Der Wangeci

You ask the following: Do you agree or disagree that Moral behavior is necessary for happiness otherwise it is an irrational observance?

As I see it, moral behavior is absolutely necessary for happiness. If this were not the case, then moral behavior would be irrrational observance. By its very nature, moral behavior is others-oriented behavior, that is, behavior concerned with another's welfare and well-being. As I psychologist, I think that, unless one is a psychopath, no one can be happy if s/he behaves immoraly toward others. To behave morally means not to treat others unfairly according to Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of moral development and an ethic of justice, and not to turn away from someone in need according to Caroll Giligan's theory of an ethic of care and responsibility.

I use to say that for an individual to be happy s/he should live in peace and harmony with himself/herself, with the others, and even with the universe. It is difficult, may be impossible, to live in peace with ourselves if, for example, we do not do what we think it should be done. It is difficult, may be impossible, to live in peace with the others, if, for example, we do not pay due attention to their legitimate needs and desires. It is difficult, may be impossible, to live in peace with the universe if, for example, we pollute water, air, and the soil.

Best regards,

Orlando

I suspect that, for practical reasons, we should accept Bentham's view that "pushpin is as good as poetry." The alternative is to risk coercing people in the name of their own good. If we are guided by Bentham's observance people may still seek solace in poetry and the pinpushers are left free to pursue their own good in their own way.

("Pushpin" being a form of table skittles.)

Christopher NOCK

I'd like to believe that, alas: I do not.

1) A lot of people do not act according to what is generally being perceived as moral behavior. Whether they are happy with the act or result we do not know. What we do know is, that they achieve their goals, achieve power, money, influence, you name it. Faced with the decision of whether to act according to moral conduct or not to but succeed in their striving, they have chosen to act against moral and in favor of their goals. They must therefore have considered their goals as more valuable than acting according to morals. Are they happy about wealth and power now that they have it? Who knows? One might suppose they were of the conviction that they were. One might argue, that money does not bring happiness, but who would argue that no money brings it? We do not know.

2) Why is it necessary to act according to moral? The gross of people has to stick to it in order to keep up society. Without moral fundamentals a society would not work. If "I do not harm you if you do not harm me - I do not take your goods if you do not take mine" and so forth is not being accepted any more, what would keep up societey? Especially if somebody could harm you and freely take what is yours, why would you refuse from defending yourself or act accordingly and try to make up for it by hurting him and taking from him? Would it make you happy to be stolen from? Would it make you happy to steal yourself? If each and everyone of us does stick to the rules it keeps us from getting unhappy in that respect. (We still might not be happy, because our neighbor owns a nicer house, people tend to be that way.)

In consummation:

• people are acting against moral conduct, if they were of the conviction that acting according to conduct makes them happy or at least hapier, whilst acting against them makes them unhappy, they surely would not act that way
• people repeatedly act against moral conduct, therefore it might be assumed, that their experience supported their impression of violation of cunduct makes them happier
• acting according to moral conduct at large might not make the individual happy, but it fosters the general feeling of safety and security within society and even though the feeling of security is not happiness, there is no happiness in constant insecurity

Just some ideas on the topic from my part.

Best,

St.

But, surely, disallowing coercion by others in the name of your own good does just that? (And it's a lot shorter!)

NOCK

And here I am Christopher Nock and have already presented you with a short summary at the end of my post ... I might just as well have posted:

"Yes! No? Who knows?"

Not much of a discussion there.

Best,

St.

Moral behavior will always guide towards good understood as pleasure or well-being to people in themselves and to those around them. Now, we have to understand that as human beings emotions, feelings and desires are natural and the task of assuming a regulation is to temper them, not eliminate them in order to achieve happiness or failing a good that can be shared with others .

Stephan

Please don't feel got at! My mistake for not recognizing the executive summary!

Mind you, your last answer doesn't address my last question to you...

NOCK

Christopher,

I had not perceived your last post as being addressed to me exclusively. (Short answer at the bottom!)

If you rate the achievement of your own well-being over that of others, consider reaching your own goals (power, property, wealth) equivalent to happiness, you might pursue. If a third party steps in, that it might act in order to keep up peace of society and to keep up the system that consequently ensures the well-being of all, including that third party. This is indicated in cases where a third party (passer by) does not get involved intentionally because he either shares the view of the egoist or deems himself on the safe side and not having to suffer the consequences. This is the case when the party that is being discriminated belongs to what the passer by perceives as a group he himself can clearly distinguish himself from and in doing so believes he will not be targeted unless he steps in in an act of solidarizing himself with the discriminated individual.

In short:

• egoism works as long as it does not affect others than the immediate targeted individual or group
• counter-measures by third parties or society are being carried out if social peace is in danger or larger groups beyond the specified individual or group
• There is a saying that describes people's actions quite well: "The shirt is closer than the pants!"