Who knew 'being good' was this friggin' difficult!?
Ethics and morality are so intriguing... and sooo frustratingly confusing. How to do good by or for myself, when that action (emotionally) harms someone else? How can that action be considered 'correct'? How can I expect someone else to accept my 'reason' if they've no frame of reference for it? I can look at the situation and draw up random numbers in an attempt to weigh pros and cons, cold, scientific, completely sterile. Or I can ponder the emotions involved, which trumps which... how to fairly parcel out weight according to 'right' self-interest, 'self-righteous' self-interest, and 'entirely selfish' self-interest...? (Is there even a scale for that?)
There's an obvious mix between emotions and rationality, whether or not people want to admit to it. But dealing with, or thinking about a problem strictly one way or the other makes it a easier to figure out (in theory; in reality, you're only figuring out half the problem and wrongly labelling it entirely 'correct'). So both emotions and rationality must be weighed equally (right?), so that all perspectives are considered (right?), and thus a compromised may be reached that makes sure all factors are accounted for, while giving an answer that sways to neither side, but sits squarely in its own solidity.
It's all starting to seem like arbitrary lines in the sand that a few people here and there agree with, while there are others with rakes and brooms trying to demolish this line in favor of that, followed by even more rake-wielders with their agenda, ad nauseum until there's nothing but meaningless lines.
And I can't even ask for advice, because each person is trying to figure out their own stuff...
Maybe this is where the sense of 'community' breaks down... in situations where other people can't help, no matter if they want to, or how much they want to, or don't. What's the sense in turning to someone else if they can't give any answers? Or, the answers given are followed by: "But that's just me... You'll hafta figure it out for yourself..." (I'm not even going to go into details... it'd just turn into another broken record.)
All I can do is ask questions that no one else but me can answer. And I wonder why I feel/have felt alone.
I can barely quantify my own interests and/or preferences... I don't understand how much importance to place on this or that for myself -- so how can I, or anyone, be the judge of anyone else? Even obligation and responsibility becomes fuzzy when considering the interests of one verses the interests of someone else...
How to maximize my own utility when the situation and its aspects are un-quantify-able? (Did I miss a step? Am I simply mis-educated, or lacking in the mental fortitude? ...how would I know?) How to maximize my interests and preferences so that my interests are served, and 'minimal harm' is inflicted? (Of course, being a 'peace keeper' puts a negative connotation on 'harm' and 'selfish', so I'm battling myself while trying to learn to fight for myself...) What principles or rules can I apply that would allow for the decision to be universalized? (Can any decision truly be universalized? ... Could I allow everyone to simply walk away because they feel compelled to do so? Could I allow everyone to chase after someone else because they feel compelled to follow?)
Lifeboats are easy. The circumstances limited, the situation dire, the consequences life or death -- so much easier to understand what to do. Either this or that. But there's no lifeboat here... just me sitting on a rock, on the side of my path. Every step forward brings another barrage of frustrating questions, and frankly... I'm tired. My focus keeps shifting, my energies are buckshot, and nothing's getting done. I ran out of gas for the "Positive Thinking Engine", I smashed my "Negative Thinking Glass", and so I sit in neutral, 'not' listening to the ravings of a mad inner-critic. (....Will I ever know if I go insane?... seriously...)
Aside from massive head injury, does anyone know a way to return to the age of 4 permanently? Life seemed so much easier back then...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Problematizing ethics can lead either to confusion or a newfound appreciation for its complexity (or, more likely, a bit of both).
I assume it's better, if not always more pleasing, to know the true extent of its complexity than not to know it.
Yeah, except for those moments when ignorant bliss seems to be better... (greener grass and all that).
Most days I'm in-love with the complexity of ethics and morality... one of the few things that I could truly lose myself in for an extended period of my life.
But it seems to be the transition between studying ethics to applying them that is the cause of my discontent, my confusion. What's the point of learning something if you're not going to use it??
I try to apply logic to the situation, and I watch for fallacies in my thinking... But the premises aren't as clean cut as the book's examples, and I'm not as well-practiced as I should be to be able to nit-pick, remove the emotive language, find the meat of the statement, find its proper place in the argument form. As always, it's easier to spot someone else's mistake than it is to spot it in yourself. (Or, which mistakes are _really_ mistakes, rather than percieved mistakes.)
I keep re-reading Aristotle's "Nichomachean Ethics", reading History of Virtue Ethics, History of Ethics, Moral Judgement... In all the years that ethics has been studied and pondered and theorized... I keep thinking that there's an answer someplace. (I know there isn't, but I can't help but search that maybe some quote someplace will enlighten me, even if only minutely.)
The problem is that I don't know if I'm asking the right question... can't get the correct answer if the question is wrong.
See, I've never been good at thesis statements. Not even to those essays that are written within.
You write:
"I keep thinking that there's an answer someplace. (I know there isn't, but I can't help but search that maybe some quote someplace will enlighten me, even if only minutely.)"
I believe that there are answers in all areas of philosophy, not in every respect final or definitive, but very good and useful answers. Though skeptical doubts will always remain (and underscore our ubiquitous fallibility), we have good reason to think some theories not merely better than their rivals, but good enough to act on.
dkj
But how do you know if those skeptical doubts are true or false? Simply because of their 'skeptical' nature, they are irrational?
And how can the consequences of 'doing the right thing' not underscore whether the action was truly 'right' or not? Surely, one must remain aware of the consequences in making the choice, this being part of the process of choosing, no? And if the consequences of this choice might bring more harm than another choice, then wouldn't the choice of 'least harm' be 'more correct'?
*Why* don't the consequences of doing the right thing in some way impinge upon the 'right-ness' of that action?
Isn't it by the consequences of our actions that one may truly judge whether one's actions were correct or not?
First off, you missed a good class on Wednesday -- one that touched on the questions you raise here.
You write: "Isn't it by the consequences of our actions that one may truly judge whether one's actions were correct or not?"
That depends on what counts as a consequence. Is it a "consequence" of our actions whether and to what extent they meet the demands of some principle or other (for example, "it's best always to minimize harm to innocent others")?
Is it a "consequence" of our actions that we act for the right reasons, and not simply achieve good ends? If you define consequences broadly enough, they may seem to exhaust morality. But typically, consequences are contrasted with principles, motives, and the like, and so capture but a part of our moral lives.
Oy vay -- the semantics!
Let us define 'consequences', because I think there's a divergence in the connotations.
Two possibilities come to mind right now: 1) Consequences are intended results, and 2) Consequences are unintended results. (I'll admit that this is probably over-simplified...)
If I write a paper, then I work towards a positive consequence -- I intend to write an A paper. However, if by writing this paper I upset my roommate because I'm so wrapped up in the process of writing, this is an unintended consequence -- I did not write the paper _in order to_ irritate my roommate.
However, then I think about how an intention doesn't equal the force of the action. I don't intend for many things to happen, but they do, good intentions or not. It's the action, or the consequence, that I must deal with; my intention is (hopefully) understood, but that does not negate the impact of the action itself.
Then I think of a quote by Gandhi: "By detachment I mean that you must not worry whether the desire result follows from your actions or not, so long as your motive is pure, your means correct... [It] in no way means indifference to the result. In regard to every action we must know the result that is expected to follow, the means thereto, and the capacity for it. He who, being thus equippted, is without desire for the result and is yet wholly engrossed in the due fulfillment of the task before him, is said to have renounced the fruit of his labors" (taken from the introduction to Baghavad Gita'. Trans. and Intro. Eknath Easwaran. New York: Vintage Books, 2000.)
So there's a conflict here: How do motives and actions (and their results) weigh against each other? If equal, then we cannot say that the consequences of an action do not matter, or, rather, should not be the focus...
Again, another middle line? Keep the results in focus, but don't lose sight of everything else in the process?
So, in regards to: "Is it a 'consequence' of our actions that we act for the right reasons, and not simply achieve good ends?"
I don't know. I am having a hard time separating (is it even necessary?) the social context of 'right and wrong' and the moral understanding of what is logically 'right and wrong' -- even if both are inherently fallible, there's a distinct difference between the two.
Socially, I'd be scoffed and laughed at if I didn't, say, snag a bag of money I found lying by the side of the road. (Or, at the very least, laughed at and thought somewhat dim...)
However, I'd be morally inconsistent if I took it. Even if I decidedly gave it all to charity -- that doesn't negate the original taking.
If I act morally correct, and say this same act is socially incorrect (or, shall we say, unaccepted), then this creates conflict in our understanding of 'consequences'.
So, there seems to be two sets of consequences to be dealt with. (Ideally, there wouldn't be.)
((And if all of society were jumping off a cliff, no, I would not join in. But, until that day comes, I hafta figure out how to deal with these people...))
Likewise, I'm also having a hard time reconciling the 'right action' with consequences that beg to call my action otherwise.
If an action is morally correct, but it has bad consequences, then how can it be called correct?
Is this harkening back to consequences being contrasted against moral principles and the like? *Because* the consequences are 'bad' even while the actions are 'good'? Seems like there should be a meeting ground someplace within this...
As always, I shall keep pondering. =-)
Post a Comment