UKC

So this question came up in school philosophy club today and I thought I'd throw it out for further discussion.

The scenario is that 2 people go through their lives making identical 'good' moral choices (we'll keep it simple: not to steal, not to murder, to remain faithful to a partner).

Person A is beset by temptation to act the other way each time such a choice comes up but masters their baser instincts to make the 'right' decision.

Person B makes the same 'right' choice but without being even remotely tempted to act the other way.

Is there difference in the value of their acts?

In reply to DaveHK:

I don't know. It does take more effort to do the right thing if you're tempted by doing something else, so maybe person A has more will power in how they live?

Really interesting question.

In reply to DaveHK:Not more will power, but possibly more 'character'.

To the outside world thier actions all have the same value. Hmmmn.

In reply to Timmd: Disagree. We have not seen person B's willpower cos they aren't tempted. That does not mean A has more will power than B. It means we have seen A's willpower but cannot compare it to B's cos we don't know what B's is.

In reply to DaveHK: All it means it person B's willpower is untested.
Nothing more.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

The question wasn't about the value of the person but about the value of their acts so the fact that B's willpower is untested is actually irrelevant. I think.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

See above.

I see your point but the question isn't who has more will power but whose acts (if either) have the greater value.

In reply to DaveHK: Yeah true, but I wasn't answering your question, I was disputing the answer Timmd gave!

In reply to DaveHK:


What do you mean by this?

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

Fair dos. Your point was very similar to that made by Wonko.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

yup person b is the one to try and bribe.

In reply to BigBrother:

Does A's act have more value than B's because s/he has battled the temptation of doing the wrong thing before doing the right thing? Essentially it has cost A more to do right than B.

In reply to DaveHK:

The consumer shouldn't have to pay more because the production system is inefficient

In reply to DaveHK: Assuming that, to the outside world, person A and B are identical, I wonder if person A may place a higher value on the decisions made due to the temptation faced, and such have a greater feeling of worth or ownership of those decisions which may have a benefit else where. Where as person B just is, they do right without trying, with neither the highs and possible lows faced by person A, and so gains no personal benefit from the thoughts and feelings that temptation could give.

In reply to DaveHK:

I think they might have more value.

Battling is what I had in mind with will power, in that person A has had to try harder to do the right thing.

I didn't put it very clearly though.

In reply to DaveHK: But what do you mean by value, who is judging?

In reply to DaveHK:

I think B will have a sudden breakdown and go on a murderous, philanderous, stealing rampage in nothing more than a mankini due to not exercising his willpower in moderation.

In reply to BigBrother:

You if you like.

By value I mean worth. Is it more worthy to arrive at the right decision through struggle, arrive at it without struggle or is the whole notion of their being worth in the process nonsense and only the outcome of value?

In reply to DaveHK: Forgive me if this is irelevant but soon after the crazy Church that I am a member of decreed that it was possible to make your Sunday observance at a Saturday night vigil Mass, our very wise but old-school parish priest posed the following :- "There are people sat here in church tonight wishing they were in the pub. At the same time there are people sat in the pub wishing they had come to church. Which are the better people ?"

In reply to DaveHK:

The value of the acts remains the same. It's certainly an interesting question, though not a very important one. What is important is the act. Good intentions, for example, are not worth anything if they're not acted upon.

In reply to DaveHK: as Person A is beset by temptation, he will ultimately fail in his moral choices
does person B exist?

In reply to subalpine:

Well first you would have to define "exist".
































Sorry. Wrong thread.

In reply to DaveHK:

>> Well, Jesus said that there is more joy in heaven for a bad person who repents, than there is for a good person who doesn't need to repent.
So person A wins, even if he actually did nothing wrong.
I don't want to hear from evangelical christians supported my opinion, as I'm not one of them.
Anyone else's comments?

In reply to mockerkin:

I'd naturally want to say that the person who overcomes barriers to achieve something (A) has done more than one who does it without effort (B). However, functionally (if that's the right word) their acts have the same worth in terms of their effect on society

I think there is something in the notion that the process is totally irrelevant and only the outcome of interest or value but I can't quite put my finger on why this is.

In reply to DaveHK:

You say they are going through life making the same moral choices, but I don't think this is the case. Person A is making moral choices which involve acting against inclination, and acting in accordance with a moral imperative, whereas Person B is acting according to inclination, and is not making moral choices at all.

In reply to CraigB:

Good point. We're starting to get into the thorny issue that is the existence of free will. If B acts according to inclination was s/he free to act otherwise? Or for that matter was A?

In reply to DaveHK:
I'd start by asking what good they have done in the world, as opposed to what bad they have not done.

In reply to DaveHK: I would suspect that person B was lying so that gives person A the moral high ground.

In reply to DaveHK:

is iggy pops career more valuable because he explored the depths of temptation than the career of, say, lenny kravitz who only sings about it?

of course.

the value is in that person A (iggy) wasnt guaranteed a place in the here and now, whilst person B (lenny) only had to join the dots.

finding the way and following the way to the same destination makes that destination the same in name only. person A is not seeing the world person B is, person A sees more outcomes, person A knows thyself more profoundly, person A has covered more territory.

can i vote one more moral choice?
rather than faithfulness could we have 'didnt use O on everest' instead?

In reply to DaveHK: Slightly different situation but...I'm a member of a well known worldwide fellowship that helps others to battle alcohol problems.
We have a thing we do where we try to do someone a good turn without letting anyone know we have done it, ie not reaping the glory for our little act of kindness. Try it sometime and you may or may not find it difficult at first not to look for the praise. Over time, with conditioning, it becomes far easier.

In reply to DaveHK:


Yes, there is a difference in the value of their acts, but only to the actors. This act has cost Person A and as such it is more valuable to him/her.

To a third party, the acts have equal value unless the costs are disclosed.

Two identical looking strangers each give a beggar five Pounds.


But then, they are revealed as
1. A down and out former employee of Lehman Bros. who will miss dinner tonight because that was all he had
and
2. A current employee of Barclays who received a million Pound bonus this year.

It's just £10 to the beggar.

Is there a difference in the value of their acts?

In reply to Banj:

Depends on if the guy from lehrmans stole millions in his time, in which case this act of "charity" is merely a salve on his own bitter, repentant concious, and a self-interested act...

Whereas the barclay's dude has spent 23 hours a day working to better himself, his business, and the wider world, giving up time with his children and family in order to support many local people and small businesses and charities, he constantly strives to do good and asks for no reward...

Still black and white?

In reply to dr_botnik:

I think if I was the beggar, the act of the former Lehman's guy would still feel like a bigger act of kindness than that of the Barclay's guy regardless of how moral the rest of their lives had been. Mainly because the level of personal sacrifice is greater in the case of the ex-Lehman's guy who doesn't know whether he'll eat tonight.

Besides, there's something quite touching about a man who is hard on his luck who gives away his last tenner to salve his conscience for previous sins.

(ps I am guessing this wasn't the point of your post but in terms of historical accuracy, I don't think there was ever any suggestion that Lehman's was involved in criminal behaviour beyond possibly criminal risk taking. Whereas Barclays is implicated in the Libor scandal so it may well be the Barclays guys who is being charitable with ill-gotten gains.)

In reply to DaveHK: In my thinking, the key point coming out here is that the value is in the eye of the beholder.

Person A will likley value their own acts more than person B as they 'cost' them more, as has been said above (although if person B has never been tempted by an alternative they have never actually made a decision and therefore their perception of value and cost is probably poorly defined).

However, person C will perceive them both equally unless person C has additional information about persons A and B.

If person A goes out of their way to boast to person C about their sacrifice then that could effect person C's perception in either direction. Person C now knows how hard the original decision was but they will also be judgeing Person A's decision to boast about it...

In reply to the weegy:

What a brilliant thing! Great idea. I can imagine it takes time. I will try and do this regularly.

In reply to confusicating: Good on you.

In reply to DaveHK:


There might be no difference in the value of their acts, and yet there be a difference in their value as persons.

On another issue-- you don't need scare-quotes round "good" and "right". Say what you mean! Don't buy into limp-wristed relativism!

Drop me a line if you'd like an external speaker for your school Philosophy club; I quite often do that kind of gig

In reply to Tim Chappell:

The quotes were there to acknowledge the fact that good and right are difficult to define and that for the purposes of the question I was setting that aside. It seemed to work as no one came on and said 'what do you mean by good and right'.

Am I right in thinking that you are a lecturer (or some such) in Philosophy? If it was a serious offer what might you speak about for mainly 12-16 year olds?

In reply to DaveHK:


I am, yes.

>If it was a serious offer what might you speak about for mainly 12-16 year olds?

What would you like? I can do most things.

Perhaps we should continue this off-forum?

In reply to DaveHK:

That similar to a simple one I seem to face most weeks at work. Two people ask me for sponsorship for a physical challenge. You know and like them equally. One enjoys the particular physical challenge and will not struggle to complete it. The other will not enjoy the challenge, and may struggle to complete it. What would be your responses and would you value ones challenge over the others assured success?

In reply to DaveHK: T. S. Eliot (I think) "the greatest treason, to do the right deed for the wrong reason".

In reply to DaveHK:
In Num Num's humble philosophical opinion, stolen food tastes so much sweeter.

In reply to A Game of Chance:

Here's another that I was considering over the weekend: I tend to do more of the cooking and Ms Hughes tends to do more tidying up. I like cooking probably more than Ms Hughes likes tidying up. Do my hours spent in the kitchen count the same as hers spent tidying up?

In reply to DaveHK:

When you say 'value', what exactly do you mean by this? How does one valorise an act?

In reply to verygneiss: Does it take more 'goodness' to do the right thing if you have to struggle to I guess?

In reply to Timmd:

Yes, it does.

But to me the OP asked 'does it matter?'

the answer to that (for me) is no. So long as good is done.

You can't blame a person who is generally good just because they haven't faced 'tests'

You can say that it takes a bit of character at least to transcend 'babd' programming to be good. But I don't think it makes you 'better' than the other person in absolute terms.
Though of course, it's worthy of note.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:I agree, could be 'luckier' and 'less lucky' are more accurate ways of looking at it, to do with how much effort it takes to do the right thing.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

Your conclusion now is exactly what I said right near the beginning of this thread at least a week ago.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

PS. Not triumphant at all, but a little depressed.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Me too.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Thinking of myself as well, I wonder if using forums and the internet a lot can shorted people's attention spans?

I think I might have heard it can do.