Is there a moral obligation to accept punishment?

[sadavis00]

I have a task that can lead to two outcomes, I could succeed and I will be very HIGHLY rewarded, by "group A", or I could fail and be in for great punishment from "group B". However, I can skip on the punishment by making myself unavailable to recieve it. I can just run away and "group B" won't have anyone to take their revenge on.

I think "group B's" revenge is justified, given THEIR perception of the world. It directly hurts them if I fail; they will lose something. If I succeed, they are no better off, only I am better off the rewards of success from "group A".

Normally when there is conflict between an act for personal gain and hurting other people, I will not consider taking the action; it would be indecent. But, in this case, I think "group B" is neurotic. I think they hurt too easily. I think they need to change their thinking and be more open-minded; my task is something that I think every open-minded person will wish in their version of utopia.

Normally if I hurt someone unavoidably, I will stand up and take whatever punishment they think I deserve - so if I bump into someone while running for the bus, I'm pretty much willing to let them slap me as punishment. But, in this instance I am conflicted because I don't think I "deserve" to be punishment, since what I'm doing does not seem like a crime to me (and it LEGALLY is not, I'm breaking no laws), but still somehow "group B" is going to consider my failure hurtful to them and try to punish me for it.

Is it moral for me to skip punishment? Or it is moral to stay and take the punishment? Would I be a coward for skipping punishment, or could I still be considered brave for undertaking the task in the first place? (given the fact that by undertaking the task, I take the risk of failing, and not only bringing on the wrath of "group B", but also that if I fail I will be personally distressed by the failure: but I take the risk anyway, which is something I would myself consider myself "brave" for).

Moral dilemma anyone?

[Yellow]

If you don't think you are doing anything wrong and you know it well, you have thought about it and you know it is not immoral according to your values then you do not deserve a punishment.

In that case, you can skip punishment for what you fail at. Failing shouldn't require punishment, anyways. I am not sure what you are talking about here but just because some people don't agree with you doesn't mean you have to be punished. By "some people" I mean people who haven't thought about that task's moral and legal implications. Keep in mind, you can still be held accountable morally because not everyone will agree with you. Also, you will still have to keep consequences in mind.

[Yellow]

The problem with moral standpoints like you can do what you think is right is that anyone can claim that according to their morals killing for no reason is not immoral. You get stuck there. I am hoping it's nothing as drastic as that because no one has the right to hurt another person intentionally.

Also, I don't think it will be cowardice on your end to skip punishment. It would be cowardice if YOU thought doing this certain task was wrong and then ran from the punishment. In my opinion, undertaking a task when you know you can fail is bravery because no one wants to fail.

Haha, I hope it's nothing like vast destruction

[Angela]

It's funny, in your first paragraph you express this position of power (your failure in some matter could hurt a whole group of people), and in the next, you completely hand all your power over to that group (you think they need to change their thinking.)

Your story is very vague and has infinite variables. Generally, though, if you're being responsible for the impact that your action or inaction has on others, it's not a matter of deserving punishment if you fail, but rather, taking your next right action so that you're living purposefully and feeling good. Needing others to change the way their thinking doesn't feel good, does it? Whatever your next right action is, you might want to grant Group B the freedom to think and feel whatever they're going to think and feel, because they're going to anyway! Grant them that freedom for yourself.

And if there's some cleaning up to do, clean up. That might mean accepting the consequences of your actions, which are often mixed; it might mean explaining the situation to them ahead of time, promising to do your very best for the highest food of all, and describing the risk and how you'll minimize their exposure to loss. It might mean apologizing and making amends.

You submitting to punishment (which you're already anticipating, so you're already submitting to punishment RIGHT NOW), won't lessen their hurt or loss. Everybody might be under the illusion that punishing someone lessens hurt or loss, but illusion that is. Again, you might have to pay the consequences of failure, but paying that price, whatever it is, won't have Group B feeling good in a real way.

[Brutha]

Whether you have an "obligation" to accept something depends on whether you think that group has any authority on you that you accept.
If I for example join a club and do something that the club thinks deverse to be punished I have two choices:
1. Leave the club and remove any authority that it has on you.
2. Accept the punishment.

There might also be other reason that you accept that give other people authority over you. A classic example that could produce a moral obligation would be when somebody saves your life.

[sadavis00]

Interesting thoughts. They seem very well-thought out, may be it's "wisdom"? I think I'm new to this whole concept of knowing what the "right thing to do" is, solving things so that my conscience is clear.