What is the right thing to do? Is it based on some objective morality that is self-evident to all of us? Or is there really such a thing as an objective moral truth?
But even if there is such a thing, can morality at such high level of generality give us any useful guidance for action? What if the ancient maxims conflict with each other, how do we decide which to prioritize or how to modify them so that they're in harmony?
My guts are telling me, and this proposition has become increasingly cogent to me lately, through observations of those around me and my own reflection, that to decide what is the right thing to do cannot be rationally based on general values such as the sanctity of life, fidelity or pacta sunt servanda. It's not that they are self-evident, or intelligible to all human beings, no their moral truth does not rest there or their moral values owe to its self-evident nature or universal intelligibility to all creatures capable of cognition and rational thought.
No, but their moral value and truth can only be rationally justifiable because of the overall benefit that we believe we'll obtain by holding on to these general principles. The most rational view is the consequentialist view. If that is so, can we decide what the right thing to do without resorting to general maxims, but instead assess our options based on their consequences? Would it us to a more justifiable action, free from dogmatic world view?
0 comments:
Post a Comment