Is doing the right thing for selfish reasons still moral?

[FBI]

Most people say morality is about doing the right thing, but what happens when the "right" action is driven entirely by self-interest? If someone only gives money to charity for a tax break, or only risks their life for others because they crave glory, is that really moral? I guess what I am really asking here is if you think morality is measured by the outcome, or by the intent behind it.

 

[Grodd]

I guess what I am really asking here is if you think morality is measured by the outcome, or by the intent behind it.

Both tho more so intent

 

[caineturbat2003]

If the outcome is good, why not?

 

[caineturbat2003]

By the way, keep in mind that the end justifies the means. If it were the other way around, then that would make any moral action nonsensical and pointless.

 

[Misogynist Vegeta]

Yes, The problem with Normalfags however is that they do the minimum amount acquired of them to appear morally good while doing morally awful things all the time "behind closed doors" for example some normalfags will advocate for "Autism awareness" but the moment meet an autist like me they will treat them like subhuman trash.

 

[CRASH THE CUCK]

no

 

[theozz]

depends on the outcome and if u cared what the outcome was

 

[FBI]

the end justifies the means

Then let me ask you this: if the ends alone justified the means, then any action could be excused so long as it produced a good outcome, even cruelty or dishonesty. For example, imagine the police framing an innocent man for a crime in order to calm public outrage and prevent riots. The outcome might be peace, but the act itself is unjust. Would you still call that moral?

 

[nico]

we don't talk about morals

 

[LeFrenchCel]

Then it's more virtue signaling

 

[hapakatt]

Perhaps a digression, but aren't everything we do, even selfless acts, done for ourselves if we boil it down to the core? We do the right thing to feel better about ourselves.

 

[FBI]

Then it's more virtue signaling

It is only virtue signaling if the act is meant to be seen and praised. A man who donates quietly for a tax break is not signaling anything, he is just acting from self-interest. The question remains whether the good that comes from his act counts as moral, even if his motive does not.

 

[FBI]

Perhaps a digression, but aren't everything we do, even selfless acts, done for ourselves if we boil it down to the core? We do the right thing to feel better about ourselves.

I think that is a fair point, but it depends on how far one wishes to reduce things. It is true that even selfless acts can be explained in terms of personal satisfaction, yet that explanation risks becoming too broad to be useful. If everything is selfish at the core, then the distinction between selfish and selfless collapses, and we lose the ability to judge motives at all. I would say it is better to speak in terms of proximate motives rather than ultimate ones. If a man helps a stranger because he genuinely cares for that stranger, then that is different from a man who helps only to gain praise, even if both receive some private satisfaction from their choice.

 

[hapakatt]

If everything is selfish at the core, then the distinction between selfish and selfless collapses, and we lose the ability to judge motives at all.

Very good point. I now see how my statement was lacking.

 

[caineturbat2003]

For example, imagine the police framing an innocent man for a crime in order to calm public outrage and prevent riots. The outcome might be peace, but the act itself is unjust. Would you still call that moral?

There are other means to calm down a bunch of rioters than just unnecessarely framing an innocent man. They could either crack down on the agitators or actually solve the crime they were meant to do. Plus there needs to be more context in your example, context is important when dealing with moral dilemmas. If it were the case of a serial killer, it would be pointless to frame someone in the first place because the real killer would still be out there killing, the public would figure out the innocent man isn't the real killer and riots would be 10x worse. In this context, framing would make things worse.

When I talk about "ends justify the means", I am talking about situations in which being perfectly morally good isn't going to bring actual good results, if not, make the situation worse. A good example would be how a government handles foreign politics. If the gov were to open its borders because the immigrants are poor and need help, it sounds morally good on paper, but only ends up making things worse for its citizens and would put the economy in shambles. If the gov were to take a more ultranationalist tribalist approach and exterminate outsiders for their nation's well-being, on paper it sounds morally evil, but in actuality it's natural and brings a good outcome to their peoples.

At the end of the day, it's not a matter of what is good or evil, but a matter of what's right or wrong. That's why there's a big discussion of morality in philosophy. Figuring out what is good or evil is a piece of cake, figuring out what is right or wrong however requires deep thought.

This video talks better about this subject.

View: https://youtu.be/h3sA2bvGy-8?si=zDJ7q4sJkPmlW0qy

 

[Extern]

How can something be immoral if it only benefits others?

 

[Rapistcel]

Most people say morality is about doing the right thing, but what happens when the "right" action is driven entirely by self-interest? If someone only gives money to charity for a tax break, or only risks their life for others because they crave glory, is that really moral? I guess what I am really asking here is if you think morality is measured by the outcome, or by the intent behind it.

Just do whatever favours your interest

 

[FBI]

When I talk about "ends justify the means", I am talking about situations in which being perfectly morally good isn't going to bring actual good results, if not, make the situation worse. A good example would be how a government handles foreign politics. If the gov were to open its borders because the immigrants are poor and need help, it sounds morally good on paper, but only ends up making things worse for its citizens and would put the economy in shambles. If the gov were to take a more ultranationalist tribalist approach and exterminate outsiders for their nation's well-being, on paper it sounds morally evil, but in actuality it's natural and brings a good outcome to their peoples.

At the end of the day, it's not a matter of what is good or evil, but a matter of what's right or wrong. That's why there's a big discussion of morality in philosophy. Figuring out what is good or evil is a piece of cake, figuring out what is right or wrong however requires deep thought.

I see what you mean about context, and of course a bad example will only muddy the water, but the problem I have with "the ends justify the means" is that it always sounds reasonable when you imagine ends that are obvious and uncontroversial, like protecting citizens or feeding the hungry. It looks very different once you remember that everyone believes their own ends are good. One man's "tribalist protection" is another man's "ethnic cleansing." If the standard is simply that an action produced what you call a good outcome, then cruelty and injustice are always easy to excuse. That is why people talk about intent as well as result. It matters whether an act is done with honesty and fairness, not just whether it can be justified after the fact by pointing to some larger gain. If you remove that concern altogether, you end up with nothing but power deciding morality (might makes right), and at that point morality itself loses any independent meaning.

 

[FBI]

How can something be immoral if it only benefits others?

Something can be immoral if it tramples on honesty, justice, or basic fairness, even if it benefits others. Otherwise you could excuse anything, so long as you can argue that someone somewhere gained from it.

I see what you mean about context, and of course a bad example will only muddy the water, but the problem I have with "the ends justify the means" is that it always sounds reasonable when you imagine ends that are obvious and uncontroversial, like protecting citizens or feeding the hungry. It looks very different once you remember that everyone believes their own ends are good. One man's "tribalist protection" is another man's "ethnic cleansing." If the standard is simply that an action produced what you call a good outcome, then cruelty and injustice are always easy to excuse. That is why people talk about intent as well as result. It matters whether an act is done with honesty and fairness, not just whether it can be justified after the fact by pointing to some larger gain. If you remove that concern altogether, you end up with nothing but power deciding morality (might makes right), and at that point morality itself loses any independent meaning.

 

[anglocelticcel]

Not as moral but still 7/10 I’d say 8/10 if danger is involved

 

[Extern]

if it tramples on honesty, justice, or basic fairness

Then it doesn't only benefit others

 

[FBI]

Then it doesn't only benefit others

Sorry, I had just woken up when I responded to caineturbat2003 and to you, so I did not really read your question. If you define "only benefit" in such a narrow way that no one is harmed, then yes, by definition it would not be immoral. The problem is that almost no real situation looks like that. To benefit some, you usually mislead, coerce, or disadvantage others, even in small ways.

 

[The_word_made_flesh]

Most people say morality is about doing the right thing, but what happens when the "right" action is driven entirely by self-interest? If someone only gives money to charity for a tax break, or only risks their life for others because they crave glory, is that really moral? I guess what I am really asking here is if you think morality is measured by the outcome, or by the intent behind it.

Most people say morality is about doing the right thing, but what happens when the "right" action is driven entirely by self-interest? If someone only gives money to charity for a tax break, or only risks their life for others because they crave glory, is that really moral? I guess what I am really asking here is if you think morality is measured by the outcome, or by the intent behind it.

This is a great deal why good deeds cannot please God and that we are saved by grace.Not because of our deeds but in spite of them.
The human heart cannot please God and only Christs blood offers reconciliation with God.
Many of mans attempts at morality are very self serving .
People often do good for a reward or just feeling better about ourselves is often the reward .
There is nothing wrong with doing good ,people should do good but if the good deed is from our imagination and not the Holy Spirit it is not really good .

 

[Extern]

The problem is that almost no real situation looks like that. To benefit some, you usually mislead, coerce, or disadvantage others, even in small ways.

How does your example of donating to charity for tax write offs hurt anyone? Maybe if you are disingenuous parade it around and larp it up as you being a saint but idk

 

[FBI]

How does your example of donating to charity for tax write offs hurt anyone? Maybe if you are disingenuous parade it around and larp it up as you being a saint but idk

The charity example was never about whether anyone is harmed, it was about whether the motive changes how we judge the act. My question was whether morality is measured by outcome or by intent. If someone donates only to save on taxes, the outcome is still money going to charity, but the intent is pure self-interest. That is the dilemma.

 

[Nintendo 64]

no

 

[Extern]

The charity example was never about whether anyone is harmed, it was about whether the motive changes how we judge the act. My question was whether morality is measured by outcome or by intent. If someone donates only to save on taxes, the outcome is still money going to charity, but the intent is pure self-interest. That is the dilemma.

I mean that's just egoism. Performative activism is really cringe tho yea