To submit a comment, click here.
So your answer is "no, we shouldn't act morally for the benefit of society" because there are others in society who will act morrally for themselves, from which the communtiy will benefit from? Therefore we can act immoral? I understand that we can benefit from it, but are you saying we don't have to because others will? Your paper makes a good point, I just don't understand your answer.
So do we act morally b/c we are afraid of punishment or d we act morally b/c we want to?
I understand that we should also act morally because it's to our own benefit, but I don't clearly see your answer to the question.
Interesting point.
I agree with what you are saying. Not everyone is going to act morally no matter what we do.
In your paper, you discuss how and why it is beneficial for individuals to act morally yet you neglect to relate it to the question. I think at the beginning of your paper you say one thing and by the conclusion, you say another. I think if you would have done further exploration on your final points you would have reached a more concrete answer to this question.
You make an interesting point, however, you seem to contradict yourself with your last paragraph. If society is not the sum of all its parts, then what difference does it make if I do not act morally? I agree with your statement that people emulate the actions of others. When we act morally, and people emulate that action, that is the benefit to society.
Good paper. I understand where you are coming from.
I think he was trying to list the benefits to the individual in order to show that there are other benefits ABOVE AND BEYOND those to the entire society. Thus saying that we need not act morally simply for the benefit of society as a whole, but for our own selves as well.
interesting,yet odd reply.
I agree. Individuals should act morally to benefit society, but should also act morally to benefit themselves.
I agree with you, except the last paragraph.
If a society isn't the sum of its individual members, then what it is? One could argue that, were it not for the members, there'd be no society.
Also, "[if]every member received an individual benefit, it would not be the same as the society benefitting as a whole." I'm not sure I agree with this conclusion. I agree that every individual doesn't have to benefit for society as a whole to have benefited, but if everyone benefits -- and we entertain the notion that individuals constitute a society -- then doesn't society as a whole benefit? If everyone's getting benefits, why doesn't society overall improve?
Your point is clear and I share your views.
First of all your paper supported your beliefs and you gave your reasons why. I don't agree about morality being actions and not thoughts and I beleive that one should not moral because of society. I also believe that a lot of people act moral because of self benefit.
I'm still trying to figure out exactly how you feel about the question.
Formal comments completed
Formal comments completed
nice, short, and to the point. i like your paper and thought it was well thought out.
What if you are prosecuted for acting, as you believe, morally but the society you live in thinks it is immoral. Is that still moral action? And if it is, is the society acting immortaly by prosecuiting you?