Cult of Dan Brown: Religion vs Science

Ah, that can of worms

The trouble with intentions (and motivations for that matter) is that they're known only to yourself. In the religious version, God is also a witness to your intentions, which is where religious morality gets its teeth. See, if God knows what you're thinking, and you think immoral thoughts, you're on the fast-track to purgatory (or worse). This has worked well for many religions, because it introduces the concept of "guilt"--even over things you haven't actually done. In consequence, you're motivated to keep going back to church/temple to beg for forgiveness, thus keeping the clergy in control of your life and keeping their coffers full.

Natural morality is more pragmatic in that regard--your thoughts and intentions are irrelevant. It's what you do (or fail to do) that makes you a moral (or immoral) person. Morality, let's remember, is very much a social concept. Without the context of a society, morality becomes meaningless, because morality is about our relationships with those around us--how we treat other people, what we do for/against other people, and how those actions impact their (and our) lives. No one else can know what your motivations or intentions are--all they see are your actions, and if those actions are beneficial, you've done a moral deed.

In other words, intention has nothing to do with natural morality. You can commit a moral act completely by accident, without even knowing how much your contribution helped someone else. From the perspective of the recipient--who has no way of knowing your intentions--you did them a great favour. They don't care what was going through your head at the time.

Now when you talk about workers who simply do the bare minimum that's required of them, the reason to look down on them is that they're really not "doing their job". If their boss or supervisor knew what they were doing, do you think those people would retain their jobs? Slackers generally look for ways to avoid doing more work than they absolutely have to, and consequently their work is usually sub-par. When their contribution to society is poor, it does become immoral, because in addition to the negative their salary imposes on customers (in the form of higher prices), they offer relatively little positive contribution to offset it. On that point we agree--I'm just trying to explain how natural morality arrives at that same conclusion.

Even a slacker, though, is capable of moral acts. Suppose we have a fireman who knows he's only required to check out the first two floors of a burning building. He heads into the building with the full expectation that he's going to bail after two floors, doing just the minimum required of him. Now, on the second floor he comes across an unconscious victim of smoke inhalation, and he carries him out of the building to safety. Rescuing that casualty is a moral act, even if it happened to fall within the boundaries of "things he was obligated to do".

Likewise, take our hypothetical customer service worker. Suppose she's a student being paid minimum wage for a summer job, doesn't enjoy her work, and just watches the clock waiting for quitting time. If a customer comes to her for help, and if by doing the absolute minimum required she actually provides useful help (perhaps because she's been asked a question she happens to know the answer to readily, so it's "easy"), that's a moral act, because the customer gets what he wanted and emerges from the encounter with a positive experience.

It's all about actions--deeds, not words. That's because in the end that's what makes society a better or worse environment to live in. What we think, what we intend, what motivates us--these things only matter to ourselves. They have no impact or consequence to anyone else until we turn them into actions. You can have all the goodwill in your heart toward the poor, but until you actually do something to help them, you haven't helped them at all. Similarly, you can think about all sorts of nasty, violent things you'd like to do to certain people, but unless these thoughts translate into actions, they're harmless.

Morality as a natural social mechanism operates entirely at the level of actions, judging them moral if they benefit the community, and immoral if they're a detriment to the community.

If someone saves your life, who cares what motivated her decision, or what was going through her head at the time? In the final analysis you're alive, and from your perspective this is a very beneficial deed, and the rescuer earns your goodwill for it.

It works in the economic system the same way--actions, not intentions. If you shop at a store that offers you excellent customer service, you're likely to want to shop there again, aren't you? The customer service staffer who performed a highly moral act (i.e. delivered you a service much more valuable to you than the few extra dollars or cents his salary added to the prices of the goods you purchased) more than justified his salary to his employer because it earned the store a repeat customer. Conversely, if the staffer's performance was poor, or barely adequate, you'd be left with a weak or even negative impression, and you'd punish the store by not shopping there in the future. What made the staffer perky and helpful in the first case might have been the incentive of a bonus or raise, an employee-of-the-month credit for his resume, the fact that he thought you were attractive, or maybe he's just genuinely a "people person" who likes that sort of work. But what was going on in his head makes no practical difference to you--you got good service, and you're happy, so he did a great job, no matter the reason.

In the natural world, among social animals (including humans), this is precisely the kind of interaction that matters. If you do things that benefit your community, you earn the community's goodwill in return. If you do things that harm your community, the community punishes you in turn. To get the most out of your life, then, it's in your personal interests to be more of a benefit than a burden to those you interact with. If you have a high benefit/burden ratio, people around you generally work to help you toward your goals, whereas if your benefit/burden ratio is low, those same people will often work against your progress.

Post Extras: