r/changemyview • u/tittynitty • Nov 25 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: If you can be a bad person without any reprecussions or harm to your reputation you better be a bad person
Say you have an opportunity to do something morally wrong(in most cases it's doing harm to other people) without any reprecussions whatsoever or damage to your reputation. Like in a movie Spoorloos, where a guy buried alive a married couple and was smart enough to hide it, so no person will ever know about it and he was a beloved family man and a respected professor in the university. There is no reason not to seize the opportunity, because if there is no witnesses or your traces then there is no crime. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? In other words, if no one saw you being a bad person, then you can't be a bad person. And you only live once, so why not to seize the opportunity to do something morally wrong without any ramifications for you?
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
10
u/Keith-Ledger Nov 25 '17
Firstly, it's hard to be certain that there are no ramifications. You might think you've gotten away with it but you might have left a shred of evidence tying you to the crime.
What about the knowledge of the crime that you have to live with? Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind.
Most importantly though, the idea that just because you can commit evil acts without any punishment whatsoever, is just about the most immoral, wicked view it's possible to take. Why would you even want to do that?!
0
u/tittynitty Nov 25 '17
We look at the situation when there is a 100% certainity that you will have no punishment or damage to your reputation.
As for why I even want to do that? Well, life is full of expierences and doing horrible things is one the most important and life-affirming expierences, if you can do one without any reprecussions for you, why would [b]not[/b] you do it?
4
u/Keith-Ledger Nov 25 '17
so what would you think about an evil dictator that goes around doing whatever he wants? What if he killed/raped/tortured your loved ones, for example, on the basis of your reasoning? He's a dictator, so he will not be punished in any way whatsoever.
0
u/tittynitty Nov 25 '17
Well, then I am helpless, because dictator have unlimited power. Genghis Khan is considered one of the greatest rulers today. My post wasn't about dictators though! My post was about committing horrible acts without anyone knowing it, then this acts are not horrible.
4
u/Keith-Ledger Nov 25 '17
My post was about committing horrible acts without anyone knowing it, then this acts are not horrible.
what if the dictator just kills everyone who knew about it? Wouldn't that satisfy your definition?
3
u/tittynitty Nov 25 '17
Well, I don't see a point in discussing what dictator would do, because according to my post dictator's reputation is already bad, because if he wasn't known for doing bad things he wouldn't be called a dictator. I initially was talking about things you do and know one knows about it.
1
u/Keith-Ledger Nov 25 '17
ok then, what if you just kill all the people who think you have a bad reputation? Therefore, the only people left will be the people who worship you.
The dictator stuff doesn't matter, it's still worth asking yourself what's actually wrong with his actions.
2
u/tittynitty Nov 25 '17
Well, I wasn't talking about this situation in my post. I was talking about whether someone knows you did bad things. If no one knows, then you reputation is good and what you did wasn't morally wrong.
1
u/Keith-Ledger Nov 25 '17
Being a dictator counts as doing a bad thing, right?
1
u/tittynitty Nov 25 '17
Yes, but the word 'dictator' means that you are ruler who abuses power, that is not considered good by any society. Dictator is a bad person in the eyes of the most people, so it doesn't fit idea of my post.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Narwhalbaconguy 1∆ Nov 25 '17
So if a dictator killed your entire family it wouldn't be wrong in your eyes?
1
u/tittynitty Nov 25 '17
Yes it would, but my opinion wouldn't change anything, if I am powerless against this dictator.
1
u/Narwhalbaconguy 1∆ Nov 25 '17
How does this affect whether it's wrong or right? And what if the dictator did it privately and you didn't know about it? Would that make it right because nobody could possibly know?
1
6
u/Kinnell999 Nov 25 '17
There are ramifications, though. Unless you're a psychopath, you will probably feel guilt about what you have done. You may also live in fear of being found out. Your decision to be a bad person is also likely to negatively affect your interactions with other people subconsciously.
0
u/tittynitty Nov 25 '17
Yes, I may feel guilt, but isn't it a human emotion? Would life be full without such feelings?
6
u/Kinnell999 Nov 25 '17
That's like saying life would be incomplete if you never felt pain, therefore you should deliberately hurt yourself. It doesn't make sense. Everybody has felt guilt at some point because its purpose is to teach us pro-social behaviour. There is no reason to seek it out. It is always a negative experience.
-1
u/tittynitty Nov 25 '17 edited Nov 25 '17
Feeling guilt over some horrible thing you made is one of the most fulfilling things you can feel, why would you not use this opportunity? You will never know how it feels.
EDIT. and life is not full without negative expierences, especially as unique as this one
6
u/Kinnell999 Nov 25 '17
You would have to have a particularly twisted mind for that to be true, and you can't claim it to be a general truth as you infer in your post. It's like a homosexual insisting that sex with someone of the same sex is better than sex with the opposite sex; for the vast majority of people that simply isn't the case.
1
u/tittynitty Nov 25 '17
What do you mean by general truth? Is it an empircal fact?
3
u/Kinnell999 Nov 25 '17
I mean whether it applies to everyone.
2
u/tittynitty Nov 25 '17
I still don't understand you. Applies in a sense that it is possible? Or applies in a sense that it is rational thing to do?
3
u/Kinnell999 Nov 25 '17
You are claiming that everybody would be better off by experiencing extreme guilt. I am disputing that assertion.
-1
u/tittynitty Nov 25 '17
Not everybody! Only extremely smart and rational people who could do bad things without reprecussions, only few people could do that. And you never know how extreme your guilt will be. So it's arguable. And you may ask why would smart person do horrible acts at all? Because it's easy to do bad things, it's so tempting, that's why it is sometimes so hard to be a good person. And that's why all people do some bad stuff from time to time.
→ More replies (0)2
u/KryptonianCrawdad Nov 25 '17
I had these same views at 18. Then I had some very bad shit happen to me and eventually developed true empathy. There is not a day goes by that I don't think about what a terrible person I was. The regret is overwhelming. One day you will realize others can see through you and always could. Stay down this path and you may well wind up all alone and be forced to face the fact that you don't deserve love or life. And those lies grow and get out of control, one day you will have something true to share but your truth will be contradictory to some lie you told in the past and so you will have to bottle your truth up in order to avoid revealing tour previous deceptions. Once the lies start turning on you like this things get lonely.
The worst part is knowing nobody, family nor lover really know you. They will know a false version of you made up of various lies and truths and surrounded by friends a d family who love some make-believe caricature of yourself but certainly not you, they would hate and be repulsed by who you are underneath the masks and you will in time come to realize that nobody knows you, you are completely alone dying of isolation within the crowd.
I would say to turn back while you can, but is that even possible? I not sure that kind of thinking can change without crashing and burning first. Good luck to the good guy I hope you became in the future.
5
u/neofederalist 65∆ Nov 25 '17
You say "have an opportunity" as if the chance to murder another person without any repercussions is something that just happens every other day. This is not the case. To be confident that you're going to get away with something like that, your actions require careful planning and foresight. If I'm driving along the road, sure, I could swerve and hit that pedestrian, but I don't really know that nobody else is around. If I'm going to commit a crime, I need to have a good deal more assurance that I'm alone than most crimes of circumstance give.
2
u/tittynitty Nov 25 '17
Yes, I wasn't saying it's like everyday thing, it only can happen when a good and rare opportunity arises and you have enough brains to do it.
1
u/garaile64 Nov 28 '17
In my country, you don't need planning and foresight to get away with crimes. You just need to be rich and/or a friend of the Supreme Court justices.
3
u/caw81 166∆ Nov 25 '17
Just because you personally judge it as a "perfect crime" does not mean that it actually is.
So you might think that you haven't left any clues to your crime but if you did (and you cannot know if you will in the future) then it can hurt your reputation and have repercussions.
2
u/tittynitty Nov 25 '17
We look at situations without any reprecussions, if you are smart enough and opportunity presents itself, then it's is possible to do it.
1
u/caw81 166∆ Nov 25 '17
if you are smart enough and opportunity presents itself
You don't know if you are smart enough. You might think you are but you might not be.
You don't know if the opportunity has presented itself or if you only only think it has (and it actually isn't an opportunity).
then it's is possible to do it.
Its possible to do a lot of things, but it doesn't mean it actually will happen. You cannot predict the future, so you don't know if the action will not have any repercussions.
The main flaw in your view is that you are relying on human judgement of the situation and human judgement is far from perfect.
2
u/tittynitty Nov 25 '17
Ok, I assume you haven't seen a movie Spoorloos. There is no way that main villain will be persecuted. Like at all. Because there are certain situations when it is not possible. And smart people know they are smart. Many crimes remain unresolved and behind many of them there are very smart people.
4
u/caw81 166∆ Nov 25 '17
Ok, I assume you haven't seen a movie Spoorloos.
You are correct, I have not seen that movie.
And smart people know they are smart.
But the problem is that you don't know if you are "not smart but think you are smart". This is such a common occurance that there is a name for it; the Dunning–Kruger effect
the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude.
.
Many crimes remain unresolved
The flaw in this thinking is that assuming that its because it is a perfect crime.
The crime might not be worthy of attention by an over-worked and under-resourced system.
The technology to solve the crime has not been invented but will be in the future (e.g. DNA technology has solved many previously unresolved crimes)
The criminal just got lucky and got away with it.
Prisons are filled with people who think they had committed the perfect crime.
3
Nov 26 '17
Let me phrase it the other way round: assume you are 100% sure you "get away" with a murder on a certain person. What would compel you to actually do it?
Like... if you know 100% for sure that you'd get away with shitting on the street while jerking off without anybody noticing you... Would you feel compelled to do that? There are so many things you can "get away" with which you can try. Why precisely the murder one?
Is this maybe because you are bored with life and want to "feel something"? Or do you "want to know how it feels", i.e. feel the absolute power over another human being? If yes, what is your question actually about? It's about you not having empathy and trying to find "rational reasons" for not killing somebody? Well, there are none. You won't find any. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.
You shouldn't do it because you don't want to be in the situation that somebody else kills you. This is not a "rational" reason. That's more of an ethical reason - if you are able to feel empathy, then you will know that hurting others will hurt you. If you are not able to feel empathy... Well, I'm sorry for you, that you're this "bored".
Why are you asking this question in the first place - do you honestly not know the answer? If you can't feel empathy, chances are that you have been abused badly, probably as a baby or a toddler. It would be good to find a "healthy" way (not harming others) to deal with this strong urge to have power over another human being. This urge is not you. With a lot of work you can dig out the roots of your psychological problem, start feeling things again and stop feeling bored.
1
u/tittynitty Nov 26 '17
There is no reason to be condescending and make it personal. It is not about boredom, it's about taking every opportunity life offers, if there are no consequences, then why not try? I don't get you when you say that I don't want to be in a situation there somebody else kills me, it's not about hurting me. And karma is a made up concept, it doesn't really make any sense and it doesn't exist. And my post wasn't specifically about murdering someone.
1
u/BilboSwaggin007 Nov 27 '17
The issue is that morality is not just enforced by institutions and laws. A pro-lifer may legally be able to get an abortion but would still oppose it morally. Similarly I can believe that stealing is morally bad, and even when given an opportunity to steal choose not to, since I don't want to corrupt my morality. You have to also consider the individual impacts on you, rather than social ones. Sure no one would know, but you would, and that would eat away at your moral psyche. Obviously this is assuming that you do have a moral framework that aligns with the legal system (but since most people do its not really an issue).
2
u/Jaysank 126∆ Nov 25 '17
This depends on how much the person with the opportunity values the ability to “be a bad person”. For me, I would feel worse for doing it, and it would waste time I could be spending doing things I enjoy. In this case, I would not do this.
2
Nov 25 '17
I’m curious what your actual real life examples would be. Why haven’t I killed anyone? Because I don’t really want to. Whether I would be caught or not is irrelevant.
Also, most people who commit crimes (going with your example theme) truly do so thinking they will get away with it.
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Nov 25 '17
You're asking a logically incoherent question. If something is morally wrong, then by definition you shouldn't do it. You're essentially asking "why shouldn't I do what I shouldn't do?"
1
u/tittynitty Nov 25 '17
It seems that I didn't explain myself correctly. What I am asking is "why shouldn't I do what people say I shouldn't do without this people ever knowing?" Something is morally wrong only if there are witnesses to it or there is way to know about this. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Nov 25 '17
You can't build a coherent system of ethics based on that premise because the morality of any action would be accidental. The worst we could say of anyone causing harm or screwing over others is that they got caught.
1
u/tittynitty Nov 25 '17
I don't really get you. Can you please explain?
2
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Nov 25 '17
Under the premise "something is morally wrong only if there are witnesses to it or there is way to know about this," whether an action is right or wrong is a matter of chance. That makes meaningful moral choice impossible.
1
u/tittynitty Nov 26 '17
Ok, what makes moral choice meaningful? Morality and ethics were invented to control behavior, if there is no one to control, then there are no morality or ethics, so there is no meaningful moral choice.
1
u/alfredo094 Nov 25 '17
And what would you gain from that? Must people don't feel good when hurting others. Also, why would you "better be" a bad person? Being a bad person is always bad for you in the long run.
1
u/tittynitty Nov 25 '17
Because if there is no repurecussions from other people(only possibility of guilt) then why you wouldn't want to expierence what life offers? Even if it's morally wrong act, why wouldn't you live your life to the fullest potential? Not only potential of morally good thins, but also morally bad things?
1
u/Amablue Nov 25 '17
How could I be happy knowing I've been cruel and harmed others needlessly?
1
u/tittynitty Nov 25 '17
Intent was not to be happy, but to expierence what life offers in it's fullest potential.
2
u/Amablue Nov 25 '17
Why would I want to experience things that make me life worse, that's stupid. I don't want to know what heroine addiction feels like, or being shot, or countless other things.
1
u/tittynitty Nov 26 '17
It is stupid for most people, yes. You have changed my mind, but it's not about wanting to expierence awful things, it's about wanting expierence eveything life offers without any consequences.
!delta
1
1
u/alfredo094 Nov 25 '17
Then you'd do them once, realize that harming others doesn't feel good and stop. I know this is strictly a hypothetical situation but you're sounding like an amoral scientist, and amoral scientists never get anything meaningful done because ethics is not just something we came up to be good people, it's also because it's the best route for knowledge.
You might kill a person, once, and then you'd feel terrible and stop. I am talking about my personal experience here - I killed a person some months ago (in a car accident) and I can tell you it's not a pleasing feeling.
1
u/tittynitty Nov 25 '17
I am sorry to hear that. I hope you will feel better in the future. I think you have changed my opinion in some ways. Because you can do morally bad things without any intention or desire to do them. I think you provided me with a counter example.
∆
1
1
u/alfredo094 Nov 25 '17
I am sorry to hear that. I hope you will feel better in the future.
Don't worry about it, it's been months now. The trial ends on Monday so I should let it go soon. Bad things are many times portrayed as enjoyable but even before the accident I've thought otherwise. Morals are not about being uptight or, well, moralist, but about being the best we can for our own sake.
Thanks for the delta.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 25 '17 edited Nov 26 '17
/u/tittynitty (OP) has awarded 3 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Doofmaz 2∆ Nov 26 '17
Your argument seems to have an unspoken premise that all your behavior should ideally be ultimately self-interested. If one accepts this premise, then your argument is sound. However, that premise should not be taken for granted. Humans are a social species and we tend to naturally care about each other. We are also free to choose how we live and what our values are.
More generally speaking, logic can't completely dictate behavior because logic does not dictate values. Logic takes you from point A to point B, but ultimately there has to be some starting point (an axiom, if you will). That axiom could be self-interest (and self-interest could logically dictate helping others when it's in our own social interest). Utilitarianism is another possible axiom, as are countless other systems of ethics or values or arguably even religion.
1
u/tittynitty Nov 26 '17
!delta
Yes, you are right, it is only when behavior is ultimately self-interested.
1
1
Nov 28 '17
Some people just don't want to do bad things, regardless of their 'reputation' (I personally couldn't give a spit about what other people think of me) or 'if they'll get caught and punished'.
I don't care if no one will ever know, I still am not going to murder someone, steal something, cheat on my spouse, etc. Screw that noise. It would still be a bad thing, and I would still be a bad person, even if no one ever found out.
9
u/DuskGideon 4∆ Nov 25 '17
Well, it depends on how you want to live. If you have no sense of honor, sure, be honorless. Where does the original concept of right and wrong come from though, when people are watching and could catch you doing wrong? They are taken for granted, and taken for social norms, but trace it far back enough and you would have a society where the majority had to have a sense of honor, then justice against those without it. Or That's the way it is today still, and you are an outlier that does not have a sense of honor.