Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Qoji I must disagree somewhat with your underlying principle. One who acts justly, no matter how much he sacrifices of himself for the benefit of others, is still motivated by personal benefit; indeed, he is acting justly because of his motivation to better his situation. In fact all human actions come from that motivation, including the second person in your example. The only difference is the first guy is wise to the golden rule. |
How is this disagreement? The entire strength of the argument for righteous behavior, whose decline in popularity is directly linked to foregoing of this argument in favor of the peception that all righteousness is self-inflicted misery, is that the person who is just will be personally happier than the one who is unjust. To use Socrates' most extreme example, if one man is falsely accused of a crime, imprisoned, kept in a cell without contacts or luxuries, and a second man, who actually committed the crime, is elevated and praised by society, raised on a pedestal and given wealth and fame,
even then, the first man is happier than the second. The capacity for happiness stemming from external sources is much lower than that stemming from internal sources; satisfaction with oneself is more important than satisfaction with one's current position.
There is, of course, the danger in this, as Eighteen correctly pointed out, that one can perceive what is the right action to be very different from what society perceives it to be. This, however, doesn't really come into the philosophy that I am advocating. The state can condone slavery. An individual can condone murder and theft. Even the greatest philosophers of ages past that agreed on the underlying concept of happiness stemming from right action could not agreed on a codex of right action. Every holy book disagrees with the others. Yet the nuances can be up to the individual; my point is simply the foundation of the philosophy, not it's actual practice. Someone who believes it is morally right, and a sacred duty to kill anyone wearing a red shirt will, unfortunately, only find happiness doing this. Society will react to protect itself. The ultimate goal is for society and the individual to adapt to each other, which, of course, they have been doing for tens of thousands of years now, hence why people who find it a righteous duty to kill anyone in a red shirt are so few. Most people find it self-evident that it is wrong to hurt or kill another without justification, although what constitutes adequate justification is another loophole. People have proudly and happily faced the death sentence for everything from fighting invading opressors to blowing up ice cream shops full of children, because it was what they thought was the only right thing to do.
No one claimed the truth was clean and pretty.