Ethics

Imagine two men. One of them is an honest, lawful and ethical person. However, nobody notices and his actions are not appreciated by society. So he's treated like an outlaw. The other man is a cunning criminal who manages to make his actions appear like good deeds. He's treated like a king. Which one of them lives the happier life? As an alternative question: Why should I behave ethically when nobody takes notice and I'm not struggling with a guilty conscience? (I'm aiming at the benefit for the individual here, not at the common good for a society.) Is ethical behaviour itself a good thing or do we only behave ethically for the sake of the consequences?

Comments

This is exactly the question Plato addresses in book II of the Republic, using this and other hypotheticals to pose the question. Glaucon and Adeimantus concede that justice is good for its consequences, in particular, that it helps secure the justice of others toward oneself, but want to be shown that it is also good in itself. They note that a good reputation might secure the instrumental benefits of justice and ask Socrates to show that we have reason to value justice itself, and not just the reputation for justice. They ask that he show that someone who is just but has the reputation of injustice is better off than someone who is actually unjust but has the reputation of justice. They also ask Socrates to show why one should not commit injustice if one had the Ring of Gyges, allowing its owner to turn invisible and so practice injustice with the appearance of justice and so with impunity. Book II poses a wonderful and now classic challenge to the authority of justice and, more generally, morality. In the rest of the Republic Plato tries to show that justice carries intrinsic, and not just extrinsic or instrumental, benefits by making for a well-ordered or healthy soul. Of course, there is controversy about how well Plato succeeds in this defense of justice. Others have tried to defend or improve on Plato's defense of justice. Others (e.g. Kant) have wanted to defend the authority of justice and morality but have resisted doing so, as Plato does, by appeal to prudence. Others (e.g. Prichard) seem to regard the attempt to defend the authority of morality as misguided. And still others (anti-rationalists) have embraced various degrees of skepticism about the authority of morality. Welcome to one of the classic debates in ethical theory and the history of ethics.

Read another response by David Brink

Read another response about Ethics