Fear of punishment vs. sense of right and wrong

A question

Published on March 1, 2004 By InfoGeek In Philosophy

Situation:
Man A and Man B are at separate tables in a restaurant. Both me notice that the waitress has not charged them for the coffee each ordered. Man A thinks that not letting the waitress know of her mistake is the same as stealing (obtaining w/o paying) and stealing is against my god and I will be punished for the transgression and lets the waitress know. Man B thinks that stealing is wrong and that informing her of her mistake is the right thing to do.

Question: Is it better to act from a “fear of punishment” standpoint or from a “sense of right and wrong” ?

IG

Comments (Page 1)

russellmz2

on Mar 01, 2004

depends. if both wind up doing the irght thing no matter what, who really cares?

you can come up with a situation where one or the other winds up doing something bad (the right thing is not the legal thing or if someone thinks they can get away with it or if their version of "what is right" is horrific).

Randy Spire

on Mar 01, 2004

"doing the right thing no matter what, who really cares?"

A good example of sloppy and lazy.

That is the point of the post. Intention is at the very heart of what determines an action to be right or wrong. You may not care adn that's fine, but it only reflects you don't have a defines set of principles to operate from and to determine the quality of your own actions.

InfoGeek

on Mar 01, 2004

But, what if there are a set of principle being used by Man B. What if he has internalized them to a degree that they do not have to be referred to?

Also, what if the intention of an action is good, but the intended result is bad?

IG

Randy Spire

on Mar 01, 2004

I don't think they necessarily need to be referred to, but they are still able to be expressed if necessary.

As for intent, I believe that intention trumps outcome. If the intent is pure and the outcome bad, then it's a learning experience and one can adjust. If the intent is bad and the outcome good, this still ahs a net negative because the 'actor' has not made any progress.

InfoGeek

on Mar 01, 2004

So, a person can do foreseeable harm as long as he intends good?

IG

messybuu

on Mar 01, 2004

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I'm with russellmz2. The motives are meaningless. It's the outcome that matters.

Randy Spire

on Mar 01, 2004

Do the ends justify the means?

I say no, the means are the end.

If it is foreseeable harm, then one's intention couldn't be good. If the harm was foreseeable, then the action would be harmful.

a cliche' is a cliche' is a cliche'. How about some original thought, this is the philosphy forum, not retelling old wives tales.

InfoGeek

on Mar 01, 2004

Whatif the forseeable harm comes with an eventual outcome that is an accepted good?

Even if there is forseeable harm, the intent could still be good. If you accept the harm as a step to a greater good, it could be acceptable.

IG

Randy Spire

on Mar 01, 2004

I don't disagree. I think the action should be determined on it's own merit without a focus on outcomes. A set of principles can guide each distinct action, the results of whihc can be guessed at but are utterly uncontrollable

InfoGeek

on Mar 01, 2004

I understand. With regard to the principle though, is there a presumption that they are not inherently flawed. Many people with well thought out principles have done truly horrendous things.

Question, does the process change when the principled action causes harm directly related to the principled action? Does the person commit to the repetition of the action? If the action is based on principle, and the principle as not changed, would the harmful outcome become irrelevant or somehow lessened?

If the harmful action is not irrelevant, then should not the person making the principled decision at least consider what outcomes his actions may create?

IG

Lunaticus Minimus

on Mar 01, 2004

What if people feel differently than the way you do, Eight? Is that wrong or right?
Who's "set of principles" are better than anyone elses?

Randy Spire

on Mar 02, 2004

I think the important thing is to define what the principle(s) is/ are. It's fine if others' are different, but they should atleast be defined and known. Maybe someone disagrees even with this, certainly, but be able to clarify why. So, what are those principles? By what standaard should the good/bad ness of an action be determined?

imajinit

on Mar 02, 2004

how much college do you have under your belt 'eight gates'? i don't mean to sound condescending, and i don't know if you're just trying to promote healthy discussion, but your question is incredibly ambiguous.

in order to answer it completely, we have to consider the following, just for starters:

social norms
cultural influences
religious views
environmental influences
'standards' of conduct

where Mr. A and Mr. B are from, where they live, what kind of household they grew up in, the level of their education, etc etc...

in order for any 'joeuser' to answer this question, their individual background has to be considered as well... the so called 'principles' that you're talking about are going to depend on the indivdual, which is to say that they're going to be different for everyone.

so in other words, there is no 'right answer'... it all depends on the context.

Randy Spire

on Mar 02, 2004

i disagree. the aspects you mention are irrelevant. and while a specific action may depend on the context, the underlying principle does not. while these things you mention certainly will influence a given individual in a given situation, they are extraneous in terms of ethical principles and determining a universal morality.

Corio

on Mar 02, 2004

Question: Is it better to act from a “fear of punishment” standpoint or from a “sense of right and wrong” ?

In my opinion, if it is a question of ethics, it is far better to act out of your own standards than merely out of "fear of punishment". Your own principles are based on (presumably) reflection and contemplation and should carry more weight. Personally I don't trust people who put the law above one's own moral standards. It's a question of acting from within or without.
Though I'll concede it's a complex issue. Been reading Kant lately?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!