Recently I had a fantastic and very long conversation with a friend. In the midst of our hours (or days ...) of talking around, within, and about our chosen topic, she said that some action was "immoral." I am a thinker (and a bit of a skeptic), so I began rolling through a series of general questions about the concept of morality. I posed these questions to her in an email - and here they are.
- When you ponder the morality of an activity, what parameters (rules) do you apply?
- Where do those rules come from (all one source, or a synthesis of multiple sources)?
- If an activity could be considered amoral (no ethical basis for action or inaction; or different sets of parameters could mean varying principles for "moral" or not), do you tend to label that activity "immoral" or "moral"? (simply: what is your default setting?)
- Does "moral" = "right"; does "immoral" = "wrong"? Examples of each?
- Should "moral" activities be pursued with rigor?
- Should "immoral" activities be avoided?
- If an activity is immoral and if immoral action is "wrong," what could prompt the actor to continue in the activity? (or, more simply, why engage in acts that are wrong?)
- Who is responsible for determining whether an act is right or wrong?
- If a person engages in immoral acts, or fails to engage in moral acts, should that person be liable only for the outcomes of the act, or should (or do) others have authority to attach a liability to the actor?
- From where would such authority come?
- What type of liability could that be?
Beside the fact that I need to get a life, and probably sleep more, I would love to hear any feedback.
Ok, because I find your post interesting and thought provoking, I am going to take a stab at answering some of those questions from my generally uneducated but highly opinionated position. :)
ReplyDelete1. The parameters I apply to an activity tend to be one of a global sense of morality. Things like, ethics (codes of which are published for most professions), laws, international public policy (yes, you can call me a nerd now), and lastly religion. I should state however, that unless I know a person is of a specific religion, I don't actually judge a person as being moral/immoral because religions differ on the idea and what I consider immoral may be just fine for someone else. Then there is the unconscious parameter of cultural norms. I try to avoid it, but what we are taught as children is a powerful tool for comparison.
2. I think I answered this one in the previous question. Ethics, laws, international public policy, religion and cultural norms. I tend to use them all at once.
3. My default setting is amoral. Not all actions have to be either moral or immoral- the world is not black and white. Further, since you didn't distinguish between a person acting and a corporation acting, I have to take into account that corporations are designed to be amoral and operate in the grey area.
4. Moral tends to equal right and immoral tends to equal wrong, but there are also exceptions to that depending on the circumstances. For example, it would be a moral thing to do to stop a child from being beaten by the parent. However, it is not necessarily the "right" thing to do if it is going to result in an escalation (aka child getting it worse later or you getting killed in the process) or if you completely misperceive the incident, it could be completely wrong. Again, gotta love the grey areas that make life interesting.
5. Again, generally yes, but morality is not the end all and be all of action. For example, some Christians believe that it is moral, indeed they are commanded, to spread the news of Jesus (or in other words, convert people to Christianity). While that may be fine in some contexts and to some extent, the Crusades had the same moral backing, and I don't think anyone could say that they were right to pursue that "moral" activity with such vigor.
cont'd...
ReplyDelete6. The answer is a little more clear here. Yes, generally immoral activities should be avoided unless you have a really REALLY good reason for doing them.
7. Morality/Immorality is generally in the eyes of the beholder. Not everyone is brought up to know the difference between right and wrong, and some of the ones who are simply don't care. There is the eternal temptation of what is easy, especially when it comes to money. After all, isn't becoming a millionaire the new American dream? Also, morality/immorality tends to be linked strongly to religion (although that's not the only place you can look for it). So someone who is actively protesting that anyone with a religion is a fool might act immorally to prove a point.
8. Ah, another hard one. The easy answer is the government, or religious leaders. However, I'm not sure I want our government deciding what is right and wrong as they can't seem to come to a consensus on extending paychecks to employees, let alone issues such as morality. Besides, in this country, people should be free for the most part to determine their own code of morality. And since there are many different religions (take pastafarianism for an example), asking religious leaders to define morality for everyone would not be a good idea. I think Congress has a better chance of coming to a consensus than religious leaders.
9. I don't think morality should be legislated unless it is pretty much universal and is necessary to keep an ordered society. So, unless the activity is against the law (or actionable in tort, etc), no one should be able to attach liability to a person either before or after the event. Those who believe in a G-d may believe (as I do) that G-d is the only one who has the authority to punish someone for immoral acts.
10 & 11. See number 9.
Thanks so much for your thoughtful response!!
DeleteWas your friend who you were conversing with also called 'The Savior'?
ReplyDeleteno ..... (?)
Delete