if everything is a moral choice, one has to make the distinction between right and wrong or varying degrees of each on a spectrum. human beings expressing personal choice that is not simply determined by physical or divine forces indicates that one has "free will", somehow transcending physical and divine forces. intentionality is the mechanism by which free will is realized; one directs an abstract understanding of an idea through an action that affects reality independent of the abstract understanding catalyzed via time. how well the abstract understanding is realized in reality through action is indicative of the strength of one's will. as such, a two-fold problem exists:
first of all, in order for the abstract understanding to occur, conscious and unconscious processes must be at work in the brain. because consciousness is involved, so is the mind-body problem; if the mind-body problem were solved so that it was determined that humans do not possess any sort of free will, then humans are also absolved of any moral responsibility because they do not control any of their choices.
the second problem, assuming humans possess some amount of free will, is the degree to which one can realize the will. so, let's assume a situation presents itself to a group of people that requires an application of intelligence through which the scientific method can achieve more success than by not using it. people in group A make a more "moral" decision than group B. however, group B uses the scientific method to arrive at their decision, whereas group A makes a decision based purely from experience, intuition, and group consensus. if group B's choice results in a more "moral" result than groups A's, then which group is more "moral"? i believe that one would say that group A is more "moral", but group B is more "ethical". thus, ethics are defined as the success by which one's morals are realized.
ok, but returning to morals, we are left with a few problems. first of all, there is the question of purity of thought. for example, it would be unethical for someone to attack another person with provocation. however, it is immoral simply to think of implementing such an action as a possible choice before finally deciding against it before taking action. if we can consciously control what we think, then at what point is the initial impetus for thinking and how do we control it? using ryle's regress (i think that i think that i think that… (to infinity)), at least we can arrive at some sort of causality within a thought itself for how the final aspect of the thought is arrived at, although its impetus is still not well-defined. as such, the result of the thought as an impetus is defined through ryle's regress, but the "impetus of the larger impetus" is not. as such, ryle's regress merely skirts around the larger issue at hand and is not a satisfactory solution.
the second problem about morals is the problem of intentionality and the "leftover" failures of a series of decisions leading to a cumulative effect on a person's ability to choose. let's reconsider people from groups A and B. assume that people from group A, by making 100% morally correct choices that are less ethical than group B's, remain morally pure over the course of having to make decisions for a number of situation over a period of time. assume that group B only makes 50% morally correct choices that are more ethical than group A's, amounting to an accumulation of immorality over the course of making a number of decisions. however, in understanding their immorality, group B has still made more ethical choices over a period of time than group A. if one believes that making morally correct choices, regardless of their results, over the long haul causes people to make better moral (by default) and ethical choices (ethical being the important barometer by which "success" of a decision is measured), then one ultimately must come to the conclusion that all choices are moral. however, if one believes that making less morally correct choices, results considered, over the long haul causes people to make better ethical choices due to a person's awareness and intelligence, then one ultimately must come to the conclusion that all choices are practical, predicated on rationalism and empiricism, combined with experience. adding the moral component to the mix, we are left with the conclusion that all choices are ultimately ethical, not moral.
No comments:
Post a Comment