Tom,
This sounds similar to virtue ethics, where morality is seen as dispositions to virtuous actions... except your belief is much ramped up. I liked the inclusion of Chinese.
I am in agreement that morality involves the cultivation of positive dispositions and involves developing harmony among at least humans.
But there still are definitely some questions left for you to look into:
1.) Do you think morality is about "ought" statements? What would "ought" mean? In what sense can you say I ought to have dispositions to growth, and not dispositions to destruction?
2.) Do you think morality can be used to guide individual actions? Would it be moral to rob a store? Would it be moral to have an abortion? (I'm sure it varies from situation to situation.)
3.) Should we help grow others if it comes at a cost of stunting our own growth?
4.) Does your morality say anything about interactions with nonhumans, like (nonhuman) animals? What do you think of moral vegetarianism? If not, why would you exclude these animals? (I'm not yet convinced that good moral systems require the inclusion animals.)
RESPONSE
Peter,
Thank you for bring the field of virtue ethics to my attention. I spent some time looking into it, and you are right it is what I am advocating. Ironically, though I am very interested in morality, Western moral philosophy is a sub-field I have little to no experience in. One of the books I am currently reading is called "Elements of Moral Philosophy" I hope it begins to supplement this deficit.
@1.) I do think morality is about "ought" statements. The book I am currently reading states that the accepted basis for moral theory in the West is that morality "is at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by reason- That is, to do what there are the best reason to do while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual who will be affected by what one does."
You ask in what sense you should have a disposition to growth rather than decay. Well, perhaps you, as an individual, should not always have a disposition to growth. But morality is a collective enterprise. It deals with what is best for humans as a group/species, not individuals.
Can you honestly say that there is a question as a species as to whether or not we should try to stop our annihilation? Decay is only considered negative because it makes a structure more susceptible to destruction. Destruction is the end of a system.
I am sure your postulate about "ought" was to target more finite moral details like abortion. However, from my perspective, such details are arbitrary. Abortion is or is not moral depending on the context you are harmonizing within. Beyond this, I believe the base value (such as valuing the preservation of human existence) we can take as teleology. Despite the multitude of cultural variation, every culture protects and promotes the grow of children. There are exceptions to this rule within cultures (where children are discarded), but we cannot forget that these are the exceptions, not the rule. No people completely disregards their children, because without children their culture would not continue. Just as while their are exceptions that call for the destruction/sacrifice of life, the overarching rule, is that human life is valued and cherished.
My argument is as follows:
1.)valuing human existence is teleological.
2.) Because humanity is defined by a specific structure, there is a specific set of objects and actions that promote its growth. (For example, we haven't created an underwater civilization yet, because despite all popular fiction and mythology, the human structure is not designed to live in the water.)
3.) The human structure is fundamentally a social one. It is through relations with other humans that we truly actualize our potential to grow (really don't see how you could argue against this
4.) The duration of coexistence is dependent on a solidarity,a mutual feeling of connectedness by all the consenting parts; or in other words, a harmony.
Thus, As humans we fundamentally value human life, valuing human life we want to promote its growth, the growth of humanity is partially (not solely) dependent on harmony (solidarity).
*There are other components, I will discuss them soon.
2.) Yes, I am saying that morality is essential taking a specefic orientation of action, so of course it could guide human action. The example you have given moves beyond the broad scale of this argument and requires much more contextual information to give an answer. The answer is subjective; however, in general stealing probably contradicts greater harmonization, and thus should be discouraged.
3.)No, this will be part of the next essay on morality I will write. This essay is just to introduce the general idea, but in reality there are a couple huge parts I am leaving out. But to give you a quick answer, no, because of my social self theory.
4.) yes it does, this is yet another essay that I plan to write. To summarize the idea quickly, human survival in addition to depending on human collectivity, depends on the preservation of the environment we have adapted to. It does not matter how well we harmonize if we destroy the context that allows our unique structure to thrive. (i.e a clean water, flora and fauna filled biome). We need plants and animals, and clean water. Extending this logic, the survival of "plants" and species of animals depends on their diversity, so that they too can adjust to environmental shifts. The more we deplete the diversity of our biosphere, the more fragile it becomes; the more fragile it becomes the more likely it will break; If it breaks, the more likely we (human species) will break. Thus, in valuing our own survival, we must value the survival of our environment.
Does that make sense?
No comments:
Post a Comment