Morality Does Not Exist

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Merko,

Thanks for the latest post and apologies for the delay in replying.

As your comments about moral facts seem to be at the heart of matter, let me deal with them briefly here.

Are we agreed, leaving aside for the moment questions of justification, that, as a matter of fact about language-use, people routinely assign truth-values to moral statements and that they take those statements to be consistent, inconsistent or the like with other such statements? Assuming that we are...

Moral facts come into it because one group ( call them realists) insist that moral facts really exist and provide a justification or foundation for these practices.
A second group ( antirealists) say that no such facts exist and that consequently the practice is unjustified and should be abandoned.

It's easy to urge, against the realists, that they haven't had much luck in finding these special facts: at best, they are likely to come up with " moral facts " that are what moral statements, when true, state [ tip of the hat to Strawson]. And these are too obviously reformulations of what is in dispute to provide independent support to the practice.

Does that leave us only with antirealism? Not in my view. What is wrong with that is precisely the insistence that the linguistic practices that go to constitute and define moral discourse stand in need of external justification. Why should they?

We might, of course, try persuading people to give up those practices. But if we succeed, we shan't have illuminated the nature of moral discourse: we shall merely have changed the subject. In much the same way, we might try giving the knight in chess a different move: but then we wouldn't be playing chess.

I expect to be busy tonight and possibly over the next day or so, and I can't promise a quick reply to your next post. However, I look forward to it.

 

[Merko]

Are we agreed, leaving aside for the moment questions of justification, that, as a matter of fact about language-use, people routinely assign truth-values to moral statements and that they take those statements to be consistent, inconsistent or the like with other such statements?

Yes. But likewise, people also routinely squabble about whether one movie would be better than the other. The existance of the squabbling proves nothing.

What is wrong with that is precisely the insistence that the linguistic practices that go to constitute and define moral discourse stand in need of external justification. Why should they?

If there are no moral facts, that is no external justification, then there is no way to settle the argument, and it becomes an endless exchange of 'no it isn't' -- 'yes it is'.

Such an exchange seems to serve no purpose, unless people enjoy it just for sports.

We might, of course, try persuading people to give up those practices. But if we succeed, we shan't have illuminated the nature of moral discourse: we shall merely have changed the subject.

I believe that we would have achieved something very significant. People would stop arguing over something that does not exist, and instead start arguing over workable solutions to the problems they are facing.


Let me give an example: I believe that in many parts of the world, a number of cases have been exposed where company directors have misappropriated their powers to enrich themselves to the detriment of their companies, its employees, the shareholders and society in general.

In response to this, it has often been suggested that shareholders and lawmakers should implement safeguards, so that directors will be kept more in control.

However, others have instead suggested that what was really at fault was the 'ethics' of the previous directors. No controls are necessary, we only need to find more 'moral' directors.

If, as I suggest, there is no such thing as 'morality', then this second suggestion is based on a delusion, perhaps even a blatant attempt to ensure that company funds can be misappropriated by directors also in the future.

 

[MrFrankZito]

The core problem with "morality" is this: There are multiple--equally plausible--definitions.

(1). Morality relates to human-to-human interaction. Moral actions increase happiness, while immoral actions increase suffering.

(2). Morality relates to human-to-environment interaction. Moral actions benefit the environment, while immoral actions harm the environment.

(3). Morality relates to human-to-frog interaction. Moral actions benefit frogs, while immoral actions harm frogs.

Somebody demonstrate why one definition is more correct than another, preferably with evidence. That's my major hangup at this point...

 

[UserGoogol]

You can't empirically prove one definition more correct than another, a definition simply is. A definition can be stupid, but it can't be wrong. One person can talk about human-morality, and another person can talk about frog-morality, and as long as they make their definitions clear, then there's no problem.

(Of course, many people do not make their definitions clear.)

 

[fuelair]

Sorry, can't respond without a Planet X option - and, gets more play with a simple statement of your thesis where the poll is.

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Yes. But likewise, people also routinely squabble about whether one movie would be better than the other. The existance of the squabbling proves nothing.



If there are no moral facts, that is no external justification, then there is no way to settle the argument, and it becomes an endless exchange of 'no it isn't' -- 'yes it is'.

Such an exchange seems to serve no purpose, unless people enjoy it just for sports.



I believe that we would have achieved something very significant. People would stop arguing over something that does not exist, and instead start arguing over workable solutions to the problems they are facing.

Merko,

Again, thanks for the reply. And, I suppose, apologies for quoting only parts of it: I have chosen those parts where possible misunderstanding lingers. To clear it up, let me say that:

1. the bods I call realists have got it wrong because they think it possible to make moral discourse meaningful by invoking moral facts, and

2. the bods I call antirealists have got it wrong in insisting that moral facts are necessary for moral discourse to be meaningful.

As to the practical example you raise: I am sure that what you suggest about the better course of action is true. Now, is that a point for you or for me?

 

[Merko]

As to the practical example you raise: I am sure that what you suggest about the better course of action is true. Now, is that a point for you or for me?

I'm not saying it is true. I am saying it is to the benefit of the shareholders, the employees, and society in general. If you're in one or several of those groups, you have reason to support it. If you're a director planning to embezzle funds, you have reason to oppose it. Neither position can be shown to be more moral than the other.

In fact I argue that every time we wish to convince someone about some certain cause of action, we need to ultimately give a reason for why it will benefit this person in particular. It may be indirectly, if this is a compassionate individual for example. But simply applying to 'morality' does not work. In fact it adds nothing at all to the discussion, it only takes up time and serves to confuse.

 

[boloboffin]

2 cents, coming through...

I think that morality does exist. I think it's based on common survival. A society or species develops behaviors that help the species as a whole survive. These behaviors are always subject to examination and revision. The Golden Rule is nothing more than an individual application of a species imperative, and that is what is best called morality. When rationality shows us the common bonds between all forms of life, morality begins to modify even its species-specificity.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

 

[Halden]

As Boloboffin stated, I thnk Morality exists but there are no universal truths or ethics. They are a fluid and ever changing set of guidelines set up by your culture, upbringing and evolve with societies. I do not believe that any set of morals can be proved to be better than an another but they are beneficial to our survival.

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

1. I'm not saying it is true.

2. I am saying it is to the benefit of the shareholders, the employees, and society in general.

3. If you're in one or several of those groups, you have reason to support it. If you're a director planning to embezzle funds, you have reason to oppose it.

4. Neither position can be shown to be more moral than the other.

5. In fact I argue that every time we wish to convince someone about some certain cause of action, we need to ultimately give a reason for why it will benefit this person in particular. It may be indirectly, if this is a compassionate individual for example.

6. But simply applying to 'morality' does not work. In fact it adds nothing at all to the discussion, it only takes up time and serves to confuse.

Merko,

Again, thanks for the reply.

I have split what you say into sentences and sub-paragraphs to make disagreement clearer. Point for point:-

1. In general, leaving aside oddities ( such as semantic paradoxes, which don't come into it here), asserting x is the same as asserting that x is true. You may choose to say that you are not asserting anything at all. But that is up to you.

2. Here, you are offering reasons for your proposal to implement safeguards. These reasons are the interests of innocent parties.

3. The wicked director certainly has a motive for opposing the proposed safeguards. Does that really mean that he has a reason?

4. Quite. If there is no relevant difference between theft and honest toil. But if there is such a difference?

5. Shall we keep this one for a discussion of egoism?

6. Back where we started?

 

[PenguinWarrior]

I haven't voted on your poll, because I both agree and disagree with your thesis (I'm tricky like that. Not the guy with the Tick avatar, though, the adjective).

I agree with the central idea that there is no definite code of ethics or morality built into the universe. Certainly not one that is discernable to us at this time, and I don't believe there is one at all. I don't however believe that this means morality/ethics don't exist or, indeed, are just matters of opinion (although that enters into it).

First off, I should probably define what I mean by morality/ethics. I find when I attempt to define things on this forum that people immediately jump in and pick holes in my definitions in what seems to me an incredibly pedantic way, but we'll have a go anyway "Ethics are the methods or reasoning that are used to determine how an intelligent being should act in a situation where more than one interest is involved" (NB:I'll be using ethics from now on as I don't want to keep typing ethics/morality, but that's what I mean). By intelligent being I mean one capable of seeing the consequences of his actions on themselves and others over at least the short term future. (I think I've nitpick-proofed my definition, but someone will probably turn up and go "Well, what exactly do you mean by "interest", "act" or "future"?")

Now, clearly there must be some method of determining this, even if it's "Do whatever you feel like" or "Act entirely at random, with the aid of a random number generator and this handy list of possible actions". Any one of these choices is an ethical system, and therefore we can say that, at least in one sense, ethical systems must exist. Not in the sense that people necessarily want, but we'll get to that in a minute.

I want to quickly (having written the paragraph, I now believe the word quickly may be somewhat inappropriate) sidestep into Moral Relativism here. As I think it is kind of self defeating. There are two types as far as I can see. The first states "There is no such things as ethics is a strict scientific sense therefore one should act purely in his or her own interest/according to the ethical traditions of his or her culture/nihilistically/whatever." This is a nonsensical position. If there are no ethics then the statement "one should act" is useless. There is no particular way one should act, and this includes all the default positions that Moral Relativists take. That one should act in one's best interests is no more a valid position than that one should act directly against them. That one should do what one wants to is no more a valid position than that one should do exactly the thing they would least like to do at any one time. The second position is more coherently defined, but unfortunately is of no use whatsoever. It is "There is no ethical structure inherent in the universe, so there is no objectively right way to act". True as far as it goes, but of no use whatsoever to human beings who are attempting to work out how to live their lives. In fact, it's only use that I can see is in proving the ontological argument for God's existance to be a pile of steming nonsense.

Anyway, the fact remains that since ethics do not exist, it is necessary for us to invent them. We need to act somehow, after all. Even milling around aimlessly complaining about how there are no ethics in the universe is an ethical system. So the question is: how to we distinguish between ethical systems? Your movie analogy is actually quite good here, but for exactly the opposite reasons than you intended. People do distinguish between movies. And there are non-random ways of doing this. Whilst a movie cannot be said to be good or bad, it can be said to be sophisticated, original, cleverly shot, coherently plotted, action packed, well acted or whatever. Conversely it can be full of plot holes, cliched, badly edited or The Nutty Professor. Of course, some of these categories are themselves opinions, but the fact remains that film critics, amateur and professional, can give a more sophisticated analysis of a film than "I didn't like it, it was a slasher film" or "Two thumbs up, it was a Western." Similarly one can analyse potential ethical systems in a more sophisticated way than "Hated it, it had Buddha in it" or "I like Nazism as Hitler's moustache was lovely".

So some ethical systems can go out immediately as it is obvious no-one who has thought coherently about the subject would prefer them. "Moustacheism" is one of the first to go, as is a moral system which is based on the interests of your imaginary friend Pete, since benefitting the interests of a non-existant being would be silly in the extreme (and by extenstion, his mates Allah, Zeus and Yahwah. Sadly though, people don't notice this. Oh, well soldier on). But eliminating poor ethical systems is infinitely less efficient than working out a good one, so let's look at that instead.

What do we want in an ethical system? Well, coherence is definitely one thing. The ability to resolve ethical dilemmas is also very important, since that's the whole point of having an ethical system in the first place (and this is the failing of virtue-based ethics). But most important of all is that it is the most preferable system. What do humans prefer? Well, they prefer to be satisfied. Therefore we want a system that produces the most satisfaction. Therefore, Utilitarianism.

There are of course other ways of looking at the question, but they tend to converge on certain behaviours (reciprocal altruism, mutual respect, general working together for the good of all), once irrationalism and tribalism are recognised as the self destructive activities that they are. But the fact remains that we can judge ethics in more sophisticated ways than "I don't like it".

Ethics exist, they just aren't inbuilt in the universe. We (human beings) have cobbled evolutionary urges, teamwork and empathy together into something shining and wonderful on our way out of the trees. Personally, I prefer that to being a race of ungrateful brats kicked out of Eden, and I think the fact that religious types can't accept that we are capable of ethics without God's help are much the same as those people who think the pyramids could not possibly have been built by ancient man, so it must of been aliens as we aren't good enough. Well, they did and we are.

So there.

 

[Merko]

4. Quite. If there is no relevant difference between theft and honest toil. But if there is such a difference?

What would that difference be? This is the crux of the matter.

Of course, you're using terms that already have a value loaded onto them. We could easily rephrase this: Is there no relevant difference between getting rewards easily and quickly, and getting them by years of useless hard work?

You may think one is preferrable, I may agree. We may get a majority to agree. Does this prove anything? If a majority decides for or against the right to abortion, for example, does that make it moral or immoral? The ancient greeks found pedophilia to be socially acceptable - does this mean that, at that time, it was moral?

My point is that there is no observable difference, except that currently, most people would label something like this 'theft', and so disapprove of it. To call this morality goes against so many commonly accepted concepts about morality, that I think it would be a misuse of the term.

Ethics are the methods or reasoning that are used to determine how an intelligent being should act in a situation where more than one interest is involved.

But why should we do it? It appears to me that no one can give a no-nonsense answer to this.

I think that there is a difference between ethics and morality, though. Morality would be the above definition, with the assumption that everyone should always follow it, no matter the circumstances.

Ethics, on the other hand, would be a societal agreement in line with the above. Thus, the reason why we should follow it is that this is what is expected by the rest of society. We may be rewarded for following it, or punished for not following it. However, even in this case, we need to make sure that there is actually such a mechanism for reward/punishment, and that we're not just writing down a list with no teeth, that clever individuals will disregard for their own advantage. In many cases, the only necessary punishment for transgressions would be the bad reputation of the perpetrator. If the advantage to gain from a transgression is small, this is enough to outweigh it, since having a bad reputation makes life much more difficult. But sometimes the advantage may be enormous - such as in my example of embezzlement of corporate funds. If the only punishment is to be considered a crook by most people, then certainly it can still be rational to do this if it gives you a billion dollars.

"There is no such things as ethics is a strict scientific sense therefore one should act purely in his or her own interest/according to the ethical traditions of his or her culture/nihilistically/whatever." This is a nonsensical position.

I agree and I think this is an important point. I think that Ayn Rand advocated such a position, and I think it is absurd indeed. If we can do whatever we want, then surely we can also act out of compassion or pity to further the interests of others. These are after all very real interests we have, every bit as real, and sometimes more powerful, than other interests such as desire for riches and power.

That one should act in one's best interests is no more a valid position than that one should act directly against them.

However, I think it is in place to point out that we will (try to) act in our best interest, always. There is no way we can avoid doing this.

It is "There is no ethical structure inherent in the universe, so there is no objectively right way to act". True as far as it goes, but of no use whatsoever to human beings who are attempting to work out how to live their lives.

I disagree, and I think you have identified the use we have of this conclusion:

Anyway, the fact remains that since ethics do not exist, it is necessary for us to invent them.

Bingo! Although I know you mean ethics/morality, I think the above applies only to ethics, not morality.

The lack of morality means that we must always pay attention to what kind of ethics we postulate. If we ask people to commit sacrifices, or to refrain from advantages, we must make sure that they are rewarded or punished accordingly. Otherwise, we must assume that clever individuals will act to the detriment of society by breaking our ethical code.

 

[Orangutan]

I'm going to Agree, But it's not Agree Strongly. While I believe Individual Morals are subjective and easily prone to flux when attributing them to yourself and other people, I also believe that as a society we have certain morals that have been generally seen as good for the society as a whole. (These of course change with wars and other events) And are generally enshrined in the laws that society makes. So In a sense they do exist in peoples minds, there effect can be seen in the way society behaves, but they are still subjective.

To say they don't exist is like saying any idea doesn't exist. So I agree in the spirit in which you write in that Morals don't exist in a way that you could conduct a test for them. And I could agree that they are just opinions.

"You're honor, I am aware there are laws against my behavior, but do you realize the laws are just based on peoples opinions!"

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

I disagree. Murder and theft are always bad. Sometimes they are less bad than the alternatives.

If a man breaks into my house, I just might kill him. If a man attacks me in the street, I just might kill him. Morally, it would be murder. It would be a bad thing. Letting this man rape and murder my wife and/or kids would also be bad. Letting him damage or steal my possessions would also be bad. Letting him kill me would also be bad. I certainly have an opinion about which is worse, me killing him or him killing me. I will act according to that opinion, but I have no illusions about one of these alternatives being good.

Note that I said, "Morally, it would be murder." Legally, it might not be.

 

[Merko]

To say they don't exist is like saying any idea doesn't exist. So I agree in the spirit in which you write in that Morals don't exist in a way that you could conduct a test for them. And I could agree that they are just opinions.

Clearly ideas exist. There are ideas of God, ideas of Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. And ideas of morality. What I'm arguing is that the idea of morality, as defined by most people, involves that there is such a thing as moral facts, and that morality is not just the same as personal opinions. I support this with the observation that people do not agree that it would be moral for a pedophile to rape a child, even if it was his personal opinion that it would be so, and not even if he lived in a society where that opinion was dominant.

And so I claim that the idea of morality is false, that there is no such morality.

"You're honor, I am aware there are laws against my behavior, but do you realize the laws are just based on peoples opinions!"

But laws are not the same as morality. If we are free to do whatever we want, then certainly we are also free to enact laws that prohibit behaviour that we do not like.

Note that I said, "Morally, it would be murder." Legally, it might not be.

I would agree with you that it would probably be 'bad', but I believe this means nothing more than: "It is not in the interest of most citizens that society would reward you for killing this person."

Additionally, it may be the case that "It is not in your best interest to kill this person."
However, the latter depends a lot on your motives. If it wouldn't bother you at all, and you're one of those who think the human race can be bettered by removing 'bad' people, then killing the person may be preferrable for you. But of course, this also depends on the society you live in. If doing so means people will consider you a dangerous, violent person, or if there would be general sentiment that you were "almost a murderer" or similar, that may trump your personal feelings on the matter.

 

[SirPhilip]

However, the latter depends a lot on your motives. If it wouldn't bother you at all, and you're one of those who think the human race can be bettered by removing 'bad' people, then killing the person may be preferrable for you. But of course, this also depends on the society you live in. If doing so means people will consider you a dangerous, violent person, or if there would be general sentiment that you were "almost a murderer" or similar, that may trump your personal feelings on the matter.

While relative ethical choices could be reducible in a Freudian sense, ultimately people desire moral objectivity and law. If relativism was accepted as law, restraint on unconscious, regressive and primitive impulses would be seen as an aberration, with the opposite being a freeing catharsis. You can't have it both ways. Ultimately morality is motivated by objective purpose, not social reinforcement.

 

[Merko]

While relative ethical choices could be reducible in a Freudian sense, ultimately people desire moral objectivity and law. If relativism was accepted as law, restraint on unconscious, regressive and primitive impulses would be seen as an aberration, with the opposite being a freeing catharsis. You can't have it both ways. Ultimately morality is motivated by objective purpose, not social reinforcement.

Again, 'morality' and 'law' are completely different things. Of course we can have laws. Of course there is no point whatsoever to create relativist laws. However, that has nothing to do with morality. I know of no one who seriously think that because something is a law, it must be moral - or vice versa.

 

[MrFrankZito]

For my blog, I wrote this companion essay, which I think is relevant here, about morality and its non-existence...


Ever since I jumped back into the debate about whether “morality” is objective or simply a matter of opinion, I’ve been asked to clarify my nihilistic view that morality—as a natural, objective concept—does not exist. And, I am happy to do so.

The problem with morality is this: It is a term without a concept. Or, at least, without a single one capable of being proved correct. An individual could define morality, quite literally, in countless ways; and, each one of those definitions would be equally correct, since there is no evidence available to support one morality conception’s veracity or another’s falsehood. Sam Harris, for example, defines moral actions as those that increase human happiness. On the other hand, in his mind, immoral actions increase human suffering. While that conception of morality seems sensible, it is totally unburdened by evidence. In his book The End of Faith, Harris simply declares that human happiness and suffering are the relevant factors with regard to morality. I could make an entirely different declaration, and be equally correct (as well as equally lacking in actual supporting evidence).

At the risk of being repetitious, I will list three possible conceptions of morality. Note, these are only three among innumerable others.


(1). Morality relates to human-to-human interaction. Moral actions increase happiness, while immoral actions increase suffering.

(2). Morality relates to human-to-environment interaction. Moral actions benefit the environment, while immoral actions harm the environment. Human happiness/suffering is not relevant.

(3). Morality relates to human-to-frog interaction. Moral actions benefit frogs, while immoral actions harm frogs. Human happiness/suffering is not relevant.


Sam Harris would argue neither (2) nor (3) is the correct notion of morality (as neither one places human happiness/suffering at the core of the issue). But, given the absolute dearth of evidence on the matter, (1), (2) and (3) all are equally plausible conceptions of morality. Indeed, the precise opposite of (1)—that morality relates to human-to-human interaction, and that moral actions increase suffering, while immoral actions increase happiness—also is equally as plausible a definition as any other is.

At the risk of being forced to eat my words, I challenge any of my readers to argue—with actual evidence—that one morality conception is more correct than another morality conception. If, collectively, we choose to define morality in some particular way simply out of speciocentric self-interest, that means that, while morality exists, it has no relationship with the natural universe or the true order of things. That is, genocide only would be immoral because—if speciocentric self-interest is the Key Factor—genocide manifestly runs counter to that self-interest. But to allege that Homo sapiens sapiens’ self-interest inherently is relevant to “morality” would be to make an assertion without the benefit of evidence. Human self-interest easily could be replaced by another Key Factor, such as the primacy of the environment or the supremacy of frogs.

The other perplexing thing about morality is the inconsistency with which it is applied. If two lions are fighting over a hyena carcass, and one lion kills the other, has that lion committed an “immoral” act? If not, then why, in a similar case, would a human be guilty of immorality? Nobody ever talks about duck-billed platypuses behaving immorally, or geese being the picture of moral perfection. Why are Homo sapiens sapiens subject to moral strictures? We are, after all, just another animal species roaming around this planet. We live on the same evolutionary Tree of Life as lions, platypuses and geese. And yet, when it comes to morality, we pretend that we’re not animals like all the rest of our brethren. The truth is--we are. On this planet, we, like all animals, eat, sleep and reproduce.

From where did morality spring?

Why was its noose tied around the neck of our poor species?

And where is the elusive evidence to justify its existence as a scientific, natural concept?

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

OK, MrFrankZito, I'm going with:

1). Morality relates to human-to-human interaction. Moral actions increase happiness, while immoral actions increase suffering

I'm not sure what would suffice as evidence to prove this. But I think I can disprove the other two by disproving the thing they have in common, that human happiness/suffering is not relevant. Moral actions benefit human society by creating an environment where we all feel safer and more secure. This leads to an increase in the general happiness of the society. Moral behavior benefits us as individuals because we can reasonable expect reciprocal moral behavior from other members of society. Morality maximizes the happiness of the largest number of people. A person commits immoral acts out of selfish motives. This improves his own happiness temporarily but the overall happiness of the group is diminished.

Animal societies also have systems of moral behavior, they are just different than ours. Cape buffalo will form a circle to protect the young of the herd from predators. Lions will cooperate in hunting prey and have a loose hierarchy of feeding. They form their own morality, as they should. We are animals just as they are. I see no inconsistency there. The only humans who pretend not to be animals are religiously deluded individuals who think that morality comes from some divine source. They are wrong.

Morality springs from the needs of society. Morality can change as the needs of society changes. It is in our collective best interest to behave in moral ways. It is not a noose around our necks, it is the glue that holds us together. In scientific terms, let us call it the Theory Of Morality (TOM). It seems to explain human societal behavior quite nicely. If you have a better theory, I'm sure we would all enjoy reading about it.

 

[Merko]

Moral actions benefit human society by creating an environment where we all feel safer and more secure.

This seems to me like wishful thinking. If there was a morality and it told us to increase happiness, then it would make us safer and more secure. But that is no evidence at all that this would be the case. If there was a benevolent God, then surely that would also make us all safer and more secure.

Morality springs from the needs of society. Morality can change as the needs of society changes. It is in our collective best interest to behave in moral ways.

Well, you have just defined morality to have this feature of being in our collective best interest. But people don't seem to behave according to that 'morality'. They commonly - usually I would say - put their own interests first. So what makes you think this morality exists? Seems like wishful thinking.

It is not a noose around our necks, it is the glue that holds us together. In scientific terms, let us call it the Theory Of Morality (TOM). It seems to explain human societal behavior quite nicely.

I disagree. I think people act in their own best interest. Because we have many interests in common, we often act to further a collective interest. This may be because we all wish to chase the lions away, but also because we are more efficient in making computers if we cooperate, than if everyone tries to build her own.

When people are given an opportunity to act contrary to the collective interest, but at the same time gain a considerable advantage for themselves, they tend to do so. We also expect them to do so. For example, if you invite some people you don't know very well, you may decide to lock away expensive things, because one of them may take the opportunity. If you only invite close friends, the risk is of course lower, since it would probably not be worth risking your friendship just to steal some item like a gold ring, or whatever. But even if they were close friends, you probably wouldn't leave a million dollar diamant just lying around. Unless your friends are also very rich, perhaps - which only means their advantage of another million dollars would be lower than for the average person.

So what is morality? I say it's a scam. People claim to be moral, but it doesn't affect their behaviour - it's the other way around. Someone who is rich is likely to adopt moral values where the right to property is very important. If the same person suddenly becomes poor, he is likely to change his moral values. And the poor person who gets rich changes her 'morals' in the same way. A person who morally condemns homosexuality, but then gets a homosexual child, is quite likely to change opinions. And so on. In other words, we change our 'morals', but not according to what society needs, but according to our own situation. It is really only an attempt to further our own personal agenda, by convincing the others that there is a woo force that promotes our values.