The components of a moral choice are incredibly fascinating in their nature. We understand that every human act and thereby potentially moral act (remember, all moral acts are human acts, but not all human acts are moral) can be broken down into three very specific components: the object/action, the intentions, and the circumstances. In their simplest understanding, the object/action is essentially that which is actually done and thereby capable of being judged; the intention is the goal, what one desires to accomplish; and the circumstances are all the non moral components that surround every situation. In and of themselves, circumstances possess no moral quality; however, they have the remarkable ability to both increase accountability/malice/or even corrupt a good act. They are equally powerful and inconsequential simultaneously due to the fact that they are totally dependent on the execution of the action before they can have any influence.
But as we examine these individual components more specifically, we come to realize that they are actually incredibly complex in their essence.
First, the object/action. We begin here because it is the place where all decisions should begin. In other words, it is always the first thing that you look at when preparing quite literally "to act". The reason it is referred to as the object/action is due to the fact that it is, in all actuality, both of those things. It is the action associated with every decision. It is not what one desires to accomplish, but it is what one actually accomplishes, which we understand to be two very different things. And once it has been accomplished, once the action has been carried out, it becomes, definitively, an object. It is isolated in the past, there is no changing it, it is what happened and thus is can be looked at quite simply as an object in time. This quality is also what allows for the object/action to be judged. The action itself can be know with certainty, as can some of the more immediate consequences. It is our ability to "know" it that also allows us to judge it.
However, the doing of the action and the judging of it possess their own degree of complexity. Decisions are not necessarily easy to carry out in all circumstances, and sometimes we are riddled with conflict as to how to approach them. But once we have managed to act, the judgement of said act becomes dependent on another set of variables. Every object/action can be further broken down into three more components: the doer (the one acting), the done (the good that is willed), and the doee (the one acted upon). Sometimes each of the archetypes are one in the same. The doer is also the doee. Sometimes, they are completely separate. The doer and doee are not the same individual. And sometimes they are intricately interwoven. The doer is another doer's doee, while that other doer is the doee of the original doer ;) This happens when relationships, "get complicated".
How each of the individuals are impacted by what is done plays a huge role in determining the moral quality of the act. You see, there is a spectrum of analysis regarding the quality of the object/action. It can be an intrinsically evil act (one that is unable to be made good), it can be an unintended evil (a product of double effect), it can be a neutral act (possessing no good or bad qualities in an of itself) it can be a good act capable of being corrupted, or it can be an intrinsically good act (rare, but still possible to find. Something like authentic love that is incapable of corruption. Or rainbows...) How one proceeds when they encounter an object/action should thus be determined by its intrinsic quality. If it is deemed intrinsically evil, one should simply stop and not proceed. If it is an unintended evil, one must subject it to the requirements of double effect and/or examine it in regard to the notions of formal cooperation in evil (when the evil is desired, thus making it not unintended really...) vs. material cooperation in evil (when the evil isn't desired, but you are still doing something to promote it.) If the unintended evil is thought to be a product of double effect, one must subject it to the following questions: Is it the product of a good act? Or are you doing something bad to accomplish something good? Is the intention good and the unintended evil actually unintended? Are there any other choices? Does the good ultimately outweigh the bad? If it is a neutral act, one must then consider their intentions, and the circumstances. If it is a good act, but potentially subject to corruption, then one must ensure that their intentions and/or the circumstances do not risk the corrupting of said act. (Making babies while married =good, making babies while married and also at a public pool=corrupted good act).
And finally, if an act is intrinsically good, then it should be pursued with unceasing fervor. Ultimately, we should seek to do good and avoid evil.
Regarding the intentions of every human act, this is the area with which we struggle the most. We are very invested in what we want to accomplish, even to the point that we sometimes find it to be more important than what we actually accomplished. In fact, we are even prone to ignore the actual consequences of the object/action while arguing for what we wanted to accomplish, yet didn't. With all of that said, this is what we ultimately know about intentions:
1. We do not always accomplish what we intend to accomplish. Coming to terms with this is essential.
2. We masterfully justify all of our actions, ultimately based on our good intentions; however, good in this case is subjective. Good for you? Good for me? Good for all...
3. Intentions do have the ability to impact accountability, they do not have the ability to impact morality. If you hurt somebody, intending to hurt them or not is quite important when it comes to accountability, it is totally irrelevant when it comes to morality.
4. Intentions can not change the nature of an evil act; however, they can corrupt an otherwise good action.
5. Ultimately, our intentions matter very little when it comes to morality.
Therefore, it is so important for us to shift our focus. What we do matters, what we intend to do matters less. Do good, don't simply intend to do good.
Lastly, circumstances play an interesting side role in this whole conversation of components. Again, in and of themselves, they possess no moral quality. This is important to understand because it tells us a lot about what is actually circumstantial and what is attached to the object/action in every human act. Things like the quality possessed by an individual, because they influence the morality, are intrinsic to the object, not the circumstances. When a person is innocent, their innocence is tied up in their role as the doer or doee. It is not a circumstance. When a person is married, it too is a piece of them as a doer/doee, it is not circumstantial. This is important because it allows us to better determine the morality of an act. Killing an innocent person or sleeping with a married person possesses a different moral quality than killing someone who is trying to kill you, or even sleeping with someone that isn't married yet. Furthermore, when we are determining the action/object in each of these cases, the innocence or marital status of the individuals is a piece of the action/object, not the circumstances. So what can circumstances do? They can increase accountability (or decrease it if they are causing duress) and they can increase malice. Remember pushing the person in the hallway vs. off the cliffs of Mohr....
Thus, we have two decisions when acting as humans (i.e. making decisions):
1. We can proceed with objective ethics. Examine the moral quality of an act, objectively, and then proceed accordingly.
Or...
2. We can proceed with situational ethics (the understanding that the moral quality of an act changes from situation to situation).
Proportionalism: the understanding that every act is morally neutral and good is weighed against bad to determine the moral quality.
Consequentialism: there is no good and bad, simply good and bad consequences. An action is good if one is rewarded, bad if they are "punished" (Sound familiar? First level of moral development... babies...)
Utilitarianism: The moral quality of an act is determined by how useful it is to the doer.
If we insist on proceeding with situational ethics, we become the center of our decision making philosophy. And if we remain at the center, we never evolve morally.
But in the end, we are free, so the question becomes: where does your reason guide you?
No comments:
Post a Comment