Self-Interest first?

[AquaRa]

If What I am morally correct to do can sometimes be different from what i would choose to do for my own benefit, then shall I be moral?

I personally take a strong stand against this statement. I believe in conscience. Conscience in innate in all Man when they were born, that is why they are mroe intelligent than its counterparts in the animal kingdom. Conscience is what separates Man from animals. We know how to differentiate what is morally right and wrong.

Therefore, my thesis is that, it is only when during times of crisis or danger, that self-interests override this moral instinct and cause Man to be selfish. In times of peace and security, Conscience returns and rules over us.

E.g. In the Neolithic periods, Man will constantly have to defend themselves against foes and fight one another for the sake of survival. In this case, it can be seen as self-interest, for the ensured continuity of his bethren.

As Man progresses, he does not experience the trepidation his ancestors live in, thus he begins to think, not for himself, but the world they live in, thus, all the enviromentalists groups and charities.

What do you think? My teacher asked me one question,"If i saw a $50 note on the floor, and even if I took it, i wouldn't be caught, would I still take it?" Conscience? Free money? You choose.

[blueheaven]

Like you said, it's all about morals

Quite true that Man had surpassed natural instincts to exercise self control.

If you had picked up that cash and kept it, it just shows how well you've been taught and whether you hold on to your morals well

[andysho]

I think said is easy.. when everyone is face with a huge amount

of cash right in front of your eye~~ all will start to think of $$$$

Esp in the business world~~ where the toughest survive~~~!!

[SpiderOne]

It is just not rational to leave it there .

[rockfish]

i would take it!! ..

leaving it there only allow the next person that comes by to make a small fortune.

if it really comes to the moral side .. do something useful with the money.

If u wanna wait for the person that drop the money to come back.. it wun be there anymore.

[Melvyn Tan]

Finders keepers losers weepers?

In this case, it is not just involvement of morality but a host of others as well...example, if you leave the S$50 as it is and if it gets blown away or drained into the sewer systems, then the value of the currency of the value S$50 disappears - so it is immoral to leave it alone for the sake of the currency, and picking up and reusing it channels that S$50 value back to the currency system, so it is morally right to do so (societal morality, social responsibility, economic responsibility...).

To further ones' morality, you can pick it up and safeguard it till the rightful owner searches for it, which leaves you responsible to "return" it to the rightful owner. Whether it is the rightful owner or not, the responsibility lies in you who returns it to whoever claim rights to it. If returned to the wrong person, then morally you neglect the rightful one.

Whether your test in identification of the rightful one depends on your judgement - then again it is subjective.

Whether one chance upon such situation maybe construed as the law of probability or merely a test of ones' duty as in a religious sense or rather one's value system. If strictly one is to measure, it shall have to be measured against one's belief or value system.

So as in the case of cannibalism in some society, it is right to them, wrong to some. I believe it all depends on the circumstances, the position you are in and time of the year.

Innate conscience can be a dangerous thing to talk about, because some believe of the position one is in, the brought-up and all, it influences one's perception or the innate behaviour as opposed to something that one holds true and is infinite. So you will most likely find the cannibalism totally unacceptable whilst those people in that society finds it normal and a way of life - so is that innate quality?

[Melvyn Tan]

I personally take a strong stand against this statement. I believe in conscience. Conscience in innate in all Man when they were born, that is why they are mroe intelligent than its counterparts in the animal kingdom. Conscience is what separates Man from animals. We know how to differentiate what is morally right and wrong.

Therefore, my thesis is that, it is only when during times of crisis or danger, that self-interests override this moral instinct and cause Man to be selfish. In times of peace and security, Conscience returns and rules over us.

E.g. In the Neolithic periods, Man will constantly have to defend themselves against foes and fight one another for the sake of survival. In this case, it can be seen as self-interest, for the ensured continuity of his bethren.

As Man progresses, he does not experience the trepidation his ancestors live in, thus he begins to think, not for himself, but the world they live in, thus, all the enviromentalists groups and charities.

If Conscience can be switched on and off will it be considered as innate? or rather it is a learned natural response?

Or the twin-minded man is innate in itself?

I suppose your "assignment" is chargeable by all who gives their opinion + knowledge to you to summised your understanding to a further level, then again is it chargeable or morally right to charge depends on whether we are all passionists of the reefs...

Thesis is of a greater level, Dissertation more so...