Yes--immorality usually involves hurting others; hurting others makes me feel bad/guilty; ergo, I don't hurt people even when I can get away with it.

Real life example: I could kick my dog and cat any time I want and "get away with it," because who would know if I made sure to be careful about it? I wouldn't ever, though, because even the thought makes me feel ill.

Unless, by "get away with it" you include not having a conscience--then I probably would just do whatever benefits me the most regardless of consequences to others.

No, by "get away with it" I do not intend to imply not having a conscience.

As for your real life example, kicking an animal, for no particular reason, can only be done by a person who does not have a conscience.
On the other hand, say, you were asked to kick a dog for a certain amount of cash (a lot of it) in return, and no one would see you do that or ever know about it, what would you do? You might even feel bad/guilty, as you said you would, but you still get the cash and would never have to worry about money in your entire life again.

I think given the fact that you can always get away, no matter what kind of behavior you indulge in, I think a person, no matter how righteously inclined, might be tempted to exploit "morality".

The point is that there is no real choice between morality and immorality. For there is no reason why you can't act very moralistic although you don't believe in good and evil. Or, as Friedrich Nietzsche said "To overcome good and evil, doesn't mean, to overcome good and bad." Good and evil may not exist, but good and bad still exists, also for Friedrich Nietzsche. So to distinguish morality and immorality in this way is to distinguish things, who may be contrary, but are not contrary in a way, that if one sentence is right the other must be wrong. It's completely possible not to believe in good and evil, but lead a very moral life.

People do behave in ways they know to be immoral, and fairly often get away with it. For instance, many people engage in sexual activity that is defined as immoral -- they may even agree that it is immoral -- but they do it anyway.

Many people engage in petty theft (not just pencils, but maybe small amounts of cash) which they know to be wrong, immoral, sinful -- whatever term is used, but they do it anyway, and quite often get away with it.

I am not entirely sure why people do these sorts of things. Sexually immoral acts have very strong biological drives as an explanatory factor. People who steal small sums or inexpensive objects have some other kind of motive.

The question arises, "Why aren't people behaving more immorally than they are behaving?"

Why aren't people behaving more immorally than they are behaving? — Bitter Crank

Because of the fear of getting caught and punished.

Because of the fear of getting caught and punished. — CuddlyHedgehog

Is that what you do? :lol:

Imagine you can live the rest of your life immorally and get away with it, societal or otherwise.
Would you still choose to be moral, why or why not? — Ruchi

Please go and read Plato's Republic. He asks exactly this question and answers it, I think, conclusively.

Without reading Plato's Republic, one can pretty well predict the consequences of many or most people behaving immorally and getting away with it. Society is degraded -- and not just be the immediate effects of immoral behavior (like by shooting each other). Business can not be done if people aren't honest. Economic activity would decline over time, impoverishing more and more people. The knock-on effects of more widespread poverty would result in more violent thieving and taking of property.

Of course, if many people can behave immorally and get away with it as a starting point, society has already descended into a shithole of the sort which D. Trump famously referenced.

So, the descent into hell begins with the company's pencils ending up in one's car, then more and more free color copies on the deluxe office copier, more and more time spent on-line at work gathering information for non-company purposes. Then more overt embezzlement of minor sums growing to larger sums, and finally the seizure of the company by a gang of thieves. Meanwhile, back at the ranch house, immoral suburbanites are jacking each other's cars, shagging each other's spouses, seducing everybody's children, torching the houses of the un-cooperative, and shoplifting the shopping centers into oblivion. Immoral construction companies are ripping up the concrete in the roads and selling it to the Chinese.

Pretty soon conditions make Cormac McCarthy's grim apocalyptic novel The Road look like the Teddy Bear's Picnic. All because of getting away with the bosses pencils and paper clips.

Without reading Plato's Republic, one can pretty well predict the consequences of many or most people behaving immorally and getting away with it. — Bitter Crank

Yes, but Plato doesn't talk about that relatively simple situation. Plato frames it through Thrasymachus that only you will behave immorally, and you will get away with it, nobody will ever know or find out. The question is then posed if, in that case, you should do it?

So, if the situation is that there is an immoral act; I will get away with it; and nobody will ever know or find out; I would be tempted. Immorality is generally measured by how much harm it causes others. If the act does not harm or affect anyone, and no one knows that it has been committed, and will never find out, how harmful can it be? If it isn't harmful, can it be immoral?

Let's say I daydream about committing clearly immoral acts. I will get away with these daydreamed acts, because nobody knows what it is I daydream about, and it doesn't affect anyone else. Has something immoral happened?

It could be that the dreamer harms himself by entertaining immoral thoughts, if it sufficiently undermined one's will to resist immoral acts.

If the act does not harm or affect anyone, and no one knows that it has been committed, and will never find out, how harmful can it be? If it isn't harmful, can it be immoral? — Bitter Crank

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody's there to bear witness, does is make a sound? Does it even fall at all?

Often a contributing aspect of an act's morality is precisely whether or not another person(s) is aware of the act. Being aware of the act makes it available for legal prosecution. But I don't think the legal system exhausts the scope of morality.

But I don't think the legal system exhausts the scope of morality. — darthbarracuda

Well, I don't think so either. But if someone conditions the question in this way,

you will get away with it, nobody will ever know or find out — Agustino

it has been put into the category of calculated risk. Whether something is moral or immoral has nothing to do with whether one will get caught or not. Murder is immoral, even if one can get away with it and no one will ever know.

People sometimes get confused about whether they should do what is moral or whether they should do what they won't get caught doing. Getting away with something immoral does not make it moral -- and I am quite sure no one here would argue that it does.

Morality is a statement of normativity so I'm not sure why I should necessarily care for other people.

Imagine you can live the rest of your life immorally and get away with it, societal or otherwise.
Would you still choose to be moral, why or why not? — Ruchi

Who's defining the measure of said "morality"? And how is that measure justified? And what justifies this justification? And so on. I'm not particularly keen on defining my actions/life in terms of "morality" and/or "immorality". Such spooks don't have any particular meaning to me.

really, an egotist. Worse than a parliamentarian in my opinion.

"Why aren't people behaving more immorally than they are behaving?"

Perhaps because no one can be completely unjust or immoral without performative contradictions and if so then perhaps it is necessary for those dedicated to an immoral life style to be moral/just in order for them to be or to practice their immoral life style. And, maybe for the most part it is easier to act justly than unjustly, where being just or unjust is not the same acting justly or morally.

Imagine you can live the rest of your life immorally and get away with it, societal or otherwise.
Would you still choose to be moral, why or why not? — Ruchi

It's not a black-and-white issue. My life would likely be a combination of morality and immortality, because I have a variety of impulses, motivations, feelings, beliefs, thoughts, priorities, and so on, and whatever it is that happens to dominate at the time will determine my behaviour.

I don't act "morally" to avoid the negative repercussions of acting "immorally", but rather I act "morally" to enjoy the societal benefits of doing so.

For example, suppose you had superpowers and were immune to the repercussions of the masses. You could then do whatever you want. Would you harm the masses or would you be their hero? I would be their hero, not out of moral obligation, but because the societal rewards of being a hero are so much greater.

Imagine you can live the rest of your life immorally and get away with it, societal or otherwise.
Would you still choose to be moral, why or why not? — Ruchi

One man's morality is another woman's immorality.
What, exactly is on your mind?

Please go and read Plato's Republic. He asks exactly this question and answers it, I think, conclusively. — Agustino

That's not surprising coming from a fanboy. :wink:

But that is, and can only ever be, opinion, and one with which I disagree. It remains an open question that is as relevant today as it was in the time of Plato, and Plato's argument suffers from peculiarities and weaknesses.

That is, and can only ever be, opinion, and one with which I disagree. — Sapientia

Why can it only ever be opinion?

Why can it only ever be opinion? — Agustino

Because it's not the kind of thing that can be answered conclusively. That would be a category error. It only makes sense in terms of, "What's your opinion?".

Because it's not the kind of thing that can be answered conclusively. That would be a category error. It only makes sense in terms of, "What's your opinion?". — Sapientia

Yes, but I am asking you why this is the case. Why can't it be answered conclusively? What does answering it conclusively even mean to you?

Yes, but I am asking you why this is the case. — Agustino

Because this case is like the others.

Why can't it be answered conclusively? What does answering it conclusively even mean to you? — Agustino

It would mean that the matter could be put to rest. It would mean that it would be like asking whether I have two hands.

It's obviously in a different category.

Because this case is like the others. — Sapientia

Which others?

It would mean that the matter could be put to rest. — Sapientia

So the matter being put to rest is what you mean by answering it conclusively. That is the standard by which we judge if something is answered conclusively. Are you sure about that? The Big Bang is, by that criterion, not a conclusive answer. Global warming is also not a conclusive answer - 1% of scientists disagree.

It is the nature of our human discourse for matters never to be put to rest. We will always discuss and keep on re-discussing and going through the motions with everything. The dialectic does not happen once, and after that nobody talks about it anymore. Why not? Because the answer can only be conveyed to you if you yourself go through the motions. It cannot be conveyed merely verbally. But this isn't to say that the answer is a matter of opinion.

I propose another definition for matters being put to rest. Matters are put to rest when, after going through the motions of the argument, there are no remaining unanswered strands that create doubts and uncertainty in the mind.

Which others? — Agustino

You could pick the normative ethics of any philosopher as an example. Whether Kant was right, for example. It makes sense to have a difference of opinion. It's not like discussing what planet we're on.

So the matter being put to rest is what you mean by answering it conclusively. That is the standard by which we judge if something is answered conclusively. Are you sure about that? The Big Bang is, by that criterion, not a conclusive answer. Global warming is also not a conclusive answer - 1% of scientists disagree. — Agustino

That might be what you mean by "putting it to rest", but that's certainly not what I meant. Did you really think that that's what I meant, or did you purposefully interpret it in a way that's easy to criticise? I gave you an example already, which was the question of whether or not I have two hands, and I've just given you another, which is what planet we're on. These matters are not matters of opinion. They're not up for serious debate. I have two hands, and we're on planet Earth, and that's that.

It is the nature of our human discourse for matters never to be put to rest. We will always discuss and keep on re-discussing and going through the motions with everything. The dialectic does not happen once, and after that nobody talks about it anymore. Why not? Because the answer can only be conveyed to you if you yourself go through the motions. It cannot be conveyed merely verbally. But this isn't to say that the answer is a matter of opinion. — Agustino

We're talking about two different things here - because of you, and because of what you've raised - but only one of them is relevant, and that's the one in sync with my original point, correctly interpreted. Saying that something can be put to rest does not in any way suggest that it actually will be, definitively.

I propose another definition for matters being put to rest. Matters are put to rest when, after going through the motions of the argument, there are no remaining unanswered strands that create doubts and uncertainty in the mind. — Agustino

Then, by your own definition, and given the known circumstances relating to this topic, it follows that the matter has not been put to rest. You must either concede or bite the bullet by committing to the incredible counterfactual - and an insult to intelligence - that anyone who doesn't agree with Plato on this must not have "gone through the motions" or must be harbouring unreasonable doubt.

really, an egotist. Worse than a parliamentarian in my opinion. — Count Radetzky von Radetz

Oh look, an ad hominem. I wasn't even talking to you, but you felt the kneejerk reaction to say some nonsense. Why is that again? Nevermind, don't answer.

"Touch the fixed idea of such a fool, and you will at once have to guard your back against the lunatic’s stealthy malice. For these great lunatics are like the little so-called lunatics in this point too — that they assail by stealth him who touches their fixed idea."