• 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?

^ 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.

They'll take your name and give you a receipt don't be so cynical.
 
You should take it up with the bank, as a means of logical desire to exhaust the opportunities of getting your money back.

As far as your thread goes Foreigner, I think your examples address circumstances in which inevitable consequences of your non action are equally "bad" as your action, so you don't deem it wrong.
I don't believe morals/ethics are inherent, and I don't think it's impossible for the cognitive dissonance of holding opposing views to hold a "moral" act in an immoral/shameful way.

Why the fuck do you care anyway?
 
^ It's just an interesting discussion?

In my case it's not cognitive dissonance because I don't believe all stealing is wrong, and I wouldn't necessarily categorize finding unlabeled money as stealing in all situations. If it actually happens I'll let you know what I do!
 
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!

To put it very simply, IMO, its because, ultimately, there is some kind of "payoff" (whether material, emotional satisfaction, etc.) That out-weighs the issue of feeling it is wrong.
 
I think that people have trouble truly empathizing with the motivations that cause people to break their values until they experience them themselves.

I mean of course I can say the words "that person robbed a store because they desperately needed money." I can understand what those words mean. But still, at the end of the day, I would tell myself "i would find another way if that were me." The problem is, I am saying I would find another way while my condition is good. I have a home and am in school and everything is looking good for me, so of course I can say I would find another way.

But the day may come where I lose everything, and then my idea of how the world works would change accordingly. What I am saying is that people are good at convincing themselves of things they REALLY want to convince themselves of.
 
Individual morality is not necessarily static and set in stone....Sometimes desire wins out over one's sense of "right and wrong".....Sometimes "core-values" win out over base desire. I'm pretty sure everyone has desires that conflict with their "moral code" from time to time.

If someone constantly desires to do things that they believe are immoral but rarely ever breaks the rules they've set for themselves, are they living a righteous life or are they just going against their own nature? Wouldn't going against one's own nature be more of an abomination than living "morally" according to a code imposed on you by society or family or religion? Maybe you should just take everyone else's word for it and try to live against your desires...Of course everyone has desires that they themselves believe to be "wrong" and that gets pretty hairy...It all comes down to who it hurts and who it helps...karmic equation....

Does having those desires in the first place make you "evil" or does it only become "evil" when you act on them?

Does lusting after material desires and indulging in ones material lust only create more desire and lead to more "immoral" actions?

Stealing is not always wrong. Killing is not always wrong. You can't look at anything anyone does as an isolated event. The Karma of one's actions encompasses every aspect of that action.

Why are you killing the person?

Does the person you're killing have a family to support? Do they bring more suffering into the world than they relieve?

Would killing them benefit more people than it would hurt?

What do you stand to gain by killing them in terms of material wealth, social standing?...on and on and on...You could analyze everything like that, Do a rough calculation and if it does more good in the world than harm, than the karmic equation would come out in the "plus column" and IMO would be considered moral....There's different degrees of right and wrong too...Something could be 51% right 49% wrong...."Bad things" will happen as a result of one's action, but slightly more good will come of that action, because of that, it may be justifiable...Of course, you could just abstain from doing anything and let the whole thing play out in a different way...

I identify myself as a vegetarian, but I've gotten in a bad habit of eating meat a lot lately....If I actually need to eat meat, because I have to do hard physical labor and I don't have any other source of protein, I don't really have too much of an issue with it. I'm able to get the work I need to get done and be more productive in my life, which makes me more useful to the world as a whole.....So there's a karmic gain in me eating meat in certain cases.

If everyone consumes way more meat than they need to, It hurts them physically, makes them sluggish and perpetuates a horrific system of raising, killing and processing animals that don't need to be killed.....Fresh water is wasted raising corn to feed cattle to simultaneously feed and fuel the voracious appetite of people who are destroying their bodies by eating too much of it....Rationally, spiritually, environmentally.....It's karmically fucked!

but, how much beef is being thrown away.....Wouldn't it honor the life of the animal more to eat it than to let the meat spoil?

I'm rambling on here.....but my point is that most things are neither right or wrong in a vacuum, it's the whole thing taken in context....I suppose rape could be considered "wholly immoral"....but even then, there has to be a scenario where it actually could benefit more people than it hurt....I could dream one up, but I won't....


Of course, we'll all be dead in 100 years...so technically none of this matters...unless you take things like reincarnation or future generations into account....

Okay I'm rambling!
 
We have logic, emotional and intuitive guidance, and we have instinct [...] It's like two programs are running simultaneously that are in conflict

This basically sums it up for me. We have ideals, but those ideals are at war with emotions / intuition / instinct.

if you believe stealing is wrong but you steal, then your true inner wisdom is actually that stealing is permissible. The action proves it.

This is an interesting argument. I'm inclined to disagree, and say that wisdom can be contradicted by instinct. I have many strong beliefs about what I should be doing with my life, and I refuse to do them out of sheer laziness, or weakness of character. It's the cause of quite a bit of pain in my life, really.

However, what is the true identity behind each human being? God / Brahman / Tao? Maybe we are all-powerful, all-knowing gods, and so everything we do is an expression of wisdom. The "wisdom" of our human earthly form, which can be contradicted, is only an illusion, only an act in the play of the divine. Heheh.
 
Last edited:
Morality and values are contingent upon whether you will feel remorse for any given act, either before or after it has been committed. If you have no sense of remorse, it creates no internal conflict to keep you from doing something, up until consequences are forced upon you by external forces, which may or may not occur.
 
Why do we commit actions contrary to our values?
For profit.
How?
Through justifications and/or willful ignorance.
It comes down to an equation of how strongly you believe in said values vs how strongly you believe you need/want resulting profit from letting them slip for the particular situation you are acting on. If the profit is greater than your conviction ding ding ding we have a corruption! Every soul has its price.

ETA: If you want to be a moral person, all you need do is make sure you know the difference between need and greed and hold a strong conviction that greed doesn't justify misdeed.
 
Last edited:
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."

it seems like you've already moved past the point of making a decision and have already commited to this action by putting yourself behind the trigger. ultimately, the above is a justification to presumably help ease the guilt should you ever be forced into the situation you realize is plausible.

it's obvious you're weighing the potential consequence of guilt ("I don't really wanna kill...") against what will happen if you do nothing. But this here is the grey area for me. Can the "consequences" of inaction even be considered consequences? If you choose to remove yourself from the situation, even if the decision is made after your actions lead you straight into the situation, then it seems like any results would be more akin to circumstances than consequences.
 
^ Your grey area is your sense of responsibility, are you only responsible for direct consequences of your own actions, or does having knowledge of the consequences of other peoples iminent actions and the existance of an opportunity to intervein for the greater good carry with it the duty to take responsibility upon yourself?
If you are only responsible for what you DO then you might feel you acted against morals by shooting that one person, but if you consider yourself responsible for the decisions you make, encompassing that which you do AND do not do (it is still a consequence of your decision if not a consequence of your action. You should notice consequences can overlap, there is not one single variable responsible for any occurance, here the outcome is seen as both a consequence of the bad mans actions and a consequence of your decision, and there are countless others not mentioned overlaping, coinciding, all circumstances are consequences of what was before them, cause and effect), then you might feel you acted against morals by not shooting that one person. Basically what will happen is you will choose whichever outcome causes you personally the least distress (not the one which you believe to be morally right) and then you will create justifications and willful ignorance around the issue to convince yourself you DID act on what was morally right, therefore alieviating any guilt.

Either way you're still a moral person living according to their values in this situation, as it is decided upon completely out of need (protecting oneself from the greater trauma is a survival instinct = need), neither option is doing wrong for the motive of greed.

I've been in situations before where I have truely acted against my values, of course no-one is perfect right. It has been because of greed, I ate a meat pie once after I had developed the moral value that it is wrong and become vegan. It was because I didnt have this value as a strong conviction current in my mind, if I had put thought into it when I made the decision to buy the meat pie I would have made a different decision, but at the time I desired the taste and convienience infront of me and although I could have put thought into it and acted in accordance with my values, if I acted impulsively and distracted myself entirely, not concieving of the violence behind this product well then I got to have pie/ imediate gratification, it was a greedy pleasure impulsive act, certainly not a need. And while I ate it, I stopped myself from experiencing guilt by distracting myself with thoughts of justifications, it won't make a difference really, just this one time, i wont do it again, it's already been killed me not having it wont bring it back to life, etc...

So theres an example of why people act against their values, they are disconnected from their values at the time, and disconnected from others affected and therefore not experiencing empathy.

it might be relevant to add that I have recently been diagnosed with a psych disorder for which one of the criteria is an "unstable sense of self" so perhaps that was what caused me to be disconnected from my values, who i am, what i stand for, etc. perhaps other people have all sorts of issues going on that cause them to act against their values, or maybe some lie about holding a value they actually dont lol
 
Last edited by a moderator:
However, what is the true identity behind each human being? God / Brahman / Tao? Maybe we are all-powerful, all-knowing gods, and so everything we do is an expression of wisdom. The "wisdom" of our human earthly form, which can be contradicted, is only an illusion, only an act in the play of the divine. Heheh.

That's an interesting point. If we're all just the universe doing itself, then nothing is wrong. The "good" or "bad" actions are just part of the many dualities of this existence.

I'm just wondering what the more material psychology would be behind the dissonance that fuels an action which contradicts one's values; possibly, it may be a cost-benefit situation where the moral value is not fully believed to be of more utility when put into practice. Or can this even be called a dissonance?
 
Although it doesn't specifically answer your question, an interesting book to check out would be The Political Mind, by George Lakoff - http://www.amazon.com/The-Political-Mind-Cognitive-Scientists/dp/0143115685
This video is also interesting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDAzsZLvfPw - David Ropeik talking about your irrational brain.

I'm struggling with this same question, specifically in regards to my own immediate pleasure seeking actions. I think that the way our moral frameworks relate to our actual behavior is developed habitually. Going along with the vegetarian example, some vegetarians start eating meat very occasionally to deal with certain circumstances (e.g. need for protein, desire not to waste food, out of respect for someone serving you food). This occasional behavior still perhaps coincides with their self-identification as a vegetarian (and whatever moral code goes along with it), but such behavior can habitually increase - e.g. the person makes more and more allowances and so on. In order to retain a sense of unified identity (between belief and action), or even a sense of self-respect, the mind rationalizes such behavior in subverted ways (e.g. "I really need this protein"). Confronting one's own hippocracy is difficult, it's almost a 'world-collapse'.

My next question would be neurological - why does the mind rationalize ethically contradictory behavior? Is there some biologically advantageous result of ignoring the disconnect between moral frameworks/self-conceptions and actual behavior?
 
Top