Saturday, January 19, 2013
The Dependance of Personal Action on the Moral Situation at Hand
So far in Ethics, we have primarily focused on the importance of a few general theories and our valuation of their validity, or rightness. However, as important as these theories are to one's structural interpretation and understanding of reality; I have realized that, more important than any theory, is the particular context in which humans apply that general theory. I am no doubt a flip flopper, and yet, as Dr. Thomas pointed out to me, I am not. In every situation, my actions are dependent on external conditions. Whether I act on principle or utility, my actions are conditional on the variables of the situation at hand. So, in that sense, I am most certainly not deontological(from what I understand of the term =), because my actions are never unconditionally motivated. Paradoxically, these very principles often stem from our valuation of the effects their application creates in everyday reality. Oh, wait, I am a little deontological. Because I do believe that the intrinsic quality, intention, and principle of an act do very much matter in judging a things rightness; but, I also at the same time believe consequences do have a bearing on the very same act. But, I don't know. This stuff is good for the right hemisphere though.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm sorry I meant to title the piece, "The dependance of moral situations on Personal Action"
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOr, wait, maybe it's a cyclically causal deal
ReplyDeleteNo, nevermind, I had it right i think
ReplyDeleteYou're right about the importance of context for judgment. The particulars are always going to matter, and we fool ourselves if we think that we can develop a theory that can be applied without judging the facts on the ground every single time. An important question, I think, is what, specifically, we're looking for when we're taking circumstances into consideration? What principles do we use to determine which concrete specifics are relevant and which aren't?
ReplyDeleteIf we think that stealing is wrong, but stealing to avoid starvation is justifiable, then we would be looking for whether or not one's theft was a response to poverty when determining whether or not it could be justified. What else would we look for? Why?
If everything boils down to circumstance, then our ethics will be very weak. If very few circumstances condition our judgement, then it will be more robust. And, this is true whether you're thinking in terms of consequentialist or deontological judgements.
So, what makes a circumstance relevant?
It just seems to me that, unlike the omelas case where you know exactly what is going to happen with any course of action, I have come to agree with Kant in the fact that it when you ignore your individual morals as a consequentialist, you are really devaluing yourself just for a guess of what you think will do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Im thinking after reading Kant that I am more Deontological.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I think I get you. Life or death situations seem to be one of the few conditions that really affect my judgment; but other than that, the greater number of circumstances don't condition my judgement. I hope that's what you're talking about. I don't believe everything should be based on circumstance, but I do see the need for flexibility in an individual's analysis of any particular situation; a middling, as it were, is called for. =) A circumstances' causal strength in affecting my analysis changes as we move up the seriousness ladder from really serious to not that big of a deal. My switch from acting on particular consequences to acting on general principle changes as we move from animalistic life and death situations to happy children situations.
ReplyDeleteYa, Chris, Kant makes sense. But, is it really a guess? Our analysis of the consequences of a situation are based on laws like cause and effect; laws that have proven themselves to play out the way we predict time and again. In these thought experiments, we've created certainties in in our consequences. Would you not ignore your morals regarding killing a man, if that action were certain to save many more lives? I still agree with you, though. A good will should be a categorical imperative.
It seems to me as though the different theories are exactly that-theories. While they work or don't work in the specific scenarios that we went over in class, when these theories are applied to real life, they become much more complicated, especially when our actions and intentions are not the only aspects involved. I think that, like you are saying here, we kind of have to pick and choose and also go with what we feel is the correct moral action in a given situation. In some cases it will come down to acting deontologically, in other cases it will come down to acting consequentially or even in a way that does not specifically subscribe to either of these ideals.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anna. I think that despite having these theories to shape our moral judgment, in the end, we are going to do what we think is morally right; not society. These theories only help to push us in a particular direction; either towards it or far away from it, depending on whether we agree with them or not.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you Anshu about the intentions behind an action leading to whether or not the act is morally right or wrong. I feel as though too many outside circumstances can creep into a situation and produce an unexpected or detrimental result. I think it's easier to life a moral life by guiding your thoughts, actions, and intentions in a morally justifiable way.
ReplyDelete