stromy
Member
|
I believe that Mill and the more con temporary Singer’s moral guides, summed up as act utilitarianism, are incorrect. My basis behind this is my belief that individuals have morals that are reciprocal. Because of this, individuals have a set of moral guidelines different from that outlined especially by act utilitarianism and also utilitarianism in general. My purpose behind this paper is not just to delve into the idea of reciprocal morals and the ideas behind it, but I also mean to investigate the other moral workings that work in conjunction with my theory.
First off, I disagree with the theory that it is immoral to treat those with whom you have mutual trust with preference to those with whom you do not have such a bond. The above idea is the main principle that alarmed me in regards to utilitarianism. Upon reflection, I found that there were moral standards behind actions that not only allowed one to treat certain groups of people with preference, but these moral standards necessitated acting as such. To be clear, it is possible to act against these morals, but in doing such you risk ostracizing yourself from the rest of society. I call this idea “reciprocal morals.”
Reciprocal morals are based around the idea of reciprocity. Basically, if I do something for you when you are in trouble, later, when I am in trouble, you are obligated, morally, to help me in return. There are underlying factors that cause this idea to be stronger in relation to some people than to others. The more the trust between two parties, the stronger the moral bonds between the two parties. To avoid any misunderstanding, trust, for my purposes, is given in conjunction with the amount of care you have for the other person. This trust is gained through observation and interaction with others. In regards to moral reciprocity, I am more likely to be helped by a friend in a time of need than a person whom I do not know; therefore I should help the friend as it is moral to do so. By doing such, one keeps their promise (be it spoken or unspoken) of reciprocity to their friend. If, on the other hand, I were to help someone with whom I have no bond, I would be breaching the trust of a friend, and therefore disregarding the reciprocity between us. The above action is what leads to being ostracized from society.
The above circumstances deal with a very cut and dry case. In more complex cases, other ideas and practices must be put into play. An example of such a case is this: there are two parties, one with whom you share a mutual trust, and one who is a doctor who is capable of saving many lives. You are only allowed to save one of them and the other one dies. In other words, you like them and know them to be guided by my moral theory. In the above situation, there are more consequences than just letting someone you know or someone you do not know die. If you allow the first party to die, you risk being ostracized for being a liar (because you are undeserving of trust). In contrast, if you let the doctor die, you choose against the choice which assuredly, as taken from the above circumstances, leads to less total utility than would occur if you chose to save the doctor. In act utilitarianism, the choice is obviously to save the doctor, but in my theory the choice is not always to act as such. In fact, the choice is different for different people.
People’s hierarchy of morals cause them to make different choices in circumstances where the choice is not as clear cut as choosing to help someone whom you trust instead of someone whom you do not. A hierarchy of morals is defined as this: everyone has morals that are of differing importance to them. In other words, to one person the idea that murder is wrong may be more important than the idea that stealing is wrong. In a different person, the opposite is true. People’s hierarchies of importance are influenced by their surroundings and as such are not totally the same in any person.
As you may have noted above, I have mentioned utility. In my theory, utility does have its place, but, opposed to utilitarianism, it is not the overriding factor influencing moral decisions.
Bringing everything together, there are three things that influence how people act in a moral situation: moral reciprocity, their hierarchy of morals, and utility. It must be pointed out that these factors all mesh together differently in everyone. As such, according to my theory, no one has the same morals as any other person. The thing that is held in common are the guidelines behind what makes people act according to their morals in any situation.
|
Printable Version
Icon Legend
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread
