The evolved functions of morality: From the Haidts to the Depths, From Aporia, an academic sociobiological magazine.
However, if one is trying to explain morality, a key phenomenon to be explained as illustrated by the definition and examples above is the observed empirical undeniable fact that humans judge some actions—occasionally inactions—to be wrong and have a concomitant desire for punishment. A moral judgment is a judgment of wrongness.
A bit lengthy, and it did not go where I expected.
2 comments:
I think it would be fair to say that this is a statement of the deontologist perspective on moral philosophy. It's appropriate to, say, Kant, more or less; he still considered questions of virtue to be questions of moral philosophy, but he does divide his moral philosophy into 'the Doctrine of Right,' where force/punishment is appropriate; and 'the Doctrine of Virtue,' where it is not. Likewise, he definitely thinks of morality in terms of obedience to -- well, not rules exactly, but maxims that could be universalized as laws without violating reason. He would accept that virtue is a sort-of rule following, in other words; and that other moral laws entail due punishment if violated.
The other schools of moral philosophy will not buy this frame. A utilitarian like Bentham, for example, would not agree that the Trolley Problem is about doing a wrong thing if there's a strong enough justification. The whole point of the utilitarian argument is that pulling the lever/pushing the guy becomes the right, moral, praiseworthy thing. Deciding what is right is about (they claim) maximizing pleasure and limiting pain, so this action isn't at all wrong: it is a clear example of acting to limit pain and allow a greater number to go on living and experiencing its pleassures.
My own school as well as Aristotle's and the Stoics -- virtue ethics -- has other reasons to reject this model. For one thing, virtue is not at all about rule following: it's about habituating through practice a character that is able to discern and do the best thing in challenging circumstances. These are often cases where ordinary rules may not appy anyway, because the situation is challenging enough that you can't just apply a rule book to it. You need to exercise judgment, and it is the judgment of the virtuous that will find the best course in these cases especially.
Thus, rather than saying that 'a moral question is about wrongs, not about choosing among virtuous actions,' we would say that every moral question is about choosing the most virtuous action. In simpler cases, you want to do what is best rather than what is simply acceptable: rules might help you in these simple cases, but it's the practice of doing the thing that counts. In the harder cases, it's up to you to figure out what the best thing to do is, and it's the practice that made you into the kind of person who might be able both to make that judgment and then carry out the hard work of realizing it.
Deontology is a very popular position, though; perhaps it is so popular that even many academics might not realize that there are other options.
Post a Comment