On Morality
Writing a paper on the morality and generally struggling to come to terms with the actions of those around me, I can't help but feel that maybe all those men I admire didn't really have much going. What if there is no such thing as objective morality? How can we expect people to act in any way that is counter to their self-interest? And if they do so, who are we to call it immoral? A former Randian, I used to temper this position with the assertion that what is truly in one's self-interest is not selfishness, but rather respect for others, truthfulness, integrity, etc., things that we consider good moral traits. I would argue that self-interest does not preclude charity, for the satisfaction one derives from being charitable or seeing others thrive outweighs the loss of the donation. But what of those who feel no compunction to be charitable? Who derive no satisfaction from aiding others? Are they not "worse" people than those that do? Yet can we consider their actions immoral if both--the men that give and the men that do not--are acting out of their own self concern? If we do make a distinction between the two actions, are we not simply utilitarians? Or can we pass moral judgement on the character of the man who derives pleasure from helping others versus the character of the man that does not? I do not believe in altruism, and yet I see a moral distinction between the person who hoards and the person who shares. I would argue that it is impossible for someone to truly act against their own self-interest, and that any time they believe themselves to be doing so, they are choosing the pleasure of goodness to monetary gains or physical comfort or whatever they are sacrificing. Even the man who chooses death for himself in order to gain life for others is choosing the personal satisfaction of a noble death and kind memory over the years he's giving up. But then what is it that makes this action good, if not its intentions? If all men act out of the same intentions, who is good and who is evil and who is to distinguish between the two? This leads me to think perhaps that men are born good or evil, born with the conscience that gains pleasure from helpful acts and experiences pain from destructive acts...or without. If this is the case, it is not actions that are good or bad, but men. And morality is not a choice but a state. And he who feels no remorse is immoral.
posted by Coca Colo @ 3:32 AM
6 Comments:
I don't think I can agree with the idea that some people are "born [...]evil." After all, this is dividing the world into two distinct groups, which I don't think is feasible. -JCW
You should be in my ethics class this semester. There has been much written on the debate about objective morality. Of course there are those who say that the definition of objective morality comes from God, but that turns out not to be a very coherent metaethical theory. There are those who say that there is a metaethical theory as defined by our genetic propensities, but these types of theories tend to lead to some kind of cultural relativism, which leads irrevocably to being unable to judge _anyone's_ actions since everyone in a society like ours is from somewhat a different culture than _anyone else_.
Personally, I think that properly considered actions completely for one's own self interest lead to 'moral actions' and that therefore the primary or only value is self interest. This may seem cracked, but I sincerely believe in the doctrine of "what goes around comes around" I have found consistently in my life that by acting well towards others, I am treated well in return. I am not saying that _every_ action has a reward directly for the self, but that by acting 'well' consistently one can ensure that they will be treated 'well' as needed. *shrug* it's worked pretty well for me so far.
To Jennifer:
No, I absolutely think that there are degrees, and there are certainly those people who possess enough conscience to feel badly but not enough to not do something...so where do they fall?
To Brand:
I'd like to agree with you, and used to, but have realized recently that some scenarios just don't support it. Imagine for a moment that you consider abortion to be a crime, to be murder. What of the woman who goes and commits this murder without anyone's knowledge? The person she has harmed has no power to tell others of this harm, and her medical records are sealed. We would like to say "but oh, she feels badly and this will eat at her soul and make her feel separate from those around her who have not taken a life,"--but what if she does not feel remorse? What then? What if she can choose to take this life and never look back, and so will and will furthermore be indeed acting in her self-interest? Is there not a moral distinction between her and the women who, also acting in her self-interest, knows that she could not live with herself if she took a life and so carries the pregnancy to term? What of those who can commit a crime quietly and feel no remorse? My question is: is there something morally different about their actions, though the intentions be the same?
it is impossible to state that some humans are good and some are evil by birth---there is so much time and experience between birth and free agency--
and then.....actions are good or bad by their result--it is bad to step on my toes even if by accident, though your intent may have been a pleasant dance, so your next action, whether to apologize or call ME a clutz, then can right the wrong or not.......
abortion---too much gray area not enough gray matter in the "murdered" (discarded) entity. The fact that she has the false belief that this is murder does not make it so. If she has acted against her own morality, then she will have to rewrite her moral script to keep from making herself anxious and depressed........but the action remains the same action.
"commit a crime" is another gray area.....crime against whom? most modern-day crime is defined against the state, which is not a rights-bearing entity. If one chooses deliberately to harm another in person or property, then this is wrong action and should be followed by forced restitution. Even if not deliberate, restitution would be appropriate.
Morality is based on a consideration of circumstances - not principles.
Abortion: The problem with abortion isn't about whether or not murder is a crime or whether the person would feel remorse if they thought they had committed murdre; it is about whether or not abortion is murder (ie the fetus is a person, therefore capable of being murdered). I think that anyone who considered the fetus a human and had an abortion would feel remorse contrary to your example, and if they didn't see the fetus as human they would have no moral reason to feel remorse.
Post a Comment
<< Home