Why should someone act morally?

[Anonymous No.18994354]

Reading Gorgias, I found myself unconvinced by Socrates on why I should be moral. He seems to imply that I should be moral for my own sake, but that only seems to move the problem further down as that just puts morality into the realm of decision theory, and I can easily imagine doing something immoral if I knew that the payout would be worth it. It seems like you could finagle a justification for morality that isn't tied to the benefit it brings you by saying that the payout when cooperating is higher than when acting in a Nash equilibrium, but that also seems like it's more a matter of business than morality.

Is there anyone that directly addresses this problem?

[Anonymous No.18994592]

>>18994354
This gif doesn't make any sense

[Anonymous No.18994632]

>>18994354
because often times the moral decision is the most beneficial option factoring for effort/energy. from pure anecdote i can say that positive companionship has given me more gifts than amoral behavior in the long term. it is convenient to be moral (generally, not absolutely).

[Anonymous No.18994667]

>>18994354
>the payout when cooperating is higher than when acting in a Nash equilibrium, but that also seems like it's more a matter of business than morality.

Just because it seems to be like a matter of business does not automatically make it a matter of business.

[Anonymous No.18994690]

>>18994354
Morality is a convenient mechanism to ensure the prosperity (NOT survival this is important to note) of the human species
Without morality people go back to tribal warfare nothing gets done
That's literally it read all you want but this is really all there is to it
By all rights you shouldn't act moral so long as you think you won't get caught and can rely on others to pick up the slack necessary to hold society together while you prosper within it via your immoral actions which is exactly what the majority of well off people do

[Anonymous No.18994706]

>>18994592
fpbp

[Anonymous No.18994749]

There is no morality, but rather a number of moralities. And it is not a matter of choosing whether to act morally or not. All social groups have certain norms, rules of conduct that arise organically in the course of living together. You act "morally" every time you adhere to some extend to the norms of the communities you are a part of.
The idea that there is a big choice between following the way of morality or that of self-interest is largely an artistic convention to write fun stories. Every time you post on 4chan or interact wit someone irl or chit chat you are engaging in common activities with others, following certain customs. Morality is not something you can choose to partake in or not, you are born into it.

[Anonymous No.18994777]

>>18994592
Retard.

[Anonymous No.18995040]

>>18994354
You seem to be conflating material gains (material, uncertain, perishable, ultimately worthless gains) with philosophical gains (mental, inalienable, worthwhile). It is not a mistake that Plato compares the best life (that of a philosopher) to that of the worst life (that of a tyrant). If you looked at it from a material perspective you would find the opposite to be true. If you follow the path of the philosopher (read Phaedo for more on this) for material gain, you are the most pitiable sort of fool.

[Anonymous No.18995397]

>>18994354
>>18994592
>>18994706
>>18994777 (checked)
i can't wrap my head around it. i've got a feeling that the gif makes sense because of the epic digits, but why would hobbes fight le leviathan??

[Anonymous No.18995447]

>>18994592
Based, liberals are morons who don't use nature

[Anonymous No.18995474]

>>18994354
well for one you'll probably end up alone if you are just a dick. also when I die I want to know that I tried to respect the suffering of those around me

[Anonymous No.18995500]

>>18995397
It's not Hobbes, but Rousseau

[Anonymous No.18995512]

>>18995500
It's Locke. Nature justifying individual rights is lockean liberalism. Rousseauian is will of the people justify individual rights w noble savage as an axiology.

[Anonymous No.18995547]

>>18995500
i suspected that it wasn't hobbes, thanks. stick a wig on someone and i'll assume it's bach.

[Anonymous No.18995697]

There's a difference between morality and the human tendency of being neighborly to one another. Morality usually just arises as explanation and justification for the former.

>>18994632
>>18994690
If what is moral is also what has utility, then by consequence genocide can also become moral if it serves a greater purpose, and for that matter so can rape and various other things not typically considered "good" in most human cultures.

>>18994354
So basically the important thing to keep in mind is that humans biologically have certain tendencies that keep them from raping at random. Anyone who tries to change biology in anyway brings humanity closer to a reality where degradation of the body and the soul is rule. Beware!

[Anonymous No.18995839]

>>18994354
In Gorgias, Socrates isn't trying to prove morality but to demonstrate the powerlessness of Gorgianic rhetoric. Recall that the dialogue starts with Socrates criticizing Polus for not saying what rhetoric is, and recall further that in introducing justice into the argument Socrates mimics Gorgias and his student in not saying what it is. The rest of the dialogue shows the lack of persuasive power in words alone (Gorgias' thesis being that words have a motive power to affect people); everyone ends up noting that the conclusions Socrates leads everyone to are ridiculous but follow from what's said previously, but no one actually believes any of it.

[Anonymous No.18996308]

>>18995697
>then by consequence genocide can also become moral if it serves a greater purpose
yes. the only thing stopping genocide and rape from being moral is utility. utility is not only material (think emotional utility). senseless killing is bad because it is senseless, not because it is killing.

[Anonymous No.18996638]

>>18994354
I'd check out republic. I think the argument there to act justly or "morally" is more convincing than in gorgias or at least more developed.
>Is there anyone that directly addresses this problem?
Unironically Nietzsche, though if you read him without all the prerequisites you'll get fucked

[Anonymous No.18996674]

>>18995512
>noble savage as an axiology.
Whenever I argue with people about Rosseau they claim he was not serious about the noble savage idea. Which one is it? Are humans noble or not when they are left without any rule of law?

[Anonymous No.18996683]

>>18996674
All men are wicked and will live out their wickedness whenever given the chance.

[Anonymous No.18996719]

>>18995839
This, OP should read The Republic if he wants Plato’s opinion on morality and why doing “the right thing” is always beneficial