Does morality only concern other individuals...

**Jack04** · September 01, 2011, 04:37 AM

Or are the interests of the individual whose morality it is, also taken into account?

Example: Clearly, failing to act to help another person when the opportunity presents itself and there are no negative repercussions (for either individual) could be considered immoral. But would the same failure to act still be immoral if there were repercussions (comparable perhaps to the trouble the other individual finds themselves in)?

Essentially, is there room for a certain level of self-interest and self-preservation in morality or is an action moral/immoral, regardless of the personal risks (or subsequent benefits) one might take in carrying it out, and is it judged purely by the actions potential negative consequences?

**~~AdamWeishaupt~~** · September 01, 2011, 06:33 AM

You should take the potential negative consequences into consideration before you act and weigh them against the assumed benefits for the other person because you could be wrong and that what you assume to be a benefit for the other may be seen looking back something else. The moral activity (the inner judgment) consisted in that case in a careful reflection and you may also ask others what they think before you give a help that may not help. As you have mentioned, we need to be aware that we can be made accountable. The question of the benefit for acting under moral judgments is in fact your moral accountability. Morality concerns all individuals that can hold moral points of view. However, it is not in all cases recommended to interact with everyone holding any moral point of view, because this could limit the moral options a person is looking for. I hope this is an answer to your question at least in parts. I tend to leave the room when I feel exposed to persons whose moral points of view are too conflicting vis-à-vis my own because it occurs to me then that my presence may not be too helpful indeed.

**In3x** · September 01, 2011, 08:11 AM

I think morality is only loosely linking to self interest. In fact it seems like the less self interest you have the more moral your action is.

For example, someone is drowning and you jump in to save them. Potential cons: 2 people drown instead of one, pros: no one drowns. Do nothing and one person will drown, but that is seen as worse than 2 people drowning.

I think that in general if there is less risk to your person people see it as less moral and less heroic. I have no idea why.

**Jack04** · September 01, 2011, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by In3x

For example, someone is drowning and you jump in to save them. Potential cons: 2 people drown instead of one, pros: no one drowns. Do nothing and one person will drown, but that is seen as worse than 2 people drowning.

Which is a case in point. Were you a strong swimmer and you chose not to act when it was entirely safe (for you) to do so, that might be considered immoral. However, were you to attempt to save the individual's life and were a weak swimmer, there would be no such judgement. So there appears to be some kind of balance between considered morality and self-risk. Obviously an action that is moral is not a selfish act, but nevertheless there does seem to be an element of self-interest (or perhaps just pragmatism) when it comes to judging the morality of an action.

**In3x** · September 01, 2011, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by Jack04

Which is a case in point. Were you a strong swimmer and you chose not to act when it was entirely safe (for you) to do so, that might be considered immoral. However, were you to attempt to save the individual's life and were a weak swimmer, there would be no such judgement. So there appears to be some kind of balance between considered morality and self-risk. Obviously an action that is moral is not a selfish act, but nevertheless there does seem to be an element of self-interest (or perhaps just pragmatism) when it comes to judging the morality of an action.

Yup, exactly. Which I think is really funny, you are judged more harshly because you have a certain skill, bit weird isn't it? Surely you should think, "That guy's drowning and you never even bothered to learn to swim you dickhead! Fat lot of use you are."

**Adrian** · September 03, 2011, 11:15 PM

That's why I avoid thinking in "moral" terms. To absolute for my tastes.

Aside from that tough, one does not need to be "moral" to help others or do what is "right".

**Col. Tartleton** · September 03, 2011, 11:27 PM

Should I risk for a stranger? I'd have to be caught in the moment. It wouldn't be conscious.
Do I risk death for someone I Love? Yes, I'd struggle to ever forgive myself and I'd be damaged goods forever if I didn't.

My survival is important. I'm most likely statistically easily in the top 1% of human beings. But I'm not the only person on earth who matters.

**Ciabhán** · September 03, 2011, 11:54 PM

Originally Posted by Col. Tartleton

My survival is important. I'm most likely statistically easily in the top 1% of human beings.

Ok I have to ask...How exactly do you determine this and I'm assuming you don't value humility at all?

**Col. Tartleton** · September 04, 2011, 12:21 AM

I mean my opportunities. That came out wrong... Im one of 4.5 percent of humans who will attend college and im going to one in a great location with a lot of business opportunities. I'm a white male with a strong family/support and living in America. I'm not bad looking and I'm tall. I'm surrounded by beautiful girls of every ethnicity imaginable. I'm one a first name basis with senior faculty at my school.

I'm very lucky. I think throwing my life away would be squandering it all.

**Ciabhán** · September 04, 2011, 12:35 AM

Originally Posted by Col. Tartleton

I mean my opportunities. That came out wrong... Im one of 4.5 percent of humans who will attend college and im going to one in a great location with a lot of business opportunities. I'm a white male with a strong family/support and living in America. I'm not bad looking and I'm tall. I'm surrounded by beautiful girls of every ethnicity imaginable. I'm one a first name basis with senior faculty at my school.

I'm very lucky. I think throwing my life away would be squandering it all.

None of that makes you any more or less 'valuable' than anyone else. In the grand scheme of things we're all equally disposible. You might have an easier and more enjoyable life but it doesn't change that fact.

**Col. Tartleton** · September 04, 2011, 12:40 AM

Im not pushing anyone under a bus and I'm not jumping in front of one. I can do a lot with my life. I'm not asking people to die for me. I'm just not sure I'd be willing to trade my life for someone elses.

**Ciabhán** · September 04, 2011, 01:15 AM

Understandable. Ultimately, unless broken in some way, we all have a strong preservation instinct. We're selfish animals because we're designed that way.

Just don't pretend that your reasoning is because you're 'more valuable' in the grand scheme of things than someone else. You're valuable only to yourself and maybe a select group but then so are they.

Hell professionally I put my life on the line for other people for 21 years. However, personally I'd be hard pressed to care less about all but a small selection of the species. I'd still try to save most of them at risk to myself however. I couldn't just walk away without trying.

**Col. Tartleton** · September 04, 2011, 08:32 AM

And that's good of you.

**Justice and Mercy** · September 04, 2011, 11:09 AM

No. In a manner of speaking, morality only concerns one individual at a time.

You act in the manner that you think best furthers your life as a human being. You choose that which will net a greater value than the alternatives. This includes EVERY choice you make. Even if you were all alone on a desert island you would need morality if you are to survive.

So let's apply this to a social context. You have a child, but you can either choose to feed the child or buy a hat. The idea that to buy the hat would be the "selfish" choice is ridiculous, but widespread. Morality exists in a context, and is primarily cognitive. The incredible twisted mess of evasions required to get you to value a hat over your child would be... well... incredible. Anyone who is even semi rational would value their own child over a hat, because they understand precisely what they're choosing between.

You choose the greater value. BUT this is not seperate from your means of formulating values. So if someone asks: "What if a man doesn't value feeding his child?" I'd argue that, in order to get to such a state, the man has already made a truck load of immoral choices.

In the case of choosing your own life or the lives of others... it's difficult to pass moral judgement in such a case (as with suicide.) I don't presume to be able to tell a man what he should be willing to live with, nor would I presume to tell him that he made the wrong choice in not giving up his own life.

But you should NEVER, in ANY case put other people's values above your own. That's completely ridiculous. If you truly value the lives of others above your own, okay. In some cases I understand, in others I don't.

**Blau&Gruen** · September 07, 2011, 04:54 PM

Love would be an example where 'morality only concerns the other', because when you love, then you refer to the other unconditionally.
--------------------------
You will not meet many people in life that love you so much that they risk literally their existence to be with you.
One ought to keep care with this.

**XIII** · September 12, 2011, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Jack04

Or are the interests of the individual whose morality it is, also taken into account?

Depends on the system of morality you believe in. Mine, for example, demands that I do everything in my power to help that person (within the bounds of reason).

**Jack04** · September 12, 2011, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by XIII

Depends on the system of morality you believe in. Mine, for example, demands that I do everything in my power to help that person (within the bounds of reason).

... but would you consider someone who chose not to act out of self-preservation actively immoral, or just at some middle ground? I would hope that I too would do everything in my power, however I would not feel that an individual was actively immoral for not acting. I wonder whether (im)morality is the correct term to describe such a problem.

**Ciabhán** · September 13, 2011, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by Jack04

... but would you consider someone who chose not to act out of self-preservation actively immoral, or just at some middle ground? I would hope that I too would do everything in my power, however I would not feel that an individual was actively immoral for not acting. I wonder whether (im)morality is the correct term to describe such a problem.

Immoral no but not someone I'd associate with. I wouldn't go so far as to call them cowards, self preservation can't be judged that way, but I do see it as a lack of what I consider character.

Then my opinion and morality are both subjective.

**Blau&Gruen** · September 14, 2011, 02:01 PM

Moral is subjective of course because you are the moral subject and the way you chose concerns your relation to other beings, not the other way round. Do not allow others to chose for you because you can know what is right.

**XIII** · September 12, 2011, 11:58 AM

This is because the Christian system of morality that I subscribe to demands that I do so. The primacy of love in Christian ethics is such that we are called on and empowered to love others even to the point of self-sacrifice. Though, I personally will not hold it against a person if they choose not to act out of self-preservation. I don't even expect that when put in such a situation, I will act in the manner that my ethic expects me to.

Like I said, it depends on your moral beliefs.