Morality of passive/active

  • Thread starter madness
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the moral implications of not giving to charity and the difference between active and passive actions. While some argue that not giving is as much of an active choice as stealing, others believe that thinking through the consequences of one's actions is crucial in determining morality. The conversation also touches on the issue of wealth disparity and how it is perpetuated by unfair trade and colonialism. Ultimately, the question remains whether it is morally different to not do something "good" which is in one's power, as opposed to doing something directly "bad."
  • #1
madness
815
70
I have the ability to give everything that i own to starving Africans, but have chosen not to. Is this morally different from stealing everything I own from them? In actuality the distinction is not so clear, since it is mostly agreed that third world countries remain poor due to unfair trade, tied aid etc and their povery is a direct consequence of our affluence.
But that is not my point. Is it morally different to not do something "good" which is in your power, as opposed to doing something directly "bad"?
In either case my choice actions either result in me being rich and them poor, or a more even spread of wealth. I think the distinction between active and passive in this sense is a false one.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
madness said:
But that is not my point. Is it morally different to not do something "good" which is in your power, as opposed to doing something directly "bad"?

I'd say there is a general difference, but it would depend on other factors.
 
  • #3
Can you elaborate at all? I would argue that the distinction between doing something and not doing anything is unclear. By choosing not to do a certain thing, you are in effect choosing to do something else. Either way, you choose a certain action. Ie, not giving to charity is as much an active thing as stealing.
 
  • #4
madness said:
Can you elaborate at all? I would argue that the distinction between doing something and not doing anything is unclear.

Both are a choice, but action and inaction are obviously different.

If I want a pair of shoes:
I can keep the pair you forgot at my house.
I can beat you with a crowbar and steal yours.

Clearly different, in my opinion, and I hope in yours as well.

By choosing not to do a certain thing, you are in effect choosing to do something else. Either way, you choose a certain action. Ie, not giving to charity is as much an active thing as stealing.

You are equating choice with active choice. This seems nonsensical. I'm not-choosing to do an infinite amount of things by sitting here at this computer. That doesn't really equate to I'm doing an infinite amount of things at the moment.

You're confusing a counterfactual with a fact.

Much the same way we can call no-thing: nothing

By turning a negation into a noun we can then give the negation attributes.
But this only works on the level of abstraction.

There was nothing in the glass, so I drank it.
 
  • #5
If I don’t choose to give then my wealth stays up.
If I alone choose to give then my wealth goes down, I don’t make much impact, if any (I’m not a Bill Gates) but I get a rosy glow.
If I encourage many others to give then I use up a lot of time but it may lead to more trade, richer culture, etc., and so we might all be better off.
Whatever I do or don’t do, in some way I gain.

Or, say I’m walking down the street and a bum asks for money to buy food.
I walk on by and he dies of starvation.
I give him money but he’s an alcoholic, buys booze instead and dies in his own vomit.
So I’d venture that the moral bit isn’t so much about the action/inaction as about thinking it through - take him to a diner, buy food and watch him eat it.
 
  • #6
madness said:
I have the ability to give everything that i own to starving Africans, but have chosen not to. Is this morally different from stealing everything I own from them?
Yes, clearly it is different. This kind of sloppy moral thinking is not helpful to the world in any way, when innocent parties take the guilt from the truly guilty then there is no chance for justice.

First, if you have what you have obtained through your own efforts and through voluntary and mutually beneficial interactions with others then what you have has been morally obtained and cannot be considered theft.

So, who is stealing from the starving Africans if it is not you? The despots and tyrants and their minions that pass for their governments. If you want to assign moral blame and responsibility then assign it where it belongs, or else justice has failed before it even had a chance.
 
  • #7
sidestreet said:
If I don’t choose to give then my wealth stays up.
Unless I take it from you.
If I alone choose to give then my wealth goes down, I don’t make much impact, if any (I’m not a Bill Gates) but I get a rosy glow.
You should see a doctor about that.
So I’d venture that the moral bit isn’t so much about the action/inaction as about thinking it through
The road to hell is paved with 'thinking it through'.
 
  • #8
It would make a massive difference giving all your money to starving africans - it can go further there than it can here. I'm not saying it will help the whole country, but it can help more people there than it helps you here.
And its ridiculous to say we got our wealth by beneficial interactions. We were born in relatively wealthy countries who got their wealth through colonialism, imperialism and unfair trade which keeps poor countries poor.
You have a choice to either keep yourself rich and them poor, or make an effort to bridge the inequality and I don't think anyone has made a good argument that the active is more immoral than the passive.
What if you walked past a starving person on the street while eating you're burger? Would it not be immoral to leave them to starve? Surely this situation doesn't change just because they are far away?
 
  • #9
JoeDawg said:
You should see a doctor about that.
The ‘rosy glow’ is a reference to do-gooders taking actions just to make themselves feel good, so I take it we're on the same page there.

JoeDawg said:
The road to hell is paved with 'thinking it through'.
How so?

I'm new here - is there any way of making it clear which message is being replied to, other than quoting it?
 
  • #10
madness said:
wealthy countries who got their wealth through colonialism, imperialism and unfair trade which keeps poor countries poor.
That is not why people starve in Africa today. It is because local gangs of armed thugs steal, murder, rape, and pillage what they want. You do nobody any favors by mis-assigning guilt.
 
  • #11
madness said:
It would make a massive difference giving all your money to starving africans - it can go further there than it can here.

Fully agreed. My point is that plonking it in a collection box isn't nearly as useful as working out where it would do the most good and following it through.
 
  • #12
DaleSpam said:
It is because local gangs of armed thugs steal, murder, rape, and pillage what they want.

Is that a symptom caused by us not sharing our wealth, or would it happen anyway?
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Gangs have nothing to do with why africans starve today. These countries do not have enough wealth, despite their abundance of natural resources. Their poverty is enforced by unfair trade, ie we take their resources and don't give them a fair deal. We could not live in the affluent conditions we live in without them living in the impoverished conditions they live in.
I only used africa as example anyway. From a utilitarian point of view, a morality is defined in terms of the total benefit felt by everyone involved. From this sense, surely the active and passive actions are morally equal? In either case there is outcome A - you are rich and they are poor, and outcome B - you are both equal. You decide the outcome, and the outcome decides the morality of the decision (at least for a utilitarian).
 
  • #14
madness said:
I only used africa as example anyway. From a utilitarian point of view, a morality is defined in terms of the total benefit felt by everyone involved.

Utilitarianism is problematic.
First, there is really no way to know 'total benefit', so its essentially blind.
Second, it assumes, rather than justifies, the idea that the greatest happiness is moral.
Some people don't want to be happy, they might want revenge for instance. And in fact experience shows us that most people are rabidly disfunctional in one way or another.
 
  • #15
madness said:
Can you elaborate at all? I would argue that the distinction between doing something and not doing anything is unclear. By choosing not to do a certain thing, you are in effect choosing to do something else. Either way, you choose a certain action. Ie, not giving to charity is as much an active thing as stealing.
You are correct that choosing not to do something is choosing to do something, but the thing you are choosing to do is not stealing, it is just choosing to not give. There are three potential courses of action in question here, not two. Consider it from the other end: does a thief who gives up thieving then automatically become a giver?

You only got halfway there with your line of logic...

That said, it isn't quite the same question as this:
Is it morally different to not do something "good" which is in your power, as opposed to doing something directly "bad"?
Similar to your above question, the morality of the situation has 3 levels. Most people consider them to be moral, neutral, and immoral. I, however, tend to argue that neutral is immoral because if you are truly in a situation where it does you no harm at all to render aid, then to not render aid is a purely selfish choice.

However, giving money to charity is not, for most people, completely without harm to them, so I don't fault people for not doing it and I don't give much to charity myself*. But there are lots of everyday examples where people decline to be good samaritans for mostly selfish (or apathetic) reasons.

*Caveat: short term stinginess may be an enabler of long-term altruism. Early-on in his career, Bill Gates was faulted for not giving enough to charity. But that wasn't so much selfishness as it was just him being wrapped-up on his career and his efforts to grow his company. But he's only 53 and about 5 years ago realized he has nothing left to do professionally and shifted most of his focus to altruism, becoming the greatest giver the world has ever seen. Though most people don't end up as Bill Gates, most peoples' financial situations improve as they get older, making charitable giving more practical and thus more common.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
madness said:
We were born in relatively wealthy countries who got their wealth through colonialism, imperialism and unfair trade which keeps poor countries poor.
Every bit of that is patently false. Rich countries got their wealth that way up to about a hundred years ago, but the wealth they had at the turn of the 20th century is an insignificant fraction of the wealth they have today. Rich countries have the wealth they have today almost exclusively by generating it from scratch, internally and from mutually beneficial foreign trade (which really is no different from generating it intermally - national borders are just lines on a map).

It's easy to see with simple statistics: Altogether, foreign trade is about 20% of the US GDP and of that, another 90% is with developed countries. That leaves 2% of our GDP - 2% of our wealth coming from trade with developing or undeveloped countries. Most of our trade with developing countries (imports and exports) is with China and it is a simple fact that the staggering GDP growth that China has had over the past couple of decades is because of, not in spite of their foreign trade. Most of the rest after that is oil imports from the middle east, which is wealth they are generating from scratch, literally pumping money out of the ground.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
russ_watters said:
Every bit of that is patently false. Rich countries got their wealth that way up to about a hundred years ago, but the wealth they had at the turn of the 20th century is an insignificant fraction of the wealth they have today. Rich countries have the wealth they have today almost exclusively by generating it from scratch, internally.

It's easy to see with simple statistics: Altogether, foreign trade is about 20% of the US GDP and of that, another 90% is with developed countries. That leaves 2% of our GDP - 2% of our wealth coming from trade with developing or undeveloped countries. Most of our trade with developing countries (imports and exports) is with China and it is a simple fact that the staggering GDP growth that China has had over the past couple of decades is because of, not in spite of their foreign trade. Most of the rest after that is oil imports from the middle east, which is wealth they are generating from scratch, literally pumping money out of the ground.

Thats a bit misleading. If the world was run completely on a free trade model, and reset so that everyone started with the same amount of cash, your numbers would be different.

One of the political realities is that 3rd world countries are a source of cheap labor because they don't have the laws 'developed' countries do. Westerners earn more for doing the same work, not based on expertise or workmanship, but on where they live. Westerners also control trade: by owning companies, lands and mineral rights...etc...
So they can maintain their higher standard of living by exerting control over production and trade. In this sense, the GDP is merely a symptom of this control.
 
  • #18
JoeDawg said:
Westerners earn more for doing the same work, not based on expertise or workmanship, but on where they live.

But the cost of living in developing countries is also lower than developed countries. After all, that’s why companies invest there. Investment, by generating skills and wealth, has great potential for good provided that it is well controlled. More than just sending food parcels anyway.
JoeDawg said:
Westerners also control trade: by owning companies, lands and mineral rights...etc...

And as the workers gain wealth, they buy shares in their company, and the ownership moves.

I wouldn't argue that capitalism does anything like a perfect job or shouldn’t be better regulated, but it does do a job.
 
  • #19
If I see an appeal from Médicos Sin Fronteras following a disaster, saying they urgently need money to fly in penicillin and tents, I would probably pick up the phone, punch in my credit card, and give because they need the money now and tomorrow is too late.

But dealing with a disaster, which can happen anywhere including New Orleans, is very different from helping to spread wealth. If, as per the OP, I’m intent on giving away all I own, imho just giving it to a charity isn’t a particularly moral act. Guilt may be lifted from my shoulders, but my money may end-up in some third-world politician’s pocket to buy arms, etc.

I could instead recognize that Africa is complex and subtle, and first research where I think my action will do the most good -micro-loans, investing in a free-trade company, paying for school books, working in Uganda for a year, etc. Giving a lump-sum isn’t necessarily the most moral act.

If I never heard of Africa through no fault of my own, then doing nothing is fine. But now that I know, I wouldn’t want it on my gravestone.

That said, there is firm evidence that in evolutionary terms we are built to care more for our immediate family and less for other members of the tribe. For that reason alone morality is also complex and subtle, and I don’t believe we can ever turn it into a finite set of rules.
 
  • #20
madness said:
Gangs have nothing to do with why africans starve today. These countries do not have enough wealth, despite their abundance of natural resources. Their poverty is enforced by unfair trade, ie we take their resources and don't give them a fair deal. We could not live in the affluent conditions we live in without them living in the impoverished conditions they live in.
It has everything to do with why Africans starve today. When the local government is not based on the rule of law, but on the whim of some petty dictator then there is no way for any entrepeneur, either forigen or domestic, to have confidence that his efforts will be rewarded. There is thus no perceived incentive for productive economic behavior.

madness said:
I only used africa as example anyway. From a utilitarian point of view, a morality is defined in terms of the total benefit felt by everyone involved. From this sense, surely the active and passive actions are morally equal? In either case there is outcome A - you are rich and they are poor, and outcome B - you are both equal. You decide the outcome, and the outcome decides the morality of the decision (at least for a utilitarian).
No, the ends do not justify the means. I completely reject your utilitarian measure of morality.
 
  • #21
So if you have a decision to either spare some of your excess wealth and stop a person for starving to death, or to keep your money and let them die, then it's morally ok? But if you were to do anything that might be construed as actively contributing to their death that's not ok?
 
  • #22
madness said:
I have the ability to give everything that i own to starving Africans, ...
It is highly unlikely you have the ability to get 'all' your assets into the hands of the starving. There are multiple obvious impediments to doing so - paying some non-starving distribution mechanism to hand out your money is on top of the list, followed quickly by the absence of rule of law that would allow your intended recipients to keep what you gave them.

I think it is much more likely that you have neighbours in your immediate vicinity, right now in need of help that you can provide without the impediments to giving in the 3rd world. A senior citizen all alone, a neighbour with a medical or drinking problem. These can be difficult problems, but who rationally expects that the problems in the 3rd world are really so simple that dropping money from the sky on them will solve them?
 
  • #23
This is a hypothetical situation I'm not concerned with the logistics of it. It not possible to have a pig that wants to be eaten but moral philosophers still discuss it.
 
  • #24
Hypothetical in the sense that by simply working some details you could make the hypothetical into a reality. I doubt it. My 2nd point was that there's no need for a hypothetical about far away places when there are real people you can visit close to home. Given that reality, I find that 'starving in Africa' conversation is often a red herring device designed to deflect attention from very non-hypothetical situations encountered when walking out the front door.
 
  • #26
madness said:
So if you have a decision to either spare some of your excess wealth and stop a person for starving to death, or to keep your money and let them die, then it's morally ok? But if you were to do anything that might be construed as actively contributing to their death that's not ok?
IMO those two are clearly not morally equivalent.

If a person has earned what they have through economically productive work and not through any force or fraud then their wealth is not ill-gotten nor is it the cause of anyone else's poverty. If instead they have taken what they have through force or fraud then their wealth is ill-gotten, even if their victims were all rich and were not impoverished by the theft.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
sidestreet said:
And as the workers gain wealth, they buy shares in their company, and the ownership moves.

I wouldn't argue that capitalism does anything like a perfect job or shouldn’t be better regulated, but it does do a job.

I'm not anti-capitalist, but I don't think its unfair to say that it favors the rich to such an extent it is very difficult to 'move ownership'.
 
  • #28
Hitler and Ayn Rand are sitting in two different rooms. Hitler sits in front of a button that if pressed, would kill 11 million people. Rand sits in front of a button that if pressed, would save the lives on 11 million people. Is the action of Hitler pushing and Rand not pushing morally equivalent?
 
  • #29
JoeDawg said:
Thats a bit misleading. If the world was run completely on a free trade model, and reset so that everyone started with the same amount of cash, your numbers would be different.
You're arguing what could be, I'm arguing what is. Your argument does not even attempt to address mine.
One of the political realities is that 3rd world countries are a source of cheap labor because they don't have the laws 'developed' countries do. Westerners earn more for doing the same work, not based on expertise or workmanship, but on where they live. Westerners also control trade: by owning companies, lands and mineral rights...etc...
As was pointed out, that's misleading because the cost of living is lower, so it doesn't necessarily qualify as exploitation. Also, market forces will tend to force equality - that's why China's GDP growth is so much higher than anyone else's. It is being pulled into equilibrium with the West due to - not in spite of - trade and outsourcing.

That's also not really relevant to the claim I was debunking: the claim was that most of our wealth comes from that, which is quite simply wrong.
So they can maintain their higher standard of living by exerting control over production and trade. In this sense, the GDP is merely a symptom of this control.
The high standard of living/GDP has nothing to do with control over anything. People see that there are differences between haves and have nots and assume that the haves must be forcing the have nots down and in reality, just the opposite is true.
 
  • #30
madness said:
So if you have a decision to either spare some of your excess wealth and stop a person for starving to death, or to keep your money and let them die, then it's morally ok? But if you were to do anything that might be construed as actively contributing to their death that's not ok?
The first sentence doesn't make any sense - the pieces of the sentence don't fit each other. In any case, I addressed the issue in post 15. I said that if you truly have the means to help without harming yourself, then it is not ok to not help.
 
  • #31
Moridin said:
Hitler and Ayn Rand are sitting in two different rooms. Hitler sits in front of a button that if pressed, would kill 11 million people. Rand sits in front of a button that if pressed, would save the lives on 11 million people. Is the action of Hitler pushing and Rand not pushing morally equivalent?
No, it isn't. This may seem to contradict what I have said before, but it doesn't: just because two things are both morally wrong, that doesn't mean they are morally equivalent.
 
  • #32
madness said:
So if you have a decision to either spare some of your excess wealth and stop a person for starving to death, or to keep your money and let them die, then it's morally ok? But if you were to do anything that might be construed as actively contributing to their death that's not ok?

Would giving the man money and having the man steal the money from you be morally equivalent? Apparently by your logic not giving the man money and allowing him to die is, morally, the same as intentionally killing him. If you believe that it is ok to do what ever is reasonably necessary to a person to keep that person from killing you (you haven't stated this but I am making an assumption since most people would agree) then it should not be morally wrong for the man to steal from you so he can eat and prevent you from killing him by not giving him the money.
 
  • #33
russ_watters said:
You're arguing what could be, I'm arguing what is. Your argument does not even attempt to address mine.
And what *is* only occurred because a huge wealth imbalance created by colonialism. You can't ignore history. Western nations are not more wealthy because they have outperformed in any market related sense. They are more wealthy because of political power. They had a huge headstart because they were able to pillage north america without much resistance or competition. This means inflated currency and financial power.
As was pointed out, that's misleading because the cost of living is lower, so it doesn't necessarily qualify as exploitation.
Yes, it pretty much does.
Also, market forces will tend to force equality - that's why China's GDP growth is so much higher than anyone else's. It is being pulled into equilibrium with the West due to - not in spite of - trade and outsourcing.
Market forces tend to favor the monopoly.
the claim was that most of our wealth comes from that, which is quite simply wrong. The high standard of living/GDP has nothing to do with control over anything.
Sure it does, the market wouldn't even exist without control mechanisms. You don't need to pay for something you can just take from someone. Whether its via police, the military, or political power, trade is all about power. Currency is just one aspect of that. Control of land and resources is another.
People see that there are differences between haves and have nots and assume that the haves must be forcing the have nots down and in reality, just the opposite is true.
Pfffft. GDP only tells us what is, it doesn't tell us how it came to be.
You are oversimplifying in a huge way.
 
  • #34
JoeDawg said:
And what *is* only occurred because a huge wealth imbalance created by colonialism.
So what? Why does that mean anything, much less have anything to do with my point?
You can't ignore history. Western nations are not more wealthy because they have outperformed in any market related sense.
I never claimed they were.
They are more wealthy because of political power.
No, they are more wealthy now because money grows more money in a government that manages the economy well.
They had a huge headstart because they were able to pillage north america without much resistance or competition. This means inflated currency and financial power.
Yes, that's true. So what? What does that have to do with the point? The point made that I contradicted is that we are "pillaging" right now. That's what I was arguing against. You have not addressed that point.
Yes, it pretty much does.
Why? you are making assertions and not backing them up. I have explained why not - if you want to argue against it...argue against it!
Market forces tend to favor the monopoly.
What market forces? I'm talking about gravity and you're talking about magnets. You're just doing random babbling here that doesn't have anything to do with the issues I'm discussing. Yes, it is true that monopolies rise due to market forces. In a completely unrelated issue, it is also true that market forces drive economic parity between nations.
Sure it does, the market wouldn't even exist without control mechanisms. You don't need to pay for something you can just take from someone. Whether its via police, the military, or political power, trade is all about power. Currency is just one aspect of that. Control of land and resources is another.
Markets existed before control mechanisms for them did, but in any case, you are again mixing unrelated issues. You're talking (mostly) about internal market regulation, I'm talking about external market manipulation.
Pfffft. GDP only tells us what is, it doesn't tell us how it came to be.
You are oversimplifying in a huge way.
The sentence you quoted didn't mention GDP. :confused:

JoeDawg, all of that was just random babbling that didn't have anything to do with anything in this discussion. I'm not going to continue going off on these random tangents.
 
  • #35
The original post contained the line, "...it is mostly agreed that third world countries remain poor due to unfair trade, tied aid etc and their povery is a direct consequence of our affluence." This is totally false; it is not agreed, and the reasons given are not facts.

Take two specific cases in point, Zimbabwe and South Africa. Both of these were functioning nations with laws, a prosperous economy, an infrastructure, everything, at the time that blacks took control of them from whites. Today there is wide spread starvation in Zimbabwe and complete break down of that society. Things are moving rapidly in that direction in South Africa. It is inherent in the nature of these people. This was not something "done to them" but rather a disaster in each case that they freely made for themselves because of who/what they are.

So, by all means, as long as you continue to believe your original statement, you are honor bound to give every penny you have to alleviate world poverty. But if, just if perchance you begin to see clearly, you might want to rethink that.
 
<h2>1. What is the difference between passive and active morality?</h2><p>Passive morality refers to the idea that one's moral beliefs and principles should guide their actions, while active morality involves actively taking steps to promote and uphold moral values.</p><h2>2. Is one form of morality better than the other?</h2><p>There is no definitive answer to this question as it ultimately depends on individual beliefs and values. Some may argue that active morality is more effective in creating positive change, while others may argue that passive morality is more sustainable in the long run.</p><h2>3. Can someone be both passively and actively moral?</h2><p>Yes, it is possible for someone to have a combination of passive and active morality. They may have strong moral principles that guide their actions, but also actively engage in promoting and upholding those values in their daily life.</p><h2>4. How does culture and society influence one's morality?</h2><p>Culture and society play a significant role in shaping an individual's moral beliefs and values. These factors can influence what is considered right or wrong, and can also impact the level of importance placed on passive or active morality.</p><h2>5. Can the morality of passive/active change over time?</h2><p>Yes, an individual's morality can change and evolve over time. This can be influenced by personal experiences, exposure to different perspectives, and cultural shifts. What may have been considered passive morality in the past may now be seen as actively moral in current times.</p>

1. What is the difference between passive and active morality?

Passive morality refers to the idea that one's moral beliefs and principles should guide their actions, while active morality involves actively taking steps to promote and uphold moral values.

2. Is one form of morality better than the other?

There is no definitive answer to this question as it ultimately depends on individual beliefs and values. Some may argue that active morality is more effective in creating positive change, while others may argue that passive morality is more sustainable in the long run.

3. Can someone be both passively and actively moral?

Yes, it is possible for someone to have a combination of passive and active morality. They may have strong moral principles that guide their actions, but also actively engage in promoting and upholding those values in their daily life.

4. How does culture and society influence one's morality?

Culture and society play a significant role in shaping an individual's moral beliefs and values. These factors can influence what is considered right or wrong, and can also impact the level of importance placed on passive or active morality.

5. Can the morality of passive/active change over time?

Yes, an individual's morality can change and evolve over time. This can be influenced by personal experiences, exposure to different perspectives, and cultural shifts. What may have been considered passive morality in the past may now be seen as actively moral in current times.

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
8
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
85
Views
11K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
6K
Back
Top