Moral Relativism

I think what the author touched on regarding the intention behind creating laws was a really interesting and compelling argument. He argued that laws provide a foundation for what not to do in a society, but generally lack in guiding people in how they should act. This sets up a mindset where one does not murder another person because it is the right thing to do, but because it is illegal, and there will be comprehensive repercussions for doing so. On an even more basic level, the study of psychology has coined the terms “approach and avoidance motivation” that I believe really enhances the author’s argument here. Approach motivation means performing an action because you are willing and excited to do it, whereas avoidance motivation involves performing an action simply to skirt possible negative outcomes from not doing it. People with higher self-reported thoughts involving approach motivation tend to also report being happier and having more engaging lifestyles. This concept appears to make sense. More enjoyment from an activity will likely be derived if there is an inherent willingness and expectation of positive outcomes. It is essentially Winnie the Pooh versus Eeyore. Here in psychology I believe I have found the root argument for Ethics. We should do things, not because they are against the law, or because they will secure us a spot in heaven, or because if we don’t do them, we will feel guilty or bad about ourselves. Every day we have many choices to make, and every day we should make the choices that are right, because we have a moral obligation to do so. Not only for the sake of humanity, but doing so will also make us happier!