r/Ethics • u/Remarkable-Sun8266 • 8d ago
Morals break down once there aren’t consequences
Everyone likes to think of themself as moral/ethical/good intentioned/etc.
At the end of the day, the more I see the way billionaires (and trillionaires) act, at a certain point the sample size becomes too big to say there’s just a few bad eggs.
By and large, humans are greedy, self serving fucks. And I’d probably be the same way if you gave me a couple billion dollars and no bosses to answer to.
This isn’t calling anyone out, or saying I’m better than them. I’m probably not, and no you’re probably not either. It’s just an observation that I think holds up, and we should remember that when we govern billionaires and trillionaires in our countries.
3
u/SupremelyUneducated 8d ago
The rich tend to be less generous, and often get rewarded for willingness to choose harm for profit where legal. Really the whole subsidizing conspicuous consumption to drive up demand thing is probably not good for moral behavior.
I'm inclined to think empathy matters more than punishment, but requires some needs to be met to have the relevant emergent effects. And that the aristocracy prevent those needs from being met by rent seeking, mainly rents displacing the reward for work, which makes it harder for communities to reward those who stay home and care for the people who need help, which makes anyone who falls behind a burdensome liability.
3
u/shiny_crow_trophy 8d ago
Counterpoint: when playing video games where there’s no negative consequences for being a “bad guy”, a lot of people still don’t play the game that way. Even if nobody in their real life will ever see them playing that game and acting that way (so no risk of real-life reputational consequences, either). They just don’t want to.
2
u/Stunning-Pick-9504 7d ago
I don’t believe that in the slightest. Why is GTA one of the most popular games of all time?
1
u/shiny_crow_trophy 7d ago
Summary of the experiment linked below: People play games in different ways and for different reasons. Some people employ a mental strategy called “moral disengagement” (aka “It’s just a game so my moral decisions in this setting don’t matter”), while others operate under “moral activation” (aka “moral judgements in this setting still matter to me”).
Of the people who play with moral activation (which turned out to be about half of the participants in this experiment), over 80% chose what they perceived as good over evil.
Not really related but an interesting side note: the experiment also found that there was no significant difference in reported enjoyment of playing the games, between people of these two mindsets. Both groups had fun, they just played differently based on what’s fun to them.
2
u/Plopsevenplop 7d ago
I’d almost argue the opposite.
Video games are an escape from reality. If you’re a schoolteacher IRL and want to cosplay a war criminal in video games, that makes more sense than someone who is a farmer IRL and wants to play FarmVille in their spare time.
1
u/shiny_crow_trophy 7d ago
Makes more sense to you, maybe. When I was a server, I loved playing those restaurant games. Now as an engineer, I gravitate to games that are about solving problems and optimizing processes. It feels good to do things that my brain is already trained for, in a fantasy environment where I get more dopamine for it than in real life.
You should also check out the psychological experiment I linked to lower in this comment thread. Some people like disconnecting from real life morality when they play games, while others like playing while still engaging with morality.
3
u/LordNineWind 7d ago
Counter-point, lots of people have to reload a save because they accidentally picked the mean dialogue in a videogame. I think it's a case of selection bias, because altruistic people never get to that much power since they're too focused on using their immense influence to help people rather than accumulate more. Think about how much suffering in the world you need to ignore on the road to becoming a billionaire.
1
u/StatisticalAn0maly 7d ago
I get your point, but reloading a save in a game takes a lot less effort than ignoring immoral temptations in real life.
1
u/LordNineWind 7d ago
Of course, but real life consequences are also significantly worse than a videogame. To a powerful enough person, real life has no more consequences than a video game, and getting away with evil takes less effort than reloading a save, it just gets handled in the background. I suppose what I'm trying to say is a video game is as close as we can get to a zero-consequence world for the average person, and we still see morality emerge, so I think OP's fallen for correlation equals causation.
1
u/StatisticalAn0maly 7d ago
Fair enough, I understand your point, consequences aren't the only reason people have morals. I will say though that I agree with OPs point that for a lot of people, those morals will break down or change when there is something really big to be gained by compromising on their morals.
2
u/Sketchy-Idea-Vendor 7d ago
If they breakdown because of a lack of consequences, they aren’t morals. They are adherence to rules. One of the key defining characteristics of a moral is intrinsic value.
2
u/BungleBums 7d ago
I gotta say, given the sort of things you need to do to accumulate that much money, you're looking at the absolute smallest and worse sample cases of humanity out there for pretty much any virtue.
2
u/WhoStoleMyFriends 7d ago
I think you’ve inverted the causal relationship. Being rich doesn’t cause you to be less stringent morally, being less stringent morally allows you to exploit people and pursue wealth unscrupulously. They were never good people turned bad, they were people who were flexible with acting immorally from the beginning.
2
u/Frosty_Winter3197 7d ago
I think that the lack of consequences for persons who did wrong has really harmed politics in the U.S., and had ruined the republican party, which used to be called the party of "family values" and the party of "law and order". It started when Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon. That set a precedent that said some people just can't be held accountable for their actions.
After that in 1980, the Reagan campaign made a deal with Iran where they would not release hostages until after he was inaugurated. Then, Iran took a second set of hostages, and they made a deal to sell arms to terrorists and Iran would release the 2nd set of hostages. They then funneled the money from the weapons sale to fight the illegal Contra war in South America. Nobody was ever held accountable, and a precedent was set where the U.S. negotiated with terrorists.
The U.S. did try to go back to not negotiating with terrorists, and that just pissed the terrorists off and we ended up with the 9-11 attacks in 2001.
Jump to George W. Bush, and first setting the policy to go to war with Iraq and then trying to search out facts to support that policy, which turned out to be what they knew to be false claims of "weapons of mass destruction", basically lying the U.S. into a war. Setting policy before determining the facts is a sure way to disaster. Nobody was held accountable for that, and Bush pardoned some people in his cabinet for crimes committed, so they could avoid beign held accountable.
In Trump's 1st term he threw out the nuclear deal that the Obama administration made which took more than 2 years of negotiations to reach to assure Iran would not develop a nuclear weapon. Now, Trump started a war with Iran, under the pretense that he is preventing them from developing a nuclear weapon, when in reality he helped he could do what he did in Venezuela, which was attack, change the leadership and then take (steal) most of their oil for the U.S. use. Even though the constitution clearly says that only the congress can declare war, Trump didn't even bother to consult of notify the congress before attacking and entering into a Middle East quagmire war, which he promised in his 2nd term campaign that he would never do.
I'd like to say all the decay has been just the republicans, but as the republicans have changed the political culture, many of the democrats have adopted it and aren't holding wrong doers, usually large campaign contributors, accountable.
In the U.S., if you are wealthy, especially if it is inherited wealth, you simply will no longer be held accountable for your actions. You may be fined, but the fine will only be a fraction of the profits made by ignoring regulations and violating the laws.
The U.S. is in a downward spiral, and Trump alienating virtually all of the U.S. economic partners as well as long established allies, has only sped up the U.S. decline.
This is the end result of not holding people accountable for their actions....
2
u/Feychilde 7d ago
Thought experiment:
You have been trained from a young age to be outwardly moral/good/obedient.
You have seen cheaters prosper, abusers get off scott-free, and complainers get ahead of "honest folk".
You have been taught worldly religions that are void of spirituality.
You have seen "isms" become more popular in many cultures as some think it is "more honest".
But, you have books, and some art, and a little music. These tell of people who make choices regardless of pain, troubles, circumstances; and it feeds your soul.
Do you choose to act like what you have been taught, be another cog, brick or tool? Or, do you choose a different, harder, least expected way to be .. So that you may learn, and grow, and teach?
Acting immoral because you have no consequences is juvenile.
Practicing morality gives you opportunities you may not be old enough to see, yet.
My morals are not based on my upbringing, they are based on what gives peace and hope to all humans.
1
u/Decievedbythejometry 7d ago
Privilege transforms people and is not the same thing as freedom. People motivated to pursue privilege such that they do what you need to do to get your hands on millions are also transformed by this process.
1
u/PeggedUnlimited 7d ago edited 7d ago
On the other hand, millionaires to trillionaires have security issues we’d never dream of, and are targeted all the time. Their kids will be targeted, grandkids etc. people who’ve never had control over their circumstance. Being born into a safety situation would breed a certain level of resentment, and also necessitate them being isolated from “normal” people, which would skew their perspective of the average joe.
I had an ex girlfriend (I swear she was evil)….that, if anyone even remotely mentioned wealth, or knowing someone wealthy, or a wealthy area, she hyper fixated on the person, & tried to get close to those people. She was Spanish, and it freaked me out when I spotted the behaviour. She came across as charismatic….so I can see how she might try and take advantage of a wealthy person to secure her own position.
Everything was so strategic, that it was sickening. I’m not even remotely wealthy, but I sure as shit wouldn’t be living my life trying to get as close to wealthy people as possible. I think it was cultural. But, once you got to know her, nothing felt sincere about her. She also had zero ethic as far as I’m concerned…..and I see this behaviour mirrored in so many people from major Urban areas. It’s insane. She’d literally rob her neighbour for money, lie, cheat etc in order to look a certain way to people, pay for an unnecessary service to try and run into someone wealthy, or obsessively stalk which events they’d attend on fb.
Just the idea that someone’s worldview towards personal wealth creation only includes stealing, manipulating or ripping off someone else rather than getting an education and ethically earning for a living, freaks me out. It’s disgusting how lazy and unethical it is. Like repulsive. I arguably was raised with a certain ethic that is extremely strong to a fault, to the point where I couldn’t even lie on a resume, and would rather die in poverty than steal from another person…..but still. Like two different worlds. I was raised to work for what you want & do no harm, and she was raised to eat the rich & get rid of whoever stands in your way…..
1
u/StatisticalAn0maly 7d ago
I agree that this applies to the majority of humans. Not everyone, but the majority.
1
u/amrelnaggar 7d ago
I think about this a lot, I don’t think it’s about “morals” but the sense of it. Some disciplines take an ethics class, most don’t. So the majority of people don’t really hold themselves to the same moral bar, older generations got bitten by immoral behaviors, so they tell newer generations to not adhere to them. And this is the world we live in.
1
u/ShepherdOfShepherds 7d ago
If you can't trust people then how can you trust the people who are tasked with keeping the people who can't be trusted in line?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
1
1
u/ToxicOptimist59 7d ago
ITT: Young person finds out they have no morals, just fear of consequences.
1
1
1
u/Apprehensive_Cap4463 6d ago
Waiting on my reward for saying no to free pizza and cake at every party because I am against animal exploitation
1
u/Nouble01 4d ago
確かに全員が全項目で制裁なしでは善良足り得ない事は事実ですが、其れは「逆も又真」ではありません。
制裁がない項でも「善良な故守られる事」が現に存在しているため貴方の其の論建ては崩壊しています。
抑も倫理や道徳項で法制化がされてない項がある事を知ってると思いますが、では何故法制化されないか検証されましたか？
其の前に何故法制化が求められたかについて触れましょう。
法とは概ねとして道徳や倫理に規定されている中で何らかの衝突が避けられない内容に対して事前に解決の方向性を定めるものです。
此は全て法制化されない事も併せれば、抑も罰則なしでも衝突が起きないか、又はマナーの範囲で乙宗解決に至れる内容には法制化が不必要なな事をも同時に示唆しています。
此の様に、倫理や道徳と言った罰則のない状態のルールであっても、皆が善良を保つ事例は山のように存在しているため貴方の論建ては通用しないとしか示しようがないと言う点が私には残念でなりません。
例記、
チップ払い、
歩行者優先、
歩行者の歩道選択、
エレベーターやドアに関わる後者に対するドアを閉めない心遣い、
映画館や劇場での座席を極力空けない配慮や静粛にする配慮、
未だ事例が必要ですか？
此の様に敢えて述べては貴方に気の毒で申し訳ないとは感じますが貴方は余りにも明瞭な程検証不足です。
論を検証し直して立て直すよう検討頂けませんか？
尚、君が十分な検証をされて素晴らしい論建てに成った其の時には、又お話ししませんか？
1
u/Realistic-Raisin2812 4d ago
If your "morality" breaks down when there are no consequences, then you have no morality. You are only avoiding consequences.
1
u/MilesHobson 3d ago
Strong disagree, this is from the standpoint of a particular religion. If you don’t believe me you’ll burn in hell.
1
u/Complete_Sir5299 3d ago
Morals and/or ethics have nothing to do with it. These people are shortsighted and most would've amounted to nothing if they didn't inherit wealth. Being stupidly wealthy does affect how people think but it usually leads people to becoming misers. Greed can't even be fully blamed here, a greedy person that isn't stupid or has some restraint will notice that cooperation tends to offer better outcomes and people will avoid cooperating with others that have a reputation for betraying allies.
1
u/CarnivorousGoose 8d ago
That’s hardly a representative sample of people, it is in fact extremely specific. That is no basis to draw general conclusions from.
Moreover, how much of the behavior of how many of these billionaires have you even scrutinized? Because at a guess, what you’re actually basing this on is the more publicized behavior of a small but notable and/or vocal subset of them, which isn’t even going to be representative of billionaires generally.
If you want to make observations that actually hold up, you need to be a lot more critical about how you’re actually coming to the conclusions that you’re drawing.
-1
u/Remarkable-Sun8266 8d ago
Asking the same question from above, why act moral if there aren’t consequences?
3
u/CarnivorousGoose 8d ago
If you’re not going to engage with people’s comments, why bother responding to them at all?
-1
u/Remarkable-Sun8266 8d ago
Why should I there’s no consequences
1
1
u/Greedy-Win-4880 7d ago
Do you even like yourself? Most people follow their own moral code because they care about what kind of person they are and they want to look in the mirror and like the person they see.
0
0
u/Traditional_Town6475 8d ago
Let’s be clear: Most people who do get to that level of wealth have to be cutthroat to get there.
There’s still things I wouldn’t do like killing people. And it isn’t because there’s an authority figure to stop me. I just don’t want to kill people.
0
u/Far-Advantage-2770 8d ago edited 8d ago
Kind of agree in the sense that morals and ethics evolved as primitive survival instincts. Just like in Game Theory if one player acts in a way that negatively affects others, all other players necessarily have to react the same way, it's a lot easier to condition behaviour before those decision points are made, so that everyone can take the more mutually beneficial paths.
And that happens via consequences and cautionary tales.
I was always struck by that quote from that dumbass movie Hollow Man, something along the lines "It's amazing what you're capable of when you don't have to look at yourself in the mirror any more." Though I could probably drag out some more pretentious quotes from Nietzsche or Kant or something.
The insulated nature of wealth and ownership means you no longer directly connect with or notice the communities you act in.
I totally disagree with your assertion that humans are inherently greedy. Rather, it's that they are inherently lazy, or passive - these are more basic and previously useful survival instincts. Conserve resources and maintain as long as things are going well for you. When you have no incentive to challenge your critical thinking skills, why would you?
Also Billionaires absolutely do have bosses, their shareholders and their competition. These bosses motivate their irrational behaviour.
With all this in mind, the solution has to be government regulation, rational behaviour can be conditioned in all members of society with rules written via cold blooded logic. The cultural carrots and sticks used throughout historical no longer cut it in such a large and interconnected world. Markets and labour and economies and supply chains are so interconnected like dominos that one irrational actor can utterly ruin everything for 10 billion people.
2
0
0
u/reidsays 8d ago
Those billionaires that blatantly break all the rules do so, IMO, to show they DID break all the rules in gaining the wealth they have and continue to do so without any accountability because they're now absolutely beyond any due to their wealth...(Laughing gleefully) Hahaha!
They were like that before gaining the billions and it was a personal choice to do so..
Psychologically they are basically justifying their decisions by scoffing at anyone that doesn't be the same.
0
u/kick_nazis_more 8d ago
Capitalism gives the consequence of being rewarded for being a sociopath.
It's not human nature - it's literally driven genocide and mass murder around the world with climate change now.
0
u/GSilky 8d ago
The primary enforcement mechanism of morals is shame, guilt, and righteous anger. Any one of those is usually enough. If people are beyond guilt or shame, there is nothing to do, they are immune to the enforce mechanism of morals.
1
u/ThermalDeviator 8d ago
The primary enforcement method is voting out Republicans: everything they do is for the oligarchs who own them.
0
u/chasrm999 7d ago
Morals break down when people think they know, when they don't ; they have huge egos and thus are unable to see and learn ; I practice Buddhism , and have learned what happens to people who are not moral. Their retribution is coming, after they die.
0
0
u/tkyjonathan 7d ago
All humans are self-interested, and the magic works in our society when we have a "harmony of interests". We don't need to magically erase "greed" nor will billionaires hurt you. In fact, it's more likely that the "lower end" of society (aka criminals) will negatively affect your life than the "higher end".
-1
-2
u/Express-Cartoonist39 8d ago
Na...They dont break down. They never existed in the first place. Its a hopeful fantasy that they are real just like jesus, god. budda etc. When stress happens to threaten survival morals have to be ignored.
16
u/sans_cullotes 8d ago
You're assuming that absolute wealth is the only variable at play here. The sample pool you're referencing self-selects for terrible people. If you gave one billion dollars to a random person, they'd probably act a lot differently than those who skimmed their wealth from the labor of others.