WHY YOU SHOULDN’T KILL PEOPLE THAT ANNOY YOU

Let us revisit the engineer’s dilemma laid out in the first segment of this essay.  However, this time, let us imagine what a layperson not familiar with philosophy would decide.  In the case of the engineer who is offered a well-paying a job to build a power plant that produces harmful smog, there is no question that most sympathetic humans will wrestle with the dilemma.  Additionally, no matter which decision they make, it is quite likely they will feel guilty about their decision.  Had the engineer chosen to take the job, while he/she is able to support their family, they will feel guilty about building giant smokestacks of lung cancer.  However, had the engineer rejected the job, he/she would feel guilty every time they cannot support their family financially.

At the end of the day, the layperson would weigh both options, then make a decision based on what they think would be easiest to live with.  For some, it would be easier to turn down the job and, despite being financially unstable, take solace in adhering to their own morals.  However, for others, it would be easier to accept the job, knowing that regardless of the morally shady work they are doing, it is to help his/her family.  Said person would feel uneasy taking the job, but acknowledge that they don’t have the luxury of being moral.  The key distinction is that the choice that the layperson makes would vary by person – and each person would think that they are making the “right” choice, whether it’s the moral choice, the survivalist choice, or whatever else they think is most important.

Therefore, the choice is made not by a written code, as was the case with the philosophers.  The choice is made by the layperson’s moral compass.  Even decisions people make out of necessity that they believe goes against their moral compass is still dictated by their moral compass.  For example, imagine a billionaire stealing some apples because he’s hungry.  No one would say that’s okay.  However, imagine a homeless beggar on the verge of starving to death, and for him staying alive one more day is a challenge.  Is it okay for him to steal?  Technically not, but most people would be lenient in a situation where someone is driven solely out of necessity.  Now, imagine a working-class man tight on money who is one bad day away from becoming homeless.  He won’t starve if he doesn’t steal, but paying would be a huge hit to his depleting finances.  Is it okay for him to steal?  Most likely, some would say it’s okay while others would say it’s wrong.  The delineation people make that dictates at which point necessity outweighs morals is built-in to their moral compass.

However, where does this moral compass come from?  Is it an internal thing that people just have?  If so, why do moral compasses differ depending on the person?  Is morality taught?  Such was the discussion of several philosophers, including Thomas Hobbes.

Thomas Hobbes, essentially, did not believe in a moral compass.  He believed what we consider “morality” is nothing more than a social contract that will inevitably be agreed upon between rational beings for the greater good of everyone.  Hobbes believed that there was no intrinsic “badness” tied to acts such as thieving or murdering.  The only reason why we agreed thieving and murdering is “immoral” is because our quality of life increases if we don’t have to worry about being pickpocketed or stabbed every time you leave your house.

For example, consider two men, Tony and Steve.  Usually, they got along pretty well, but every now and then, they get annoyed with each other- so annoyed, that they want to kill each other (remember Hobbes believed that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with murder).  Tony and Steve realize that despite their occasional arguments, living in fear of getting killed sucks, so they make an agreement that killing is immoral and shouldn’t be done.  Now, even if things get abrasive, neither of them have to live in fear of being killed.  By creating a moral contract that dictated killing was wrong, they created better living conditions for all parties involved.

However, consider if one party was considerably weaker than the other party.  Now, the weaker party has nothing to bargain with.  The weaker party declaring that he will refrain from killing no longer carries any value since he couldn’t if he wanted to.  In this case, the stronger party has no reason to agree to this social contract and he can pickpocket, kill, and do whatever he wants because whether he does or does not, he no longer fears retaliation.

Now you may be thinking this is totally wrong because obviously, it’s terrible to steal from or kill defenseless people such as babies or the elderly.  In this case, Hobbes would argue that he never claimed living things to have an intrinsic value and that morality, according to Hobbes, is all about helping oneself and those that can help you too.  Hobbes would probably argue that the reason people don’t go around pickpocketing and killing the elderly is that they would face retaliation from others, as well as a bad social standing among peers.

So, what would Hobbes do if he were the engineer?  Well, as a self-interested rational Hobbesian, he cares only about how his actions affect himself.  As a result, the only downsides he sees to taking the job is the potential negative social standard his new job might generate among his peers.  However, remember that in the engineer’s dilemma, the engineer is not financially stable and that alone would be enough to convince society that he needs the money for his family.  Therefore, seeing little to no social retaliation for taking the job while receiving a large monetary sum makes it a no-brainer for Hobbes.  However, recognize that if Hobbes had been a wealthy public figure, the social stigma of taking a morally shady job would outweigh the relatively small sum of money he would make compared to what he already has, so as a Hobbesian, he would turn down the job in that case.

Hobbes’ “survival of the fittest” philosophy may come off as a bit harsh.  Another philosopher offered their own thoughts on the moral compass that may be a bit more merciful.  His ideas precede Hobbes by a few millennia.