Morality: ennie-minnie-minie-moe

[coberst]

Morality: ennie-minnie-minie-moe

 

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.

 

I suspect that often we do not have the knowledge and understanding to determine at the time we make our decisions which matters might be amoral as opposed to moral. I think that a moral person needs to have that consideration constantly in mind and thus to form habits that help to keep us on track even though we often act unconsciously. It is all a part of developing character I guess.

 

Questions for discussion

 

Would you say that an act can be a moral or immoral without our being conscious of the matter?

 

Where do these two concepts, right and good, 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.

 

Assume that some young person reads my OP and is inspired by it to study what morality is all about. Then that person goes on to read a response and s/he sees that the responder ridiculed the OP. This then deflates the idea to study morality. Can the ridicule be considered to have been an amoral act?

[billg]

Would you say that an act can be a moral or immoral without our being conscious of the matter?

 

No. Think of animals. We do not attribute them as making moral decisions, of being "evil" or "good". Well occasionally we do but in the light of reason we generally realise we are mistaken.

 

 

Assume that some young person reads my OP and is inspired by it to study what morality is all about. Then that person goes on to read a response and s/he sees that the responder ridiculed the OP. This then deflates the idea to study morality. Can the ridicule be considered to have been an amoral act?

 

Huh? I would say that in general, ridiculing someone is always at least a little "immoral".

[coberst]

billg

 

Then think about the instance when a person is driving recklessly and results in the death of someone. One can imagine cases when such happens when the driver never realizes what has happened until the police take him to jail.

[billg]

What cases? Why didn't he realise he was driving recklessly? Maybe this says more about my imagination than your suggestion, but I am having difficulty thinking of situations where a driver may be driving recklessly and yet not be aware, except situations where he loses consciousness, which I assume he wouldn't go to jail for.