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 2)

Corio

on Mar 02, 2004

...So I agree with eight gates on this one (if I read you correctly)

imajinit

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

you are the new King of Ambiguity. that was a good way to completely avoid everything i wrote...

have you considered a job in politics?

while a specific action may depend on the context, the underlying principle does not. that's the most contradictory statement i've heard in a long time...

Randy Spire

on Mar 02, 2004

Sorry, not contradictory at all, we are talking about two very differt thing there. one is the actor, the context, and the act taken. the second is the principle used to determine the act itself. This is not amiguous at all.

And kudos to Corio. While I am not reading any Kant now (others may be), I am a long time fan, particualrly of his moral imperative where he argues that any act is determined good if it at the same time can be wished to be universal law. A good example of principle outside a specific context.

Randy Spire

on Mar 02, 2004

"King of Ambiguity"

can I get a JoeUser Award for that?!

InfoGeek

on Mar 02, 2004

any act is determined good if it at the same time can be wished to be universal law

Question: Wished to be universal law by all, by the individual or by a select group?

IG

Randy Spire

on Mar 02, 2004

In the case of Kant, my understanding is that the actor would, at the time of acting, wish that the basis of the decision to act would be universal law. For example, if I choose to give half my sandwich to another person, Kant's imperative would suggest that I also wish it to be universal law that every sandwich be shared by half with another.

InfoGeek

on Mar 02, 2004

Understood. What would Kant have us do if two actors had seperate universal laws that were in direct opposition to each other.
Both actors considered what they were doing to be good acts.

IG

Randy Spire

on Mar 02, 2004

Well, . . . this is speculation at best, I'm afraid. I say this because in my understanding of Kant's general thesis on ethics/morality, this case of opposing priniples would not exists and possibly could not exists. So in a real sense the question is moot. I undestand this is not the case in practice of specific individuals in given contexts, but the fault for this lies in the individuals lack of clearly identified principles rather than in Kant's social theory. i think the important essence of your question though, is by what means to we come to agreement, or at least understanding/ tolerance, when differing views stand face to face.

imajinit

on Mar 02, 2004

since we're bringing the likes of Kant into this, let's talk about the British Empiricts and Associationists, David Hume, David Hartley, and John Stuart Mill who believed much like Aristotle that man is a "Tabula Rasa" (a blank slate)... it's the nature vs. nurture debate's early beginnings...

if man is a blank slate at birth, anything can be written in. this means that his environment and his culture will have the greatest impact on who he becomes. If one is born and raised in America, one will learn American social norms... religious views are a little more tricky, but learned none-the-less.

which brings us to the discussion at hand. When 'Man A' is faced with the decision of whether to tell the waitress about her mistake or not, he will either consciously or unconsciously refer to the 'principles' that he has been taught throughout his life.

consider if Man A was raised in a poverty stricken ghetto, by an alcoholic father and uncaring mother, and never had a good influence in his life. How is he likely to decide?

consider if Man B was born with the proverbial "silver spoon" in his mouth... how would he choose?

so you see that environment and culture has everything to do with these "principles" that you're trying to define... I'm not here claiming that it's cut and dried, or that a flawless prediction could be made based on a person's upbringing... what I am saying is that determining whether to act from a “fear of punishment” standpoint or from a “sense of right and wrong” will depend on one's environment...

Randy Spire

on Mar 02, 2004

It is also true that there exist common (universal) themes of social behavior which are cross cultural or supra-cultural, and independent of environment or upbringing. 'Man' can come into the world a blank slate, but there are also things inherent, though not necessarily a priori, to his/er existence. (i believe)

imajinit

on Mar 02, 2004

i don't think deciding whether to pay for coffee or not is one of 'em...

something else that we haven't even considered are "flexible morals"... there are some who put a price tag on things like this... a .50 cent cup of coffee would cause them to lose no sleep at all, but it's not like they're trying to walk out of Wal-Mart with a new grill that they didn't pay for.

as for the coffee in question, Man C would have just tipped the waitress a little extra and never thought about it again...

the coffee was prob'ly complimentary anyway

KarmaGirl

on Mar 02, 2004

I have never lived with "fear of punishment". Of course, I am also agnostic, so I can't relate to the "fear of God". But you don't have to have that fear to do the "right" thing when it is cut and dry. We all know what the major "wrongs" are. There may be some grey areas (especially concerning personal relationships). But, for your example, we all know that you have to pay for coffee when you order it.

I have been told before that I am "honest to a fault". As an example, my husband and I went to a home improvement store. Some of the things that we were buying were miscellaneous bolts and such. The cashier decided to be lazy and not look them up and just stuck them in a bag (this was after she fumbled through a book of pictures of different bolts and stuff). I asked her if she wanted more info, and she said "it's not worth it." So, I paid for the other things, then took my bag up to the service counter to pay for the other stuff (which was about $20 worth of stuff). I couldn't leave the store even though the cashier basically gave me a "free pass".

So, I guess that would be with the "sense of right and wrong" approach.

How many people walking out with a $1.00 or so of "free" stuff does it take before the company loses too much money to keep everyone employed? It might seem small on an individual basis, but it becomes an issue when you consider the whole picture.

imajinit, where do you get the $.50 cup of coffee? You can't get a cup around here for under a $1.00.

Randy Spire

on Mar 02, 2004

yeah, and i think that gets us back to the question of intent.

charlie poore

on Mar 02, 2004

As a child you feared the punishment and you grew to realize the right or wrong. [ans. punishment].............On the lighter side ,You can bet your life the IRS has got a handle on this one,ask them to see the books to know what works, charlie poore.

PoetPhilosopher

on Mar 03, 2004

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

Better in what sense ?

Fear seems to be something that can be overcome - and it involves a degree of risk assessment. This I think is where the comparison falls down because you are describing a fear which is driven by faith in God. So it seems, we are not talking about fear in the classic sense, but more about faith, or... a sense of right and wrong. Does fear of going to hell equate with fear of going to jail. I just don't know - I think they are fundamentally different.

A better comparison might be - a fear of getting caught by the cops.

In which case I would say - because this fear is subject to change, the intention is less "pure".

Of course.. one's personal morals change too.

So there you go.

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!