My brother and I got into a bit of an argument, not so much heated as just a difference in opinion on a subject.
My brother and I were talking about what motivates people on a daily basis to be "good".
There were two opposing arguments, and I won't tell you which one of us presented which so that there can't be any bias. I'm curious what others think.
To boil down the first position, and to simplify it a bit for purposes of brevity, it was that at the end of the day, we are just animals. While we may be the most intelligent animal on the planet, we are motivated by fear and rewards just like any other animal. The individual fear and reward incentives vary tremendously, but if you distill it, it is still a matter of fear and rewards serving as our incentives. It could be that we try to be good and follow our religion because we fear what comes in the afterlife as a result, or conversely we want to reap the rewards in the afterlife from being a good person. It could be the fear of being punished for breaking the law in society versus the reward of fitting in and being accepted, helping to ultimately allow us feed ourselves and our families instead of sitting in jail or fleeing others. It could be the simple fear of dying versus the perceived rewards of enjoying life. The list goes on. This position isn't saying that we consciously think of these things daily, but that rather they are in our subconscious. We are ultimately good because we fear bad things happening to us and we treasure good things happening to us.
The second position is that our morality is derived from a social contract that we enter when becoming a member of society. We require no religion, no fears or rewards, but adhere to the social constructs set forth for the purposes of allowing society to function. Law and the judicial system are simply the means of ensuring that this contract is upheld by all. This position has its roots in the social contract concept often attributed to Thomas Hobbes. Furthermore, this position disputes the first position's suggestion that people typically act and think rationally and simply act based on simple incentives. It is a gross oversimplification to view humans as simple animals. We have progressed far beyond simple self preservation lines of thought and when being "good" think and act according to the greater good and the social contract we have entered in to.
Okay. That's the two positions. The only information I'll give about what may be behind the two lines of thought is that one of us majored in Sociology in college, the other in Economics. After that, the differences end since I'll be starting law school this fall and he'll be starting law school the following fall. I'll leave it there.
I'm curious as to whether you agree with one or the other, why you do, what your thoughts are on the subject, and if you disagree with both, to discuss your view of the reasoning behind why people are "good".
Let's try to have a good clean intellectual discussion on the matter.
My brother and I were talking about what motivates people on a daily basis to be "good".
There were two opposing arguments, and I won't tell you which one of us presented which so that there can't be any bias. I'm curious what others think.
To boil down the first position, and to simplify it a bit for purposes of brevity, it was that at the end of the day, we are just animals. While we may be the most intelligent animal on the planet, we are motivated by fear and rewards just like any other animal. The individual fear and reward incentives vary tremendously, but if you distill it, it is still a matter of fear and rewards serving as our incentives. It could be that we try to be good and follow our religion because we fear what comes in the afterlife as a result, or conversely we want to reap the rewards in the afterlife from being a good person. It could be the fear of being punished for breaking the law in society versus the reward of fitting in and being accepted, helping to ultimately allow us feed ourselves and our families instead of sitting in jail or fleeing others. It could be the simple fear of dying versus the perceived rewards of enjoying life. The list goes on. This position isn't saying that we consciously think of these things daily, but that rather they are in our subconscious. We are ultimately good because we fear bad things happening to us and we treasure good things happening to us.
The second position is that our morality is derived from a social contract that we enter when becoming a member of society. We require no religion, no fears or rewards, but adhere to the social constructs set forth for the purposes of allowing society to function. Law and the judicial system are simply the means of ensuring that this contract is upheld by all. This position has its roots in the social contract concept often attributed to Thomas Hobbes. Furthermore, this position disputes the first position's suggestion that people typically act and think rationally and simply act based on simple incentives. It is a gross oversimplification to view humans as simple animals. We have progressed far beyond simple self preservation lines of thought and when being "good" think and act according to the greater good and the social contract we have entered in to.
Okay. That's the two positions. The only information I'll give about what may be behind the two lines of thought is that one of us majored in Sociology in college, the other in Economics. After that, the differences end since I'll be starting law school this fall and he'll be starting law school the following fall. I'll leave it there.
I'm curious as to whether you agree with one or the other, why you do, what your thoughts are on the subject, and if you disagree with both, to discuss your view of the reasoning behind why people are "good".
Let's try to have a good clean intellectual discussion on the matter.
and ultimately it was debt couselling. The fear was when he approached me, as to how he was going to handle it and then the worry of whether my ex could use it against me if we had had a custody battle.
