Because of an innate sense of what is and what is not beneficial for the tribe. Society couldn't survive with incorrect behavior not because it is "evil" but because it is degenerative. And for that it is considered "bad" while behavior with the most collective benefit is "good"

"Evil" and "good" are just how recklessly one achieves their own self-benefit

But is there any good we do when nobody is looking other than to make ourselves feel good? Is morality driven by punishment? Any exception if that were largely true? — TiredThinker

We like each other. We care about each other. We have empathy for each other. We live with each other. What more reasons do we need to help people?

We have society and social contracts that tells us what behavior is correct and what isn't, and we punish or frown upon those that do bad. — TiredThinker

Do we? You need to examine this. There are actually many moral codes and perspectives operating at once in most cultures. And what is 'frowned upon' by some members is encouraged by others. Divorce, free love, abortion, capital punishment, women's rights, homosexuality - humans are all over the shop on these issues depending on religions, cultures, education, region.

But in more general term humans are social animals who live in tribes, like other animals, especially chimps. Is it any wonder that we work to find ways of getting on together and setting boundaries? It's also pretty hard to rear children if you don't have empathy.

I don't know how to explain this, but I'll give it my best shot.

There's this belief, true/not you decide, that good has something to do with being inexperienced (naïve) and foolish. It's a big bad world once you step outside the safety and comfort of your home.

However, a case can be made that to be good actually requires a whole lot of brains. We're wired to be selfish (so says evolution and other sources); so, to be good (altruistic) one has to find an ingenious way around this obstacle of self-centeredness, oui? One has to be really very clever to be both selfish and selfless (good).

Why do we do good?

One possible answer: It's challenging (intellectually)! Brain teaser: How can a black cat become white while staying black?

To impress those we like that they may stay in our lives?

We do things for the tribe because the tribe does for us? So what makes it good versus simply advantageous?

Interesting.

We do things for the tribe because the tribe does for us? So what makes it good versus simply advantageous? — TiredThinker

I never said it was 'good'. In fact there are many people that think ethical positions all fall under a form of reciprocal altruism. If you play nice with others, you benefit. And we know that often there is safety and strength in working together. Hence common wealth.

I think the idea of the 'good' is a more primal or idealist notion and who knows what all that means?

Same reason we express truths: ceteris paribus, it's more adaptive to do so than not to do so.

The foundation of society itself I believe is compassion springing from self-interest, bear with me, compassion does not arise unless one identifies the self in others. It does have its imperfections, as where a society limits this identification to the members of its own group, letting the rest of humanity remain to it, largely objects. Society is largely a survival tactic in response to a harsh uncaring environment and the life of kinds huddles into to groups, the less similar one is the less identification with, thus the less compassion evoked, and one then is an outsider due to little compassion on the part of others.

Schopenhauer once said that the identification of the self in others is a metaphysical realization that can just hit you on a one-to-one level. This seems particularly applicable to instances where people risk their lives to save others risking sometimes almost certain death. This falls in line with another thread in which I stated that the essence of life is all the same, it is but structure and form which has adapted to environment context which makes essence look different, and also limits identification with and thus limits one's ability to feel compassion for. Another aspect of why we do good is that it is not self-less, if you have this identification going on with another self. We make the assurance of their well-being a goal of our will, and have a desire to fulfill our own will to reach its satisfaction.

In fact there are many people that think ethical positions all fall under a form of reciprocal altruism. If you play nice with others, you benefit. — Tom Storm

Yeah, that's the idea I subscribe to.

I think if one is to follow the concept of selfishness through to the extreme, they'll eventually have to come to the conclusion that the best selfish thing one can do is to indeed work with others.

To impress those we like that they may stay in our lives? — TiredThinker

I didn't say there were no other reasons to help people, only that we don't need any more.

If one was to prove the existence of good wouldn't all other incentives need to be removed? We always seem to have many drives for practicality. We don't like over simplicity. But wouldn't we need to bare it if we are to truely be good without self or group serving incentives for evolutionary reasons?

If one was to prove the existence of good wouldn't all other incentives need to be removed? We always seem to have many drives for practicality. We don't like over simplicity. But wouldn't we need to bare it if we are to truely be good without self or group serving incentives for evolutionary reasons? — TiredThinker

I don't understand. The reasons I gave were personal, emotional reasons, although I think they are based in human nature. They have nothing to do with trying to be good. Or looking good.

So being more intellectual equals more good and less instinct?

True morality consists of behaviors that maximize the well-being and happiness of the individual performing the actions, while simultaneously respecting the sovereign boundaries of all other human beings.

True morality consists of behaviors that maximize the well-being and happiness of the individual performing the actions, while simultaneously respecting the sovereign boundaries of all other human beings. — Garrett Travers

I agree with the sentiment for the most part but am not crazy about the term 'true morality'. Where's your evidence? This seems to be simply a presupposition you have settled on (no doubt based on some reasoning) but it does not carry inherent truth value.

I generally hold that how actions impact upon the flourishing of conscious creatures is the best foundation for morality. But this requires making the decision to accept this presupposition.

Because we are individuals and are confined to our own bodies and consciousness, it follows that morality is an individual practice. Meaning, you cannot be moral, or express a morality for me, but only for yourself, as my body and consciousness are confined to me. Thus, morality being an individual pursuit is implied by our individualistic nature. To your own health, prosperity, success, happiness, and peace are you responsible, as you are the only person who can experience it. Thus, morality is the self-generated body of behaviors designed for individual achievement of well-being and happiness.

other than to make ourselves feel good? — TiredThinker

It's more than making ourselves feel good.

Doing good gives our life meaning.

True morality consists of behaviors that maximize the well-being and happiness of the individual performing the actions... — Garrett Travers

Again, that's merely satisfying one's appetite, and has nothing to do with ethics or morality.

...while simultaneously respecting the sovereign boundaries of all other human beings. — Garrett Travers

Now you are getting there.

"Because we are individuals and are confined to our own bodies and consciousness, it follows that morality is an individual practice. Meaning, you cannot be moral, or express a morality for me, but only for yourself, as my body and consciousness are confined to me. Thus, morality being an individual pursuit is implied by our individualistic nature. To your own health, prosperity, success, happiness, and peace are you responsible, as you are the only person who can experience it. Thus, morality is the self-generated body of behaviors designed for individual achievement of well-being and happiness."

You didn't address any of this.

To your own health, prosperity, success, happiness, and peace are you responsible, as you are the only person who can experience it. Thus, morality is the self-generated body of behaviors designed for individual achievement of well-being and happiness. — Garrett Travers

I can't share this presupposition and perhaps don't fully understand it. I see morality as being in relationship with others. Your view sounds a bit like a version of the saying: you can't love anyone until you first love yourself.

It was on my to do list.

Because we are individuals and are confined to our own bodies and consciousness, it follows that morality is an individual practice. Meaning, you cannot be moral, or express a morality for me, but only for yourself, as my body and consciousness are confined to me. — Garrett Travers

You are embedded in a society, surrounded not just by others but in a world that is created by others. The very words you are using to posit this argument have use only within the context of that society. You have no choice but to concern yourself in the lives of others.

Again, pursuing the satisfaction of your desires is neither here nor there morally; until it involves others. And it always involves others.

Hence starting with an individualist mindset is fraught with contradiction.

Your own health, prosperity, success, happiness, and peace are experienced, for better or worse, by those around you. The self-generated body of behaviors designed for individual achievement of well-being and happiness are mere appetite until the other is considered.

By all means, look after yourself. But don't mistake that for acting morally.

I see morality as being in relationship with others. — Tom Storm

So, when you are alone morality isn't a factor?

So being more intellectual equals more good and less instinct? — TiredThinker

Something like that. It takes brains to be good because we're designed to be bad; so we have to come up with ingenious workarounds for the problem of our nature (inherently selfish) - that, I reckon, is not easy [a problem (only) geniuses to solve].

Morality is a sense, like humour or aesthetics, inculcated in human beings by evolution in a tribal context. Moral behaviours were an advantage to the individual within the tribe, and to the tribe composed of such individuals - competeing with other tribes to survive. This can be seen in chimp behaviours - where they share food, and groom eachother, but further, remember who is likely to reciprocate, and withhold such favours accordingly in future. Religion, law, politicis, economnics are expressions of this innate moral sense.

We have society and social contracts that tells us what behavior is correct and what isn't, and we punish or frown upon those that do bad. But is there any good we do when nobody is looking other than to make ourselves feel good? Is morality driven by punishment? Any exception if that were largely true? — TiredThinker

So, when you are alone morality isn't a factor? — Garrett Travers

What you do on your own has a moral dimension in virtue of any effect it might have on others, either directly or indirectly. That includes the inclinations and desires one chooses to feed. There are very few things that do not have such an impact.

Morality doesn't involve me - the individual experiencing reality - but involves others, or individuals experiencing reality. I am embedded in society - me, the individual experiencing reality - surrounded by others, or, individuals experiencing reality. I'm using words - me, the indivdual using words and experiencing reality... Therefore, I - the individual experiencing reality - have "no choice" but to concern myself with the lives of others, or, individuals experiencing reality. That's quite coherent.

"The self-generated body of behaviors designed for individual achievement of well-being and happiness are mere appetite until the other is considered."

The "other"-generated body of behaviors designed for "other" achievement of well-being and happiness are mere slavery until the individual is considered.

What you do on your own has a moral dimension in virtue of any effect it might have on others — Banno

This is an incoherent statement.

What you do has first and foremost an effect on you. What you do is not something that can be experienced by others, as you are confined to your consciousness, as I am to mine.

What you do has first and foremost an effect on you. — Garrett Travers

Sure. But not a moral effect, except as it changes your relation towards others.

If someone ponders privately some violent act, say against women, but does not commit, then nothing of moral significance has occurred. But if your contemplations lead you to a misogynist attitude, then they have a moral component.

What you do is not something that can be experienced by others... — Garrett Travers

That isn't so. Your acts have an impact on others.