Reply
Sun 1 Oct, 2006 09:48 am
Optional Decisions are Moral Decisions
I cannot remember where I read it but is resonates for me; ?'all decisions, wherein there is a choice, are moral decisions'. One may find quibbles to get around this message but the essence of the matter is that for a person seeking to be moral, all judgments from which decisions are derived warrant careful consideration.
In an attempt to comprehend the nature of ethics/morality one will find a forest of writings but essentially each person must build his or her own model of what ethics/morality means. Somewhere along the way toward becoming an enlightened person regarding this matter we all must settle on that which makes sense for us. That does not mean that we remain static about the matter but it means that we settle on some model that is our personal guide until we decide to change it.
Our community and our family mold our moral sense as we grow up. But at some point we must remold that model to fit our adult self. I am an American and my sense of ethics/morality was codified by the Declaration and the Constitution as I grew up and it is what determines, to a large extent, my adult sense in this matter.
The Declaration declares ?'We hold these truths to be self evident, all men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights'. The Constitution sets forth a listing of the rights of all citizens that are to be protected by law. These declarations are part of my heritage and are what I accept as the foundation of my sense of morality.
It appears that the two concepts ?'right' and ?'good' form the foundation of any moral system. The ?'good' is ?'rational desire' and the ?'right' has varying meanings. The status of the right seems to be the important variable that determines what one's ethical/moral model becomes.
I call my model of morality as being a closed system as opposed to an open system. I call my system a closed system because ?'right' is clearly defined in the Declaration and the Constitution as being prior to the good. That which is right has a fence around it with a big "No Trespassing" sign and is closed to usurpation by the good. A different system could be called an open system when there is no closed area representing rights but that the right is considered as being that which maximizes the good.
Where do these two concepts fit into your model of morality and or ethics? I use the term ethics/morality to mean that the two terms are the same for me.
coberst wrote:?'all decisions, wherein there is a choice, are moral decisions'.
How can a decision not contain a choice? By definition, to decide is to choose. So your statement makes no sense.
And I do not agree that we should invent some model, like a plastic tower to dance around. Instead we should sharpen our wits and train ourselves to keep them about us in any situation.
so, if i choose a beefe frank over a turkey frank, is that going to be morally wrong?
dagmaraka wrote:so, if i choose a beefe frank over a turkey frank, is that going to be morally wrong?
Yes. That left turn you made at the stop sign earlier was morally wrong as well. You KNOW you should have made a right turn. Have you no shame!
If a person is a reslut of a choice that was morally wrong, is that person morally wrong then?
So morality can come of immoral action?
of course.
just as good intentions can have disastrous consequences.
Then why is morality a valid subject?
What characterizes a decision as being moral or not is if the answer is dependent on the person's morals. Different people not only have different moral opinions but different amounts of vehemency in those opinions. Not caring at all is a level of no vehemency and it is natural to assume therefore that some people may have a moral opinion about a subject that another person attaches no morals to. Therefore, the same decision for one of those people would be a moral decision while for the other one it would not be; so not all decisions are moral decisions, it depends on the person's morals if it is a moral decision or not.
So you are not being bad until you think that you are. I think you sum it up nicely.
But then everyone is of the same moral fibre. Whenever someone does something they have found a reason to do it. Most of us anyway. In Hitler's world, which was regrettably not only in his head, he regarded himself as a man of supreme moral standing. Most of us think he was dead wrong.
A common thief may be convinced that his stealing from shops is morally acceptable for whatever reason he needs.
Most of us think it is acceptable to maintain the economical imbalances that exist in the world, although history up to this day can be thought of as morally questionable.
I think my point is that moral is more of an afterthought.
Morality may be but fine disguises, that vanity ,in self defence obliges.
Cyracuz,
Yes, I agree with that mostly. I consider myself a person of extreme moral fiber, because there are certain things that I consider right and wrong and I never go against my morals. When I do accidentally do so, I feel guilt and I do whatever I can to make amends. However, my personal morals are very different from others'. For instance, I do not think that stealing or murder is always immoral.
I think there is an important distiction to make, however. Just because everyone has their own set of morals does not mean everyone acts morally. Many people may still choose to do something that they believe to be immoral...basically, if you feel guilt, then I'd say you did something immoral. If there is no guilt, it was not immoral, no matter what it was.
Quote:
Just because everyone has their own set of morals does not mean everyone acts morally.
The only problem is who gets to decide who does. Regardless of my moral standing I will be punished for transgressions of the percieved line.
If a teacher thinks a student isn't properly respectful or otherwise below moral requirements, it would take a robot teacher for their relations to remain unaffected by that verdict. The student may mean no disrespect and consider himself unjustly treated.
So the issue of morla course of action can sometimes cloud our judgement. Another problem is when it is equally moral to condemn and act as to condone it.
Quote:The only problem is who gets to decide who does. Regardless of my moral standing I will be punished for transgressions of the percieved line.
If a teacher thinks a student isn't properly respectful or otherwise below moral requirements, it would take a robot teacher for their relations to remain unaffected by that verdict. The student may mean no disrespect and consider himself unjustly treated.
This is just a fact of life.
Quote:Another problem is when it is equally moral to condemn and act as to condone it.
I just had to make one of those decisions a few hours. I made the decision that I thought was more just. It was not the safer decision and I may get in trouble for it, but I felt obligated.
I think it is good that you try to maintain a respectable moral standard. I too find it important and rewarding to follow the 'right course'. But I do not always know that course when I need to make up my mind. But to have the attitude that I will at least try my best is one source of self esteem. And guilt.
Regarding Coberst's opening thesis, I think it is consistent with common usage to assume that all ethical/moral acts involve decisions, but not all decisions have ethical/moral implications.
I am not so sure I follow. We do not always agree on which choices morals should apply to, so the statement seems impossible to verify except in retrospect, when it's too late.
I am saying that maybe all decisions may have moral implications.
If, by "implications" of a decision, you mean "outcomes"...I don't see that the outcomes of a decision have any DIRECT correspondence to whether or not the decision is moral or immoral, because a person is not capable of knowing ALL the outcomes of their decisions. It is only those outcomes which they happen to think of which may make the decision moral.
For instance, if I am thirsty and I turn on the faucet for a glass of water to get a drink, I may do this instinctively without even thinking about it. My moral database is never queried, so it was not a moral decision...
Yet, it is not impossible that a terrorist has abducted my family and is monitoring me by videocamera, and has decided that if I turn on the water faucet he's going to murder them. That doesn't affect the morality of my decision unless I think of that possibility...
Cyracuz, you say " am saying that maybe all decisions may have moral implications."
Your use of "maybe" and "may" suggest your agreement with my statement. (you say they may NOT have moral implications--that's my point).
Stuh, I agree.
stu makes a small note of that in the forum margins
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace