• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Why do we commit actions contrary to our values?

Foreigner

Foreigner

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
8,603
Location
The Cosmos
This is kind of hard for me to articulate, so bear with me.

There are a lot of factors that go into choosing to do something. We have logic, emotional and intuitive guidance, and we have instinct. My question here does not really relate to instinct because instinctual actions are hard wired for survival purposes. I'm talking about measured acts.

If someone is against stealing and decides to steal, they are committing an action that is contrary to their values. Many argue that this is a result of perhaps irrational thoughts battling with irrational emotions, and maybe temptation caused a person to break their own rules. But to Socrates, this is not the case, because he states that true wisdom means that a person would not steal, and it's not a matter of subjective, whimsical thoughts or feelings but a deeply understood... something... that compels them not to.

This is not about right and wrong, but true inner wisdom. It basically means, if you believe stealing is wrong but you steal, then your true inner wisdom is actually that stealing is permissible. The action proves it.

So why do people do things that conflict with their values? Is it that their values are formed based on what they "should" believe? Or how they would LIKE to be, but aren't?

It's like two programs are running simultaneously that are in conflict, yet both can be embodied. I see people contradict themselves like this all the time, and they don't even realize they're doing it!
 
Pragmatic concerns.

Sometimes, although an action may not be morally ideal, it is the best option available in the circumstances, and the outcomes of not doing it would conflict with one's values even more than doing, or be objectively bad in some way, etc.

Logic over emotion can make one do things that are emotionally/internally distasteful to them but which they know will effect some net good/avoid some net bad.
 
Pragmatic concerns.
Click to expand...

Aye, and rationalization. Example: Stealing is wrong (ideally), but as a mentally ill member of the lumpenproletariat it's okay for me to do this, the world made me this way, and they've got what's coming to them (I'm just trying to survive in an evil world).

Also a lot of folks set unreasonable ethical standards because they were taught that's what to think, while they were raised to act in an entirely different manner.
 
I think the answer is quite simple. People live in a fantasy land, they project themselves to be something they're not, and they even end up convincing themselves of that fact.. and yet they may be constructed of impulses and thoughts that run contary to their image. It's easy to see this in the charming man who turns out to be a murderer or rapist, the public gets all shocked by it because they can't see how a monster was lurking beneath that mans surface.. when really what shocks them is the fact that they too may not be what they believe themselves to be.

Obviously that's the extreme example. But a more subtle one would be the guru who projects himself to be a saint, and people believe it, and yet he has flashy cars, takes drugs, and sleeps with all the females. It happens all the time because we're not as in control of ourselves as we believe to be.
 
Never Knows Best said:
Aye, and rationalization. Example: Stealing is wrong (ideally), but as a mentally ill member of the lumpenproletariat it's okay for me to do this, the world made me this way, and they've got what's coming to them (I'm just trying to survive in an evil world).

Also a lot of folks set unreasonable ethical standards because they were taught that's what to think, while they were raised to act in an entirely different manner.
Click to expand...

Or "I don't really wanna kill someone, but fuck, if I don't shoot RIGHT NOW he's gonna set off his vest in a crowded market and kill 35 civi's maybe a few of my buddies, maybe maim me. I guess it would be worse if I don't do it."
 
i think rangrz is appealing to utilitarianism here, like if you can kill 10 babies to save the human race, it's not ethical to kill babies in your own moral code perhaps but thinking of the entire human race will certainly affect your judgement. If you were socrates those 10 babies would be alive and then the human race would be wiped out. And i think most people would consider Socrates to not be so wise in that action. I love how ethical frameworks conflict like this for some reason.

I think the main reason people commit actions contrary to their values is that we aren't 100% rational beings, we are constantly conflicted between our urges/desires and our rationality and for the large majority of people this is what happens when we do something against what we know is better.

I think part of the reason is societal and partly human nature, just to keep yourself alive to propogate and ensure that your genetics live on. These two things conflict as well, as society we cannot have people murdering each other but in certain cases, you will most definitely murder someone if it infringes on your ability to stay alive and perhaps to reproduce though that isn't always the case.

I think people's values just aren't set in stone like people think they are; this whole discussion just reminds me of battlestar gallactica lol. A person's values can change as quick as they realize that if those values change they will benefit or could be rationalized over a long period.

The things we should hold as virtues, like loyalty, honesty, courage are things that quite often fall apart when shit hits the fan for people. If all people could just hold onto these things with absolute certainty we'd have a lot less problems in this world. IE. you trust people, but you find out that some people aren't trustworthy, you see a time where it will benefit you greatly to be untrustworthy and you become that same person and it perpetuates itself.

so my answer is that it's human nature vs rationality. I'm sure some day evolution will work out these kinks (my belief being evolution is bringing us to greater rationality, just an idea) or we'll just kill each other off completely.
 
I get what rangrz is saying but in the OP I precluded survival situations. I'm talking about people who break their own rules in the day to day, mundane world.
 
Would you shoplift a pack of chewing gum if I offered you $10 million as a reward? Sometimes, the circuimstances make it so that I am willing to compromise my values. It doesn't make stealing the gum ethical, but it still may be worth it to the shoplifter.
 
Okay, I'm going to preface this by saying I am stupid.

Now, first we have to look into some examples of things we do.
There are things like doing the dishes, which we have no emotional desire to do though we have the desire that is contributed by our desire for food.
Then there's something like cleaning up dog shit, which we have no emotional desire to do, and it doesn't even need to be done, but rather a moral/ethical desire, which also could be said is an emotional and logical desire not to want to feel guilt, or empathy for others who may step in said shit.
Then there is that ravenous sex you have when you get home drunk, which is a much deeper and primal desire, and urge even.
I mean look at drug addiction.

I don't want to sound fatalistic here, as we are in control of our actions, but we are also controlled by ourselves.
You can force yourself to do something so long as you have some desire, whatever "source" it may be it is still experienced as the same action.

The problem I have with socrates is this "true wisdom" which is actually subjective and relative to your surroundings/experiences/society

Whether your values are the product of social indoctrination or not is irrelevant, whilst you adhere to them
by adhere I mean feeling that sense of morality, irrespective of their actions.

Wanting to feel something won't make you feel it, so if you want to think stealing is bad but don't, you're not going to feel bad when you steal, so I would discount that idea.

The most obvious idea you missed, imo, is the desire to do wrong. Do you think nobody ever wants to do something bad? Rebel against what is deemed "right", not only by society but themselves.

I don't think the dissonance from simultaneously experiences opposite feelings/desires/thoughts/whatever you want to call them is something that can be "solved" with philosophy.

I mean if they don't even realise their hypocrisy/contradiction then I wouldn't say they genuinely feel they're doing something wrong/bad/immoral/unethical/whatever
 
It's extremely easy to be a hypocrite. It requires no effort at all. It just requires the myopic "logic" of Hey Beavis, I just figured out if I tell people I'm a good person and then put knives in their backs, and nobody sees me do it and everybody believes me, then I get one up on the world, and nobody's the wiser. Bonus!

Integrity takes work, and its fruits can take longer to bear.

Nobody stays true to their values 100% of the time, in every decision they make and action they take. We're all sinners, we're all fallible humans. But there is definitely a difference between knowing and owning one's core principles, and never keeping them far from conscious thought, versus failing to do these things, as far as action and outcomes are concerned.

People who really have no values are a whole other bucket of chum. That's the difference between being immoral and amoral. The immoral, whom I discussed in the last paragraph, are empathetic but lazy, ignorant, or stressed. The amoral do not empathize.
 
There are all sorts of variables, I think a person can go against their values out of all sorts of human characteristics - greed, lust, anger, etc. Whether a person actually has that value would be based on whether their truly remorseful for such actions.

We have the values but all the complexities of life and the human condition get in the way. It's like the stereotypical situation where a person finds an envelope of money left somewhere, there's nobody around, no fear of being caught - a lot of people would take it and spend it. That's still stealing, and the majority of people who would take it wouldn't shoplift, or rob. So the question becomes - how many people refrain from stealing because they understand that it's wrong, wouldn't want others to do it to them, and it goes against there values? And how many people refrain from stealing simply because they know there are consequences if they're caught?

I've read that there are studies which suggest that somewhere around 6-7% of the population are sociopaths - they are motivated only by self-interest and don't care about how their actions impact others. So I guess in such a case there are no values that an ethical person has.

But I think inherently we're animals motivated by self-interest. Ethics and integrity are learned.
 
Ok, let's not look at this in terms of breaking the law or life and death. Human law is a kind of morality that confuses this question.

Recently I came across someone who tells everyone they are a vegetarian most of the time, but after spending time with them there is overwhelming evidence that they consume meat often enough to not even qualify them as remotely vegetarian. Yet in their mind, the label of vegetarian fits them, and so they perpetuate it.

This person is, for some reason, attached to the idea of being vegetarian, but her actual actions have nothing to do with her own label. There are two programs at work: the illusionary one ("I'm a vegetarian") and the real one (she - perhaps we can say "her body" - is eating meat).

Are contradictory actions just a result of delusion? From a "higher self" perspective, is there any benefit to telling yourself one thing and doing another, for the sake of personal development and learning? Or is it really just a person being totally delusional?

Like... why is it so hard for this woman to accept that she really just wants to eat meat and then live that reality? Why is a second contradictory reality required?
 
tkarr said:
There are all sorts of variables, I think a person can go against their values out of all sorts of human characteristics - greed, lust, anger, etc. Whether a person actually has that value would be based on whether their truly remorseful for such actions.

We have the values but all the complexities of life and the human condition get in the way. It's like the stereotypical situation where a person finds an envelope of money left somewhere, there's nobody around, no fear of being caught - a lot of people would take it and spend it. That's still stealing, and the majority of people who would take it wouldn't shoplift, or rob. So the question becomes - how many people refrain from stealing because they understand that it's wrong, wouldn't want others to do it to them, and it goes against there values? And how many people refrain from stealing simply because they know there are consequences if they're caught?

I've read that there are studies which suggest that somewhere around 6-7% of the population are sociopaths - they are motivated only by self-interest and don't care about how their actions impact others. So I guess in such a case there are no values that an ethical person has.

But I think inherently we're animals motivated by self-interest. Ethics and integrity are learned.
Click to expand...

Is keeping the money in an abandoned envelope really stealing?
 
Alexander Shulgin said:
Is keeping the money in an abandoned envelope really stealing?
Click to expand...

Of course it is... Nobody abandons an envelope of money. It gets lost by some sort of accident or circumstance. If you find a bike just leaned up against a pole and don't see anyone around and hop on and ride off is that not stealing because maybe someone abandoned it? Something doesn't cease to be a person's property if they lose physical posession of it.

What honest people do is that they take the money to the police and they'll give an owner a time to come and claim it, proving it's theirs, proving it's from a legitimate source, and if nobody claims it they get to keep it.

It's theft all the same.
 
^ Why would you give an envelope of money with no name on it to the police? Do you know how many police officers would just pocket that?

I can understand finding money that is labeled or there is some way of tracing the owner, but what you're saying is not much different than finding $20 on the sidewalk (which I did the other day) and pocketing it. I stood there for a moment, looked around to see if any person suddenly said, "Oh shit I dropped my money!", and then I left. But then, my values do not consider theft to be universally wrong; and in the case of not even being able to find the owner of the money, I consider it pure earnings.

I understand your sentiment, but going to the police station to hand in missing money seems like an oxymoron, since it could just as likely continue to remain missing.

You know, last week I deposited cash in the bank machine but because I was high at the time I accidentally keyed in a lesser amount than I actually deposited. You know what happened? Absolutely nothing. No correction was made to my account, which means either the bank itself pocketed my extra money or the employee doing the cash counting did. To me, THAT is stealing, but where's the proof? I don't have a photo of my money or something.

My point is, there are so many gray areas when it comes to money. I don't think finding money and deciding to keep it is stealing, it's good fortune. The universe just gave you karma credit. If I found money covered in blood or next to a dead body, that might be different.
 
Occidental? Hardly. I lived in China for over a year. The attitude prevails everywhere.

And I wouldn't loot an earthquake zone.
 
Last edited:
Simple necessity. If you've been able to live up to your own moral standards they simply haven't been challenged enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top