A discussion of morality can be frustrating and revealing. It can also go on forever. I've spent much time discussing morality from an atheistic position, with others who come to the discussion from a religious position. Never the twain shall meet, but one revelation usually surfaces - the religious person discovering that a strong sense of morality can exist completely independent of religion.

Perhaps the most important concept the writings of Ayn Rand clarified for me is that I am responsible for deciding what is right and what is wrong. I can certainly learn from others, and should, but the decision, once I make it, becomes my responsibility. If a position I chose continues to seem correct over time, then I deserve a pat on the back (only from myself). If the position proves incorrect or produces bad results, it is MY problem to fix, and I am responsible for any damage my bad choice caused. I cannot blame those I learned from, or those who influenced me, because the decision to accept from them was mine.

As a small aside here... I mentioned "bad results", which is of course a moral judgment too. The reason I choose to step around that subject here is that I believe that most humans have a very similar view of what good long-term results within the human community should be. We have many differences about the ways in which to achieve those results, but not, I think, about what the results should be.

The question I want to address in particular is indicated by the article title. Why do most of us treat each other fairly and with respect, especially in person? If I ask that question of those who are seriously religious, they will often answer with reference to the teachings of their religion. The Golden Rule - "Treat others as you want to be treated" is a good and almost universal guideline for successful coexistence with others... but why should we treat others well and fairly?

Most religions include the idea of after-life punishment or reward, for having been "good". Some people try to live a "decent" life, following the guidelines of their religion, just to qualify for heaven and avoid hell. I found that idea questionable even as a child; how much goodness will qualify me?... how little badness?... how can I know what the big bad deeds are?, or the big good deeds? How many little goodnesses will make up for a big badness? Regardless, if my goal is based on admittance to heaven or avoiding hell, surely I'll have to know and try to follow ALL of the rules of my religion. Tough job, since you can't even find two preachers who agree completely, much less two religions.

I knew instinctively that there had to be a better reason for "doing good" than an afterlife placement. I also knew that my reason for acting well toward others could not be the concept often claimed by others... of selflessness, because that carries an implication of natural conflict between myself and others... that I must decide to be selfless in order to treat others well. Selflessness, or sacrificing for others, is, by definition, self-negating in favor of someone else. The idea that I should give up what I value, because I value it, is absurd. Selflessness comes with no accompanying measure of value, and certainly no measure that what I give (which can only be measured by the recipient) will equal the value of what I've given up. I've known people to claim self-sacrifice for another's benefit, with the other receiving nothing of value to them, and even a negative receipt. As a reason for being good, selflessness just doesn't work.

So, after rejecting heaven/hell as a reason - after rejecting selflessness and religious rules compliance - WHY do I still have a strong desire to "do good"? I needed an INDIVIDUAL, all-within-myself reason to live a life of free, peaceful, and helpful coexistence with my fellow men.

Eventually, I arrived at a guiding reason that, like most truths, seems obvious once identified, and may make you smack your forehead in wonder that it took you so long to arrive at that point. As young people today might say... a big Duh, yeah.

My reason for "doing good", for treating others well, for helping others, is simply because doing so makes my world a better place... a better place for ME. I help others, but I do it for myself. Each of us has a little power of reward and punishment. I don't help those people who are evil, or who don't share my values. By helping those who share my values, and withholding from those who don't, I have a small effect of moving everything toward my own position.

Of all the reasons one might have for "doing good", there is an idea in place and growing, in our public schools, that is absolutely the worst example of incentive to "do good". You may have read it as reported in an AP item carried here  in the StarTribune, about students being PAID to snitch on other students who may be breaking a law or a rule.

I could attack this unthinking payment-to-snitch idea from many angles, but I choose to do it from a moral standpoint. If we were to assume that all laws and rules were valid and good (which I do not) then it would be proper to teach students that reporting violations is a moral or civic responsibility... a life-enhancing action that is its own reward. From a moral position, the tattling idea is completely bankrupt and even corrupt... especially when implemented in a school, where values are supposedly learned. It is teaching that you should get paid for doing good... which implies that there is no better reason.

Equally evil is that this payment to tattle is being applied to laws and school rules, which, in case you hadn't noticed, are NOT always moral and just. The idea of a government school paying students to help enforce government edicts is precisely equivalent to the most evil aspect of the Hitler Youth... enlisting youth to facilitate more government control. Then there are the privacy implications. As others have pointed out, students are a community, and one that has need of mutual trust among its members. This idea uses money to encourage violations of privacy and trust.

With such ideas that just don't feel right, it behooves us to consider the implications of how such a program might grow over time, and what sort of unintended consequences might occur. It isn't difficult to imagine that some students might bear false witness against someone with whom they have an issue. Given school policies that are often zero-tolerance, it isn't unlikely that such a falsehood could cause a lot of grief.

With an incentive and the power to cause such grief, some students could become a sort of mini-Gestapo, using threat of disclosure to intimidate, coerce, or even blackmail other students. Many adult criminals have received reduced sentences or are even not prosecuted if they're willing to point their finger at others. Such deal-cutting has led to the imprisonment of completely innocent people, based on false testimony by snitches. What would prevent students from working like those adult snitches?

I hope that students are wise enough to ignore such programs. Even if they do, that doesn't excuse a school for placing such dangerous programs in front of them. Imagine that if the programs were successful in luring students into ratting for pay, and became widespread, that we might end up with a whole generation of citizens having that attitude ingrained into them. There was a time when the DARE program encouraged children to rat on friends and even parents concerning drug use. It caused an outcry, which I assume stopped that tactic. This program, sponsored and pushed by Crime Stoppers U.S.A.,  should also be stopped.

Crimestoppers President Elaine Cloyd writes off some of the dangers I've mentioned:

There are those who advocate that paying rewards could promote students to become "snitches" or invent crimes as revenge against other students, however crimes are carefully investigated and only a small percent of students ever collect the rewards. 

I wish that I could believe that to be true, but we have heard similar assurances thousands of times about programs being implemented through government... assurance that even though there is great danger, you can trust us to do it perfectly and nobody will get hurt. In effect... "Yes, we're holding an anvil over your head, but we promise not to get clumsy or tired".

Indeed, Cloyd's own words are damning... if only a small percentage of students are ever rewarded, it follows that there must be a large percentage of false reports, and a large amount of wasted investigation... investigation that creates rumors and tremors of suspicion within the schools. In a public school system already failing in so many ways, does it make sense to layer on increased investigation of false tips?

Like so many school programs, this is a program designed not to work, but to create the illusion that the school is "dealing with the problem", allowing them to claim, when something bad DOES happen, that they're not to blame... that they've taken every measure.