wonder why they even bothered. Others may derive pleasure from their altruistic behavior.