Self-interest and moral cowardice

[fletch]

Suppose a man witnesses his boss being physically or verbally abusive to his spouse. It would likely not be in his self-interest to confront his employer with his boorish behavior as it might lead to an end of his employment. In fact, in an effort to get ahead, he might see it as being in his self-interest to pretend to support or even rationalise his boss's actions. Would this not be an example of where self-interest leads to moral cowardice? Or certainly moral apathy. Is it not the moral position to confront what one sees as evil regardless of the impact it might have on ones own self-interest?

Some years ago I was sued by an employee for wrongful termination. The suit was bogus. Some of my closest 'friends' at the time were also friends with my accuser. They, too, knew the fraudulent nature of the suit against me, but not one of them came to my defense. They hoped I would win in the end, but none of them was willing to step out on that limb and side with me directly. Doing so would likely cost the frienship of the other party involved. Each had their own self-interested reasons for not wanting to lose the friendship of my accuser even though it was clear that he was wrongfully accusing me. They seemed to think it was in their interest to remain friends with both parties, so my so-called friends decided not to get involved, not to take a moral stand. Hell, I would have had more respect for them if they had taken a stand against me. In my mind, nothing is more pathetic then standing on the sidelines while right and wrong do battle. That is how I define moral cowardice.

Anyway, my accuser ultimately dropped his suit, and I largely dropped my 'friends.' I have since adopted the Major Hochstetter approach to friendship: "I trust everyone. And no one." It is rather liberating knowing that when it really matters, you will only have yourself to rely upon. I count upon no one who sees his self-interests as lying elsewhere to stand in my corner.

But my question: Am I right in suggesting that self-interest can lead to moral cowardice? If so, at what point, if any, does one set aside self-interest for principle? Or does the root cause for this sort of behavior lay elsewhere?

[Marc K.]

Am I right in suggesting that self-interest can lead to moral cowardice?

No.

at what point, if any, does one set aside self-interest for principle?

Never. You never actually could either. Whatever is right in principle is always in your rational self-interest -- the two don't conflict.

he might see it as being in his self-interest to pretend to support or even rationalise his boss's actions.

It is never in your self-interest to pretend about something so crucial to your life as a career.

And just as a drug addict is wrong when he thinks that the next fix is in his self-interest; So your "friends" were wrong about what was actually in their self-interest.

After all they traded the value of an actual friend for that of a fraudulent liar.

[Tenure]

Fletch, to help you determine between what is and isn't defined as being in one's self-interest, I recommend to you this thread.

[stephenmallory]

The issue at stake in experiencing your boss abuse his wife is not that he is doing so, but that he is exposing you to it. It is beyond the bounds of a professional relationship and negatively impacts that relationship. It would be appropriate to confront your boss and express your desire for him to keep his personal life personal. If he reacts negatively to that, which is far less understandable than reacting negatively to the idea that one shouldn't abuse his spouse, then you have an adequate basis for determining how your working environment will be affected by this individual. However, barring extenuating circumstances, it would be inappropriate to intervene in the matter of spousal abuse directly. Regardless of my tendency to think that physical abuse qualifies, what exactly those extenuating circumstances are is a highly complex, and highly contextual, question.

In "How Does One Lead A Rational Life In An Irrational Society" Ayn Rand's central point is to "never fail to pronounce moral judgement." Nowhere in the essay, however, does she disqualify the decision to mind one's own business as a moral judgement. I delete spam from my inbox in a daily basis. Does this make me a coward because I don't take the time to forward it to the authorities even though it might, or even very, very indirectly does, affect me?

There's no basis to the claim that minding one's own business conditions cowardice any more than there is a basis to the claim that opening your mouth at every opportunity conditions moral heroism. Morality is a personal asset, not a social responsibility. As such, the reprecussions of any decision to defend another has to be weighed against those of the decision not to.

[fletch]

Thanks for the link, Tenure. Here is a quote from softwarenerd that sums up my question:

People can do things that they believe are not in their self-interest, because they think it is the "right" thing to do. Often, such actions are actually and objectively not in their self-interest.

That brings me back to my original example about confronting a boss who you believe has acted immorally. Doing what you think is right may not be in your self-interest. So if you think it is right to confront him but do not because it is not in your self-interest to do so, have you just committed an act of moral cowardice?

Suppose that you have an in-law that is a racist. Perhaps the brother of your wife. Confronting him on the vile nature of his beliefs would be the moral thing to do, but it might not be in your self-interest as it may cause irreparable damage to your family life and even your marriage. Would acting in my self-interest require my silence? Maybe I am the crazy one, but I would confront the prick and deal with whatever the consquences of that action might be. Would this be an example of me acting against my self-interest? Is it right to value other moral principles higher than self-interest?

[RationalBiker]

Suppose that you have an in-law that is a racist. Perhaps the brother of your wife.

You do realize that both issues you have raised are also indicative of how much you value the concept of justice. Consider how letting injustices continue to go unaddressed, ones that you may be able to impact, will impact your life as well.

However in this latter case, if not tolerating a racist brother-in-law caused problems with your family or wife, what does that say about your family or wife? Are they defending his racist behavior?

[fletch]

Rational Biker,

Let me first say that the situation is purely hypothetical. My brother-in-law is actually a decent guy. But to answer your questions. It would reflect very badly upon my family and my wife. They would be guilty of exactly the type of moral cowardice I am speaking of. They would undoubtedly excuse his behavior by saying such things as "that is just Al being Al." Or "he doesnt mean anything by it." All the while knowing that dear old Al is really an intolerant racist pig. Their silence would be a form of endorsement.

I am not trying to claim as stephenmallory seems to suggest that there is no virtue in minding one's own business. But there are certain things that I make my business. I am not trying to pass myself off as some kind of morality cop. Its not like I go looking for an excuse to pass moral judgements, but if they are laid before me, I'll speak out. What I find disturbing is that so few others seem to do the same. Too many people, when a situation cries out for moral judgement, mind their own business.

[RationalBiker]

Let me first say that the situation is purely hypothetical.

Okay, that's no problem. My point wasn't to be accusatory, it was to point out other things that may impact your long-term self-interests.

[stephenmallory]

fletch,

I didn't intend to suggest that you thought there was no virtue in minding one's own business. I realize that you aren't convinced either way. What I meant to suggest was that there is no either way - no categorically right or categorically wrong policy that one must always follow in every situation where the opportunity to pronounce moral judgement exists.

My point in even addressing your hypothetical about spousal abuse was to demonstrate that implicitly. Especially when it comes to other people's marriages, more often than not, it is best to mind one's own business and, as I said, to protect oneself from it becoming his business. My reasons here are two-fold. Primarily, as long as your boss' behavior (and personality that gives rise to it) isn't so over the top that it's likely to affect his every waking moment (albeit physical abuse is a very good candidate for this), it's not going to affect his relationship with you - especially if you make it clear to him that you won't tolerate it. Secondly, as I said, personal relationships are highly complex, contextual subjects and even if you were to intervene, to do the subject adequate justice would probably require much more effort than it is worth to you. But then again, your boss could be more than just your boss. He could be a close personal friend. Again, the situation is highly contextual. I think that's about as far as we can go until you fabricate more detail into your hypothetical situation.

This topic is a perfect example of the differences between the nature of principles and the nature of rules. If one is guided by principle (eg: self-interest), all one has to do is to determine which action is better for him. Often, when dealing with other people, the best course of action means minding your own business because you lack sufficient knowledge to explain their behavior. Now, if you wish to be guided by rules, that's fine, but you must be prepared to compile and automate a laundry list of responses to a multitude of situations. Of course, it's possible and advisable to do such a thing to a certain extent, but this involves sifting through mountains of evidence from a number of scientific fields that, frankly, doesn't seem worth it to answer a hypothetical question extremely lacking in detail.

[fletch]

stephenmallory,

Perhaps the verbally abusive boss was not the best example. What I was trying to describe was a scenario where one could witness a moral evil, yet determine that it was likely not in his self-interest to speak or act out against it. And, more importantly, whether this inaction would constitute a moral failing of some kind. I admit I had not considered the possiblity of passing judgement but keeping that judgement to ones self. Although, I dont see any particular virtue in doing so. As for being guided by principle, I have seen any number of examples of where people are consumed by what is good for them, but seem to otherwise be in a moral coma. Too often, people seem to sacrifice their moral well being for their financial well being. I dont consider myself to be an altruist by any stretch of the imagination, but it might be that at times I place a higher value on the principle of justice than on the principle of self-interest.

[Marc K.]

but it might be that at times I place a higher value on the principle of justice than on the principle of self-interest.

But you see there is no conflict.

Being just is always in your rational self-interest.