Why bother to be moral? (14.01.2025)

Why bother to be moral?

Once upon a time, a shepherd called Gyges finds a cave in the mountain. He ventures inside and discovers a tomb with a corpse wearing a golden ring that renders him invisible whenever he puts it on. It allows him to do whatever he wants and consequently he seduces the queen, murders the king and seizes the throne.

You might not go as far as Gyges, but what you do be tempted to do if you had the ring? Don’t be coy; be honest with yourself. What would you use it for?

This tale (which is found in Plato’s second book of The Republic) is told by Glaucon who claims that ‘all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice.’

Do you agree?

A theist would argue that we’re moral because God requires it of us. This isn’t a crude ‘obey me or you’ll go to hell’ command; rather the universe has an inherent moral structure to it. When we violate this order, we go against our nature and harm ourselves and everyone else as well.

Not all people will agree, of course. If God doesn’t exist, the universe is morally meaningless. Rather, we’re ethical because otherwise human society would descend into chaos. Social contract theory says we’re motivated by selfish desires and everyone would be attacking everyone else if society didn’t impose moral constraints on us. As Hobbes wrote, life is ‘nasty, brutish and short’. It’s wise then to abide by society’s requirements. True, there are things you won’t be able to do, but that holds for all of us. If everyone obeys these constraints, our lives will be safer and more productive

Bentham took a more positive view of human nature. He said, ‘nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.’ We flee from one and seek pleasure. This being the case, it makes sense to maximise pleasure and minimise pain, and since we live in society, we ought to do this for the majority. In other words, being moral is an attempt to increase the amount of happiness in the world, not for yourself but for everyone.

This may well be the case, but try convincing Gyges he’s only happy when everyone else is happy too! Or, imagine a scenario where everyone is convinced you’re the instigator of a serious riot.  You’re innocent, but for the sake of society, you’re charged and imprisoned. Is the happiness of the masses sufficient to ease your suffering? I doubt it.

And Kant doubts it too. Morality is not about our actions but about our duty. Humans are unique in having a developed rationality. If we use it correctly, we’ll see that doing the right thing is a matter of logic, not desire. Consider murder. You hate your boss and have an excellent plan to do away with her. You bump into Kant and confess your secret. Kant says, ‘hmm, let’s think about this. Morality is about actions that everyone should do. So, if everyone murdered their bosses, there wouldn’t be any bosses left. This means, murder is logically inconsistent.

The same holds for queue-jumping; if everyone did it, there wouldn’t be a queue to jump so the moral command ‘queue jump!’ contradicts itself.  In other words, Kant is saying that the moral action is the one that doesn’t contradict itself. He is asking you to live according to your nature, which is a rational agent.

There are many other theories as to why you should be moral. And they frequently disagree with each other. Perhaps, there isn’t a single answer to the question. Perhaps, as is always in philosophy, the question is more important than the answer.