In class Thursday we embarked on a very heated discussion about what would be the conditions that would support or undermine morality. As the conversation progressed, many opinions and views were thrown around in regards to individual moral actions and collective moral actions. Now I have pondered the different components of this discussion since then and have come to the conclusion that an action can be deemed moral or immoral depending upon whether or not an individual's life can be positively promoted in any aspect. For example, why would lying be amoral? In regards to the context I just specified, it would be amoral because the individual who is being lied to has been "compromised." At some point when the truth is revealed, the individual that was lied to will be forced to think about that situation and ponder the effects that the lie caused. Now some people may believe that lying may promote positive results by either protecting the person from the truth or keeping them from some form of harm, i.e. psychological or emotional. However, we can all admit that whenever we finally encounter the truth about a situation, we immediately wonder "what if." This "what if" that we begin to contemplate only hurts us because it distracts us from focusing on the present and future. The past is the past, and what happened during it cannot be changed. But when people reflect on the past, we must all admit that it hinders our future. Therefore, lying should be deemed as immoral.
In regards to the "trolling" example that was discussed, I firmly believe that trolling is immoral because it does not positively promote someone's life. Choosing to partake in actions that promote anger or frustration from an individual is wrong. Why should someone feel as though it is acceptable to control the emotions of another simply because "they wanted to?" Being angry has never made the angry individual happy. Harboring anger for an extended amount of time, or for even a few minutes diminishes a person's morality and mental psyche because a person's rationale is always compromised when emotions become involved. For those people who think that trolling is simply a harmless action, I'm sure I'll meet opposition, and I'm sure that I will become a victim of trolling. But for those against trolling I hope that my position on morality is plausible.
I believe intention also has an influence on morality. I can only think about what if a person performed an action with a positive intention but but it severely backfired and harmed another person? Or even in Ashley's example of lying to someone to protect them, what if it benefitted them significantly more than if they hadn't (just as the "liar" had intended it to)? To me this is a very confounded argument because on the one had morality seems to be subjective and relative to each situation but in my opinion there must be some kind of measure of standard.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your viewpoint, Ashley, but what if by lying, you were saving the life/lives of innocent people? Would you still consider it immoral then?
ReplyDelete