In class this week, we have been discussing the nature and validity of morality. Some define morality as a set of regulations for humanity, given to us by god. Others define morality based upon the context of a culture, which makes morality more subjective. As there are many definitions of morality, we cannot concretely say that one is absolutely correct. We have no way of knowing which god or which culture has the correct definition of morality.
In order to define morality, we have to find a constant or a universal moral truth that applies to all possible circumstances. It seems that all of the interpretations of morality are entirely subjective, so truth cannot be found in the practice of morality. Rather, one must look at the motivation. Though, morals can vary from society to society, what is the motivating factor that causes all people to follow some code of morals? It seems that all moral guidelines are founded upon the intention to stop people from hurting themselves or others. This concept applies to any moral "law" that you can think of. Therefore, it is universal.
How is the perception of bad vs. good created, in regards to hurting oneself or others? Perhaps one cannot prove other people's hurt, but one can definitely prove one's own hurt. In contrast to Aristotle, I think that morals were founded upon man's desire to stop hurting rather than his desire to be happy. Man can feel his own pain and he has an idea as to what causes this pain. Since man assumes that most people will think and feel similarly to himself, he projects that the things that are painful for him will also be painful for others, as well. Man has the ability to reason, and to be able to look at a situation not involving himself and think to himself. "this situation would hurt me if i were in it. The people in this situation must be hurting. Therefore, what is going on is bad." The discrepancy is that people do not always react similarly to the same circumstances. What hurts one man may not hurt another. There is no universal rule claiming that a certain set of actions hurt all people. It seems that the only constant is that morality is based upon keeping individuals from hurting themselves or others. Since we can't possibly know how or what hurts other people, we should not impose our perceptions of morality onto other people. One has the right to live under whatever moral code he or she wishes, as long as he or she is not imposing these regulations onto other people or hurting other people. Despite the fact that one may validly view an action as correct, if it is hurtful to another person one should not act. Acting in a way that hurts other people is similar to imposing your morals onto them. In this situation, you are saying "I know you are hurt by what I am doing, but you shouldn't be".
Thus, it seems that there is a constant concept behind all moral guidelines and this seems to be the true moral guideline: do not hurt yourself or others.
2 comments:
A very strong viewpoint, and one I tend to agree with most of the time. And I'm sure when you talk about minimizing hurt for others you mean the physical as well as emotional, etc.
I am curious to see what you might have to say about people who cannot or do not agree with minimizing the hurt for others. Some examples: vikings and pirates in older times took what they wanted by force. Survival of the fittest and all that. They probably wouldn't mind if people tried to hurt them as long as they were stronger. Or for a more modern example try terrorism. They'd impose their will by saying "do what we say or we'll nuke you."
So although rational people will follow the ideal of not hurting others, where do such outlaws play into the grand scheme of things?
I think that all morality is founded upon preventing hurt, you just have to examine the situations closely. The drive to survive (like pirates looting) is an attempt to avoid the pain of poverty, starvation, isolation, et cetera. In the case of terrorists, they honestly think that they are doing humanity a favor by killing "evil" people...they feel that they are saving humanity from being "hurt" by evil by destroying evil. It seems convoluted, but pretty much any moral situation you can think of is based in preventing pain in either yourself or other people.
I think that in our society people are more strongly motivated by preventing pain in themselves, rather than other people. However, Christian ideals teach that you should put other people before yourself, and Christianity has a strong influence on Western culture. It has created this odd population of people who spout idealistic moral guidelines, but often live in contradiction to their own beliefs. If we all honestly put other people before ourselves like the bible says, then the world would be MUCH different.
maybe morals exist merely to prevent pain in the self?
What do you think?
Post a Comment