Can You Be Moral? (II)
Most people are on the wrong side of the moral coin, so to speak. One face of the coin says "morality is subjective and determined personally or by groups ," and this is the side of the Left. The other side of the same coin says "morality comes solely from God and is conveyed by religion and is independent of what anyone wants or believes or any group wants or believes."
The trouble, of course, is that both sides of the coin are wrong. These two sides come from the same coin, and the coin is wrong, so to speak.
These concepts exclude reality from having any role in morality because both of these positions exclude objectivity. Objectivity says that morality is a set of principles chosen by a person to guide his life properly, and these principles come from the facts of reality. They have to be discovered, not handed to people by some set of religious doctrines or from groups. That discovery requires that humans use their nature as humans for this discovery process. Simply put, human nature requires man use his unique conceptual consciousness to think his way through these discovery and application processes.
The human must match what he internalizes with the demands (facts) of reality, which include his own unique human nature. He must shuttle between the contents of his mind and the facts of reality to work out errors and develop certainty. This is objectivity, and it is open to every human in every locale. This approach aligns humans with reality. The other approaches war with reality by imposing a preset bunch of stuff called "morality" allegedly from unearthly sources, thus unreal sources. The other approach substitutes emotion for independent thinking to reduce morality either to some hedonistic actions or to some herd phenomenon dictated "somehow" by group-think.
Humans have no choice about developing a morality, a term which really is interchangeable with "ethics." Some will argue that ethics is the scientific, philosophical study of morality, and that is true as far as it goes. However, there is no reason to parse these terms into "quibbledoms." What is important is that human nature demands that humans develop a set of principles to guide their lives. No one can escape the demand.
If people do not undertake developing this set, they will uncritically absorb this and that from the culture and develop what most people have today, namely a contradictory and often self-defeating set of principles. At any time, people can undertake the introspective work to straighten this mess out. At any time. It is a function of volition, of electing to do so.
And that process of election, which we can call choice, is key to ethics or morality. Morality, stated philosopher Ayn Rand, is a code of values each of us chooses to determine the purposes and goals of our lives. Without choice, there is no morality. Whatever you MUST DO, i.e., whatever coercion exists, automatically excludes morality. Morality requires choice in the values and actions to attain those values (virtues).
To do the job right and develop a reality-based (rational) code of values, you must use objectivity to make your values and virtues conform to the facts and demands of reality.
There's more, much more. Values, choices, virtues require standards by which to choose and measure.
By the intrinsic approach, you just internalize what religion tells you to do. "YOU" drop out of the equation, as does your choice, because you are told that the alternative to the religious principles is NOTHING. The alternative is CHAOS, Sodom and Gomorrha, Hell on Earth, and mindlessness in the extreme.
By the subjective approach, you either do exclusively whatever you feel like doing as right for you, or you conform to the whims of this or that group. In all cases, emotions run the show. This is the Sodom and Gomorrha the other side warns against. The trouble is, emotions are only end products of thought done earlier by someone. Emotions are psycho-physiological indicators coming from evaluations at lightening speed. And those evaluations come from whatever appropriate or inappropriate thinking anyone has done. At no time are emotions suitable for determining the course of a life. They might be useful to jump out of the way of burning lava rushing at you, but they are completely unsuited to guide your life.
So, what is an objective approach? And just what is this book that you keep mentioning?
In time. In time.
The trouble, of course, is that both sides of the coin are wrong. These two sides come from the same coin, and the coin is wrong, so to speak.
These concepts exclude reality from having any role in morality because both of these positions exclude objectivity. Objectivity says that morality is a set of principles chosen by a person to guide his life properly, and these principles come from the facts of reality. They have to be discovered, not handed to people by some set of religious doctrines or from groups. That discovery requires that humans use their nature as humans for this discovery process. Simply put, human nature requires man use his unique conceptual consciousness to think his way through these discovery and application processes.
The human must match what he internalizes with the demands (facts) of reality, which include his own unique human nature. He must shuttle between the contents of his mind and the facts of reality to work out errors and develop certainty. This is objectivity, and it is open to every human in every locale. This approach aligns humans with reality. The other approaches war with reality by imposing a preset bunch of stuff called "morality" allegedly from unearthly sources, thus unreal sources. The other approach substitutes emotion for independent thinking to reduce morality either to some hedonistic actions or to some herd phenomenon dictated "somehow" by group-think.
Humans have no choice about developing a morality, a term which really is interchangeable with "ethics." Some will argue that ethics is the scientific, philosophical study of morality, and that is true as far as it goes. However, there is no reason to parse these terms into "quibbledoms." What is important is that human nature demands that humans develop a set of principles to guide their lives. No one can escape the demand.
If people do not undertake developing this set, they will uncritically absorb this and that from the culture and develop what most people have today, namely a contradictory and often self-defeating set of principles. At any time, people can undertake the introspective work to straighten this mess out. At any time. It is a function of volition, of electing to do so.
And that process of election, which we can call choice, is key to ethics or morality. Morality, stated philosopher Ayn Rand, is a code of values each of us chooses to determine the purposes and goals of our lives. Without choice, there is no morality. Whatever you MUST DO, i.e., whatever coercion exists, automatically excludes morality. Morality requires choice in the values and actions to attain those values (virtues).
To do the job right and develop a reality-based (rational) code of values, you must use objectivity to make your values and virtues conform to the facts and demands of reality.
There's more, much more. Values, choices, virtues require standards by which to choose and measure.
By the intrinsic approach, you just internalize what religion tells you to do. "YOU" drop out of the equation, as does your choice, because you are told that the alternative to the religious principles is NOTHING. The alternative is CHAOS, Sodom and Gomorrha, Hell on Earth, and mindlessness in the extreme.
By the subjective approach, you either do exclusively whatever you feel like doing as right for you, or you conform to the whims of this or that group. In all cases, emotions run the show. This is the Sodom and Gomorrha the other side warns against. The trouble is, emotions are only end products of thought done earlier by someone. Emotions are psycho-physiological indicators coming from evaluations at lightening speed. And those evaluations come from whatever appropriate or inappropriate thinking anyone has done. At no time are emotions suitable for determining the course of a life. They might be useful to jump out of the way of burning lava rushing at you, but they are completely unsuited to guide your life.
So, what is an objective approach? And just what is this book that you keep mentioning?
In time. In time.
posted by George Mason @ 4/02/2005 09:02:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home