Is Morality Net Positive?

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Is morality something that is a positive benefit to the species (if not the individual) that engages in it, or is it a sacrifice we all make, inputting energy and resources, to respect the rights of others simply because it is the right thing to do?

I am not asking if morality equals perceived utility and thus justifies the idea that every rule is meant to be broken for a positive outcome. Rather, the fact that these rules cannot be broken may provide that positive outcome. For example, in the conversation about lying, it seems that one ought to lie to a mother in a car wreck, and tell her that her children are safe when in fact they're splattered all over the back seat. If she's dying herself, this may provide comfort at seemingly no cost, and her lack of anguish might even make the difference between death from a critical injury, and not. Yet, in a world where people do select this "free" lie that does no harm, she'll never believe you and that benefit will be lost. So we have a case where selecting utility over blindly adhering to a duty... provides less utility. It may be that morality is simply how we frame this.

On the other hand, morality may be something we are simply required to do, because it is right, and something that inherently costs resources. Should we, for example, destroy livelihoods to save lives? Should we accept all being worse off, if it means one life is saved? If the answer to this is yes, then morality equals not a net benefit, but a net cost.