Is enlightened self-interest Good?

[fredramsey]

Morals are decisions you make before you know all the facts...

 

[Eolin]

Of course its good. But that greatly depends upon your philosphical perspective of what it is to be ethical.

And being a good consequentialist, I'd say it is good because the consequences of her actions are good. We want to maximize happiness (read: good) and minimize pain (read: bad). Doing this is what's good, besides it makes the world a better and better place. And ethics needs to be about what shape the world is in after our actions, not what we desired to happen. If its just about desiring a better world, then we cannot use ethics as a means of creating a better world. I like my ethics practical and able to help out the world.

Now, is that the case in DnD? Nope. DnD defines good and evil in a fairly metaphysical sense that has to do with the intent of the individual. Its like the morality was written by Immanual Kant, which given its in a rulebook, makes a lot of sense. Good is self-sacrifice, evil is other-sacrifice.

Hopefully I didn't just open up too big of a can of worms.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Regardless of D&D, would you consider a murderer who by random chance never killed anyone but bad people (drug dealers, rapists, etc.) good?

I edited this post because I realized that I had only replied to the first part of the other post. Sorry.

 

[Particle_Man]

A third way of looking at it is character ethics. It might be that a character starts out evil but does "nice" acts out of enlightened self-interest. In D&D terms, she might "drift" (slightly) towards good until she finds that she is doing "nice" acts, no longer out of enlightened self-interest, but because she actually cares about those poor beggars, etc. [This would be for NPC's; PCs are another bag of worms, of course -- if they refuse to "care" even after hints from the DM, then they won't become good]. Similarly, an "end justifies the means" character might start out good, but continue crossing line after line until they have drifted into the "evil" camp.

One D&D type exception would be the "enlightened self-interest" person who realizes that BEING good (not just doing good acts) is ultimately in her self-interest, and so pays a priest to cast an atonement spell on her so that she can actually become good. Once she is good, she is no longer acting from enlightened self-interest, but how she got there involved that self-interest. Kind of like using enlightened self-interest as a ladder that one then throws away.

I kind of like the character ethics model for general alignments of characters, although Kantian deontology is good for judging individual actions.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I mentioned that in my first post. I like it too, but it's not what I asked about. Of course, you're free to talk about what you wish.

 

[Doug McCrae]

If this is purely a question of moral philosophy, and nothing to do with the DnD alignment system, then I think it should probably go in the Off Topic Forum.

 

[Voadam]

I was reading Khaelis' witch class thread a while back, and he mentioned that witches are often good, if only out of enlightened self-interest; they see the connexions of things, and realize that it's also doing good for themselves. Is doing good things solely becuase you believe that it will benefit you (albeit in a roundabout way) enough to make you a good person? I realize that a lifestyle of benificence and helping others, even if out of selfish goals, might tend to make one good, but I'm only asking about those who act in such a manner out of pure self-interest.

EDIT: Home skoolers spel gud.

Self interest does not = evil.

Martyrdom does not = good.

Evil people can sacrifice everything they value for their evil lords. That's the classic evil fanatic.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Self interest does not = evil.

Martyrdom does not = good.

Evil people can sacrifice everything they value for their evil lords. That's the classic evil fanatic.

That has jack-all to do with my question. To rephrase it: Does doing good deeds out of purely selfish reasons mean that you have a good alignment?
I asked a more real-world question to Eolin because I was interested in his viewpoint, but I'm primarily concerned with D&D.

 

[Ahnehnois]

*In D&D* the point of good and evil is to have opposing extremes, both of which are often wrong. Evil is not caring for others and benefitting only yourself, and good is caring too much for others and neglecting yourself.

That's not necessarily real-world "good".

 

[Blue Sky]

I think that it's a matter of degree. You can have a person who uses enlightened self-interest as a way to measure his evil actions (Will killing this prisoner really help me in the long run, no matter how good it feels?). Such a person still bases his actions on their overall effect on him, and as such, would be evil.

Or you could have a person who believes that helping others, when it's not hurting him, is only pragmatic (I have several thousand gp, buying this beggar a meal or two is piddling to me, And if I ever have to live on the streets, it might be helpful to have someone who knows the trade.). Such a person would be neutral, at best, because he's helping himself with a specific end in mind, but he's not hurting anyone, so he's not evil, either.

Finally, you could have a person who helps others out, believing that a reward will be coming to him, but also believing he'll never know what that reward is (In my life, everyone that's done bad things has bad things done to them, and good people have good things done to them, so I'll help people whenever I can.). Such a person would be good, because he's helping others without looking for a specific end.

In the same way that pride can be a downfall or a salvation, enlightened self-interest isn't automatically good or evil, it just depends on the circumstances in which you do it.