How do you make moral decisions?
By Tanya8
@Tanya8 (1733)
Canada
5 responses
@urbandekay (18278)
•
9 Jun 07
OW! That'll teach me to make suggestions.
Hmmm, how to answer? First as I have explained elsewhere any 'rights' based system is incoherent. Similarly, Deontological or consequentialist ethics reduce to some form of intuitionism and perhaps this has a little influence on me.
Virtue ethics influences me to a degree, what are the good virtues? Those that benefit society, in this guise it is nothing but the rules of the tribe but one thing Aristotle notes is that virtue often lies between two extremes; excess of bravery is fool-hardiness excess caution, cowardliness.
More influential is moral perfectionism as described with Nietzsche, Thoreau, etc but fundamentally I think ethics is creative and cannot be captured by a system.
As someone said.
I've seen the nations rise and fall,
Heard their stories, heard them all,
But love's the only engine of survival
all the best urban
1 person likes this
@Tanya8 (1733)
• Canada
10 Jun 07
OW, indeed! I think exercise has taught me not to LISTEN to suggestions (ha ha).
The idea of spending time here writing responses to people who think I'm advocating limiting their "freedom" with an arbitrary list of rules, doesn't hold much appeal.
I guess my point was that rights based ethics may be a shortcut, but if we avoid the shortcut, we still don't have an effective means to settle issues like abortion.
I get the sense that you disapprove of the way people have gotten into the habit of insisting on their rights at every turn. One of your statements implied that women are being greedy - they have so many rights, yet they keep demanding more.
Yet, people were inducing abortion, and presumably making the judgment that it was morally permissible, long before charters and codes of rights were adopted by societies.
1 person likes this
@urbandekay (18278)
•
10 Jun 07
You say, "I guess my point was that rights based ethics may be a shortcut, but if we avoid the shortcut, we still don't have an effective means to settle issues like abortion."
Well, that's were I disagree, I don't think there is always a way to resolve ethical dilemmas but some can be solved by reduction of rights based ethics. How would you word the pro-abortion argument without using rights?
all the best urban
1 person likes this
@urbandekay (18278)
•
12 Jun 07
Sorry, I'll come back to your questions later. But I thought of a way to explain part of the problem with a 'rights' based system of ethics. It promotes 'freedoms' but not virtues. In that regard it is entirely negative, it does nothing to foster moral perfectionism.
all the best urban
@vampoet (825)
• Singapore
9 Jun 07
I got no principles or guidelines that I follow. I basically do what I feel is right. Even when it is wrong sometimes (there are many grey areas in life) I just close one eye and do it as long as it is not hurting anybody. Like I said, there is a lot of greys in life. What is good to one may be bad to another. Sometimes it gets hard to differentiate between the 2.
@Tanya8 (1733)
• Canada
9 Jun 07
Thanks for your response.
I realize the term principles sounds a bit dry and academic. I started this discussion as an offshoot of another one in which the subject of "rights based ethics" came up. I wanted to know why the person who brought it up, felt that such a system was problematic.
That said, although I think most of the time we make snap moral judgments based on gut feelings, when we get into those gray areas where the right course of action isn't obvious, we do start considering principles. The golden rule would be an example. When you consider whether an action hurts anyone before carrying it out, I would say you're using a guideline.
1 person likes this
@DavidReedy (2378)
• United States
12 Jun 07
tough call. In a philosophy class I once had, it was brought to our attention that sometimes what you've been taught is the right thing is not always applicable, such as "telling the truth is better than lying" but what if a psycho was after a friend and by lying to him you could save their life and by telling the truth the psycho would kill them or the whole principle of "what's better for the majority" does that mean it's okay to kill a man if by harvesting his organs you could save five lives? It's always a tough call, I try for the sanctity of life, honesty, the best example, that which works out the best for everyone involved, whenever possible, and whenever not slipping up and acting selfishly.
@missak (3311)
• Spain
10 Jun 07
I think morality is in first instance a set of rules that one society defines as guidelines "for a good social understanding". But then, the society evolves and this rules tend to be the same, so they become rather bases for controlling the society. Plus this moral is different on each society, in some points on each country... So I don't tend to follow a special moral, I try to make my personal equilibrium between respecting the traditions of where I live, and following my own freedom.
@Tanya8 (1733)
• Canada
11 Jun 07
If you do put an answer there, could you let me know here or on the atheism discussion. I can no longer find that discussion. I took your advice and started keeping a list of the discussions I wanted to keep track of, but I forgot to put that one on.
Thank you
Tanya
1 person likes this
@darkmasterblast (119)
• Pakistan
9 Jun 07
well i follow this Setence.....if you obey all the rules then you miss all the fun......so for fun some time i did not follow systems(principles).lol
