In some threads (capital punishment for example), I keep flip-flopping because I can understand some of both sides of the argument. What I am taking from this is that I don’t have a firm moral ground of my own to stand on.
How does a person come to identify their morals and evaluate them?
How does a person prevent themselves from rationalizing an event such that it doesn’t appear immoral to them? (i.e. “They brought it on themselves!”)
Would I just start writing down what I believe, then say, “Well, fine, but WHY do you believe that?”
I think it’s perfectly fine to find ambiguity in some issues. There will always be extenuating circumstances that make me rethink my position on any number of things, capital punishment included.
Also, you will probably not be the same person you are now in 10, 20, 30 years. It’s all well and fine to put a stake in the ground and hold firm to a position, and then get the rug pulled out from under you in the future.
Circumstances change. Public perception changes. Your own moral compass will continue to swing throughout your life. Well, that’s been my experience anyway.
I can see both sides of mostly everything and feel comfortable with a fence post up my ass most of the time!
Let’s take a step back–why is it necessary for a person to have their feelings on every single “moral issue” fully figured out, or even have a system in place for figuring them out?
If you don’t know what you believe, how can you argue pro or con for an issue and actually mean what you say instead of just being a troll and/or a devil’s advocate?
Isn’t our own sense of morality the basis for any argument that defines interpersonal relationships?
As someone who has often debated Moral Skepticism vs. Moral Realism (in favor of skepticism), I find that moral realists are unable to use definitions satisfactorily to defend their positions. This is one way in which moral definitions actually do matter.
If you define morality as “the purview of what we must do,” then we have no clear track for determining what it is that people ought to do.
If you define morality as “the maximization of happiness among conscious creatures,” then it is not clear what cause people have to care much about morality. I don’t care about the entire continent of Asia as much as I care about myself, and most people are the same way. [EDIT: Actually, most people are Asian, so this is not accurate. But you know what I mean: most people don’t give a hoot about people they haven’t met and will never meet.]
Of course, once multiple debates over definitions come into the fore, things become really complicated. For example, if one asks “what does ‘should’ mean?” in addition to “what does ‘morality’ mean?” then the debate can get pretty muddled. But it’s been my experience that moral terms are never defined in a way that seems to fit their usage, which leads me to believe that moral concepts are rather confused.
It depends on application. I have knee-jerk emotions, my own code of ethics/morals, and I also have a sense of “the way things ought to be” when it comes to legislation. Oftentimes these points are slightly different or even at odds with one another.
For me, abortion is a good example, please let’s not derail the thread.
I’m firmly pro-choice. I don’t want the government legislating my reproductive decisions and I think the choice to have an abortion is a fundamental women’s rights issue.
When it comes to morals I’m definitely a grey-area advocate. The morality of an abortion depends on the context IMHO.
My knee-jerk reaction is two-fold. I think abortion is killing a baby. You can call it a fetus and debate viability and consciousness but to me, the fetus looks like a little (alien) human pretty early on and I think it’s dishonest to hide behind “terminating the fetus.” No, you’re killing a baby. Of course, I can think of many circumstances in which I would choose to have an abortion and kill my baby.
Bow hunting is another good example. I’m an avid hunter but I won’t use a bow, there’s way too big a chance that I’d wound an animal. For me, bow hunting is not an ethical choice.
However, I don’t want to ban bow hunting. As long as folks practice and make their best effort to make a clean kill, I’m all for it. I may well become a bow hunter one day but right now, it’s not for me.
So when it comes to defining morality it’s a question of what you yourself can live with but it’s also a question of how we all live together without infringing upon the choices of individuals.
I applaud your efforts, and I mean that with all my heart. It’s good to see someone thinking carefully, being openminded, recognizing that they aren’t sure. Good for you.
I agree that if you don’t “know” or believe one thing is more correct or better than another, you shouldn’t be arguing.
If you want to participate, perhaps you should ask some questions in an attempt to clarify the situation to yourself or to the others in the discussion.
Sorry for my absence and slow response, busy time of year.
Yes, not arguing is also a very valid option. I have stayed out of many debates because I like to learn.
As for being fairly young, not really. At least, I don’t think so. It’s just that I’ve just existed and not really put anything into life. I’ve decided I’m tired of just existing and wanted to start living, but I’ve just coasted for so long and I don’t want to wake up and be a nuisance.
Some things are generally unethical (Prefer this term to immoral which generally supposes a god) simply as a result of our nature. Killing, stealing, rape, assault and the like are almost always bad because they cause harm and misery to someone else. Occasionally though a situation will arise in which performing an unethical act is the least harmful option, and so it is the ethical choice, though the act itself is still unethical. Capital punishment can fall into this case, as can killing in self defense or in defense of others in immediate danger. Killing the assailant is a bad thing, but lacking other options, it would be the ethical choice to make is doing so would prevent further harm to many others.
Other acts are the result of being intelligent, social creatures. Lying CAN be bad, but it can also be an ethical choice when it is done to spare someone from harm. Generally, the truth is to be preferred, but occasionally a little lie can be a better alternative.
Basically, Ethics really are situational, but most people understand implicitly the rule of reciprocity (Do unto others), and that it benefits them to adhere to it to varying degrees depending on the circumstances.
There is no absolute right or wrong, but most actions can be firmly places to one side of the scale or the other. Those that cause harm are permissible only in dire circumstances.
I’d be interested to know which things. But it would also be important to know what you mean by “absolutely”, since my own understanding would be: across all time, every culture, and all circumstances. Perhaps you mean something else.
The problem here is that morality defined in any objective way is not based on things, but results. If you use a simple absolute morality, its easy to say killing a person is immoral. But then you have to consider self-defense, the defense of others, suicide, abortion, death penalty, war, medical care, and the list goes on. If you are not absolutist, you have to consider the results of an act. Does the killing of a person cause more harm than good? Is it moral to deny a person’s right to self determination and preventing them from committing suicide?
If you want to your own sense of morality, it will be easier to consider the reasons why something is immoral in terms of the results than by categorizing acts by name. It is always much easier to determine your own morality by simply using someone else’s definition. But that may raise questions when you disagree with the pre-fab morality. IMHO it tends to make people pay lip service to morality and then ignore it.
Should I steal medicine to save a dying child? If there is no other way to get it, it would be unethical for me not to steal it. I would risk incarceration to save a life. Would you? Decide. Right now.
If you view the world in black and white you are unethical. Morality is unethical by it’s very nature. Having set rules may make it easier for you. It might give you a feeling of control in a topsy turvy world. You will “know” for certain how to act and never need to consider it again.
That’s how mandatory sentencing works. No more leaving it to a judge’s discretion, let’s have a “one size fits all” form of justice. That is not justice at all. Morality is unethical. The world is not as neat and simple as all that. You wish!
“You must do what you feel is right, of course.”
Obi Wan
For me, morality has been an evolving, ongoing process. The more I experience the world, the more I learn about what it takes to be a good person. I also think it is a positive trait- morality is not just not doing things wrong, but rather constantly striving to do the right thing, all of the time. Recently I’ve become really focused on ideas of integrity and character. These are elusive, slippery things but I’ve come to understand how important they are. Perhaps in a couple more years, I’ll have some revelation about something else. Life is a complicated thing.