What moves us: motivation for good

Nine years ago, an 18 year old version of myself was driving to work in my beastly, red, Ford Telstar when much to my horror the engine overheated and my not so trust worthy car died a smoky death on the middle of a bridge in bumper-to-bumper, peak hour traffic. My first reaction was to lock the doors of my corpse of a car and bawl my eyes out but my common sense prevailed and instead I got out began trying to push and steer the car over the bridge while numerous, disgruntled drivers manoeuvred around me. Whilst I'm sure the lifetime of pushing I felt I undertook was probably more like a couple of minutes in reality it was no doubt magnified by the large amount of cars which overtook me and just kept on going. By the time somebody finally came to my aid I had almost given up on anybody helping me and the generous soul who offered me the kindness of getting me and my beast off that bridge was met with a complete breakdown on my part. I could barely get the words "thank you" out through the flood of tears that ensued his kind offer to push while I steered. He was a middle aged man, also on his way to work and not only did he get me off that bridge but also offered to help me call a tow truck and following making those arrangements and waiting with me, drove me the rest of the way to work (which was a massive detour from his destination).

This particular story came to mind this morning while I was pondering the question "what motivates us to be good?". Why did that man stop and help me when so many others drove right on by? Moral philosophy (see previous post: Foundations for the "greater good": moral philosophy) attempts to answer this question in exploring the psychological issues within metaethics which motivate us to be moral. Within this area of metaethics they explore both psychological egoism and psychological altruism as drivers for our moral actions (or inaction as the case may be). According to psychological egoism, the man that stopped to help me did so because it served his own self-interest (eg. seeking the praise of onlookers, gratitude from said damsel in distress or the self satisfaction of knowing he did a good deed). However, psychological altruism asserts that whilst factors of egoism may provide some motivation, that we as humans also have an inherent psychological capacity to show compassion and kindness to others. In my saviour's case I would tend to lead towards altruism but unfortunately I was too traumatised by the whole event to ask that question at that time or even exchange details so I guess I will never really know.

What I do know is that not everybody that passed me that day was motivated to help. Whether it's egoism or altruism that moves us morally to perform an act of kindness there are still those that do not seem to be moved at all. Whilst these musings interest me immensely, personally I don't think it matters what a person's motivation is for helping another, as long as they're helping what's the difference? I know my personal motivations vary and whilst I would love to advocate being a pure altruist, the truth is that helping also makes me happy, undoubtedly providing added incentive! And what's wrong with that? When I "feel good" I'm more motivated to "do good" and in a way I think it can act as a beautiful circle, happy people are more helpful people and helpful people are more happy people. For proof see "Making Australia Happy" an amazing documentary and social experiment into the art of happiness. Of particular interest is Dr Tony Grant's "positive psychology" exercises, employing strategies of kindness to increase happiness levels.

"Good actions give strength to ourselves and inspire good actions in others." - Plato

Foundations for the "greater good": moral philosophy

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

It forms the very core of who we are as human beings; dictating how we interact with each other and our environment, and yet it evades all five senses, so how are we supposed to understand it? Moral philosophy first sparked my interest three years ago when it popped up as a brief introduction to one of my media subjects. I'd been 24 years on this planet before I'd received any formal education on theories of ethics and morality, quite an oversight, I remember thinking at the time. I had imagined that something which was so essential to my humanity would have been broached a little earlier. I did of course receive plenty of informal training, "don't drown your sister in the bath", "don't put the cat in the letterbox", "don't take somebody elses food without asking"; these things were BAD. All those little hints did help to point me in the right direction but like so many other things we are taught when we're young it was "1+1=2, because it just did". As far as morals went there was never any real framework for examination or exploration, I was simply expected to be GOOD and had to guess the rest. 

As per the always evasive nature of philosophy, moral philosophy offers no concrete answers for what is right and what is wrong nor how we negotiate this daily see-saw but it does provide some concepts which have helped me to wrap my head around this intangible force within. There are three main theoretical areas within the field: metaethics, normative ethics and applied ethics. Metaethics is the most abstract, examining the meaning and origin of morality, eg. do morals exist independently of us or are they human conventions? And what psychological factors motivate us to act morally? Normative ethics examine how we regulate these moral conventions, for example the consequentialist theories break it down into three categories:

1. Egoism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favourable than unfavourable to the person performing the action.

2. Altruism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favourable than unfavourable to everyone except the person performing the action.

3. Utilitarianism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favourable than unfavourable to everyone.

Finally there are applied ethics which focus specifically on analysing various moral issues (eg. welfare, animal rights), employing various normative theories to determine right from wrong. It’s a lot to take in and this is only the tip of the iceberg but I think this is really interesting stuff. I'd love to go into more detail but everything you need you can find at the Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy (Ethics). 

Good and bad, wrong and right, they can make the world go round or stop completely. I want to understand why I act the way I do in different moral situations and even more than that I want to understand why other people act the way they do when faced with right and wrong. I believe change begins with understanding and this forms the basis of my journey, to understand as much as I can so that I can go into the world and do well, but more importantly I can go into the world and do "good".

Rachel