I do not believe in a supreme being, nor in any other superhuman moral truth. However that does not mean that morality is a matter of personal opinion. I think that morality is ingrained in all human animals, and that most of us share basic moral instincts. These moral instincts are useful for the welfare of human society, and contribute to the survival and procreation of individuals within the society. It is therefore possible to asses the moral correctness of an intuition, according to the consequences that follow from acting on it. If the act contributes to the welfare of society, it is good, and therefore morally right. Since these intuitions evolved over millions of years, not all intuitions will serve society's interests, and we should try to use reason to validate their moral utility.
Although the paragraph above would seem to make me a consequentialist (1), I am not always willing to accept the practical implications of this philosophical approach. Too often, these implications will conflict with my moral intuitions. These contradictions are mostly associated with two issues.
- The value I place on the welfare of others diminishes, as their biological distance from me increases.
- I will hesitate (not necessarily refrain), from causing harm to others through direct action, even if it is for the greater good.
I highly doubt that any philosophical theory can eliminate all moral contradictions.
In the absence of God and a comprehensive moral theory, I feel justified, capable, and most of the time comfortable, in making my own moral decisions.
Notes:
1. Consequentialism: An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable.
you may be right that morality is somehow ingrained in our DNA - further research is needed. If so, then most religions are simply a a cultural manifestation and expression of what is already in our biology
ReplyDeleteDoron
DeleteYes. That is my opinion on religion. What else could it be? A divine truth? And if so, how did the divinity choose these truths? If we are looking for the source of morality, and reasons to be moral, we have to look elsewhere. Though religion can sometimes inspire us to be moral, at other times it leads us astray, as when it condemns homosexuality.
I'm a bit confused by this question and answer. First the question "give your view of morality" as if everyone know and agrees to same definition of morality. Second, in your answer, you mention "moral instincts". Aren't instincts just instincts? Our instincts tell us to group together in order to benefit our own survival, this in turn benefits society. Does that make us moral?
ReplyDeleteI am probably missing at least one point :)
For the record, my view on morality is that it doesn't exist. It's a completely fabricated concept like "right" and "wrong" . Having said that, your view of "morality" is probably a good way to explain something that doesn't exist.
Ofer.
DeleteYou don't sound confused. You hit many points that philosophers have been debating for generations.
Even In the absence of an exact definition for morality, I think we all have a feeling that some acts are right and others are wrong. Probably no two people will exactly agree on which acts are right and wrong.
Yes, at the bottom of all instincts is the need to survive and procreate. Moral instincts are those that are directed towards our relationship with others.
Does acting on these instincts make us moral? Kant would say "No!". I say, that assuming the instincts withstands the test of reason, the answer is yes.
Does morality (right and wrong) exist as an objective entity? This is another philosophical question. It is too deep for me. However, if it does not exist, does that mean that morality is a matter of personal opinion? Like taste, which can only be described but not really debated?
I have a problem with your definition of Moral action. It relies on a clear definition of favorable results. This is not obvious, as you sum up the good and the bad results, and give them your subjective weights.
ReplyDeletefor example- Would it be moral to limit the medical help to the old and to divert the resources to the young and poor?
You are absolutely right, moral accounting is hard and prone to errors. What would you propose as an alternative?
DeleteI suggest that in the evaluation process, we give much higher weight to outcomes with larger difficulties. This will prevent us from killing one person for the benefit of the group.
ReplyDeleteI did not mean to imply that good and bad are binary. They lie on a continuum. That adds to the undeniable difficulty of doing moral accounting.
Delete