Optional Decisions 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?

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?

I don't think so.

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.

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.

This is just a fact of life.



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