Which hold us back more- Moral values, or a fear of repercussion?

[Liquid Blue]

Long story short- Do you think our moral values or the fear of repercussion hold people back from doing things they wanted to do?

A guy sees a videogame that he wants at a mall, but doesn't steal it. Do you think it's because he's afraid of getting caught and charged with theft, or because he thinks stealing is wrong?

A girl has the opportunity to get the dream job she always wanted, the only catch is that she has to sleep with her boss. She declines, is this because she believes she doesn't have to sleep around to get where she wants to be, or because she's afraid of being labeled as a slut?

Let's move this onto more primal insticts; agression and lust. A friend has a hot girlfriend that's flirting with you- do you fuck her brains out as soon as you get the chance, or no?

If not, why? Because that would be wrong to do with your friends girl, or because you're afraid of getting caught? Let's say she's not going out with a friend of yours, but you know she is married/going out with someone. Still no?


Some guy your age beats up your little brother and puts him in the hospital for 2 months. Would you go seeking revenge? If not, why? Afraid of getting your ass whooped/having the cops called on you, or because violence doesn't solve anything?

So on and so forth, discuss.

[Mootland Farmer]

Just finished a Social Contract Theory of Morality lecture a few hours ago! According to this theory people are binded to the agreement to follow state laws/rules and that they will not subject harm on another. In doing so we become rational beings and live in cohesion with each other. To inflict harm on one another or break the law would revert to a state of nature where you are free to do as you will (Rachels, 2003).

Alot of what you believe, is determined in your surrounding environment and how others act, like family, friends, idols etc. Consequences also affect what is right/wrong thing to do, as does universal laws. Now I'm going on to other ethics theories.

In my opinion, there cannot be a single universal rule for every situation. You have to perform what you believe in and what you feel as the right thing to do within the law. But for example, imagine if that guy did steal the videogame, but from his background, stealing is a necessity, the right thing to do, even though most of us would scream that it is really a "bad" thing?

[Richard Creager]

Guy doesn't steal videogame because of the law.
Girl doesn't sleep with the employer because what kind of fucking place has someone like that on it and in charge of hiring poeple? A place thats about to go belly up, that's what.

I don't touch the bitches regardless, a taken one is an even more extreme laugh when off handedly considered.

Guy who beats up a kid related to me will happily have his head permanently facing backwards, possibly with the rest of the spine below the neck ripped out. Cops? What cops? If they have a problem they can fucking die as well, makes no difference to me, I am beyond such pussy ass slimeballs.

[Riesen]

I think that changes from person to person. There are people who don't give a shit about morals or getting caught.

As far as the more primal stuff, again, I think that varies. It really depends on the person. One guy might sleep with his friends girlfriend, while another guy won't. I think the reason one guy would is because he's a sex hound and he's got nothing else going for him. The guy who wouldn't is obviously just a moral, upstanding guy. As for me? I wouldn't do it, because I know it isn't right, and I wouldn't want to end up hurting anyone, including myself.

If someone beat up my little brother, what would I do? I'd call the cops on who did it. I don't fear getting caught or think that violence solves nothing, I just think there are better ways of handling things.

[Squeezer]

It depends on the person.

I recently watched this special on Serial Killers on the Discovery Channel (awesome channel) which talked about how their brains are wired differently than most people's. When a normal person kills unjustly, they feel guilt, compassion and fear. Guilt comes from the moral side of it and knowing that what you did was wrong on a human level. Compassion comes from being human and being able to empathize with the person you just killed. Fear on the other hand comes from knowing, by law, that what you did was wrong and that there will be consequences for your actions. These serial killers lack the first two connections the brain makes. To them, murder is not wrong. They are unable to empathize, and unable to feel compassion or sadness for the act they've just commited, yet they still know it was wrong by law. Basically, they know that society deems murder wrong, but in their minds, murder is neither wrong or right, it just is.

Really interesting thought.

[Liquid Blue]

Another thought to think about is -

"how much different do you think you would act if you were not held accountable for your actions?"

People have said again and again that absolute power corrupts absolutely, but IMO, not enough have asked why.

[PolluX]

Just finished a Social Contract Theory of Morality lecture a few hours ago! According to this theory people are binded to the agreement to follow state laws/rules and that they will not subject harm on another. In doing so we become rational beings and live in cohesion with each other. To inflict harm on one another or break the law would revert to a state of nature where you are free to do as you will (Rachels, 2003).

Nice to see you paying attention, but this is an old theory. Try and read the book Leviathan (named after a myth. being which fires blue bolts of death -_- ) from Thomas Hobbes. He wrote it in 17th century, i don't know Rachels, but if he/she didn't refer to Hobbes, he/she is a fake.
here is a link to wikipedia
and this is the frontcover of the book. The guy on the cover is the Leviathan, but this is just a metafor for the state. He has all the powers (sword and scepter) both military and religous. Those powers are given to him by the people so they can live in a law-state. It's a social contract that's not explicite, but Hobbes states that before this contract people where living in an anarchy, where everyone was against everyone. To avoid this anarchy again, people submit them to a law.

But that's just all bullshit, and maybe people believed this in the 17th century. It's just a bedtimestory.


To awnser Liquid Blue's question, well it's impossible to awnser. Psychology, Sociology, Antropology,... they all start their theories with assumptions. If people were individual, If people were caring, etc...
Thruth is people are to different, so for some moral values hold them back, for others fear of repercussion hold them back, some aren't held back at all.

This is a stupid question, but worth thinking about it, just don't try to find an awnser... there are as many awnsers as people.

[PolluX]

Alot of what you believe, is determined in your surrounding environment and how others act, like family, friends, idols etc. Consequences also affect what is right/wrong thing to do, as does universal laws. Now I'm going on to other ethics theories.

and this is even an older discussion nature versus nurture.
Once in Egypt there was a king who wanted to know which language was the oldest and the first men could speak. He ordered to put two newly born children in a cave. Nobody could go near them, and only 2 sheep were sent to them every day to give them milk. After 2 years the king went in the cave and the two children stretch out their arms to the king and cried 'meeeh'. The king concluded that greek was the oldest language because 'mèh' ment honey in greek.