Moral reasoning

[Blues Man]

Moral reasoning falls into, for the most part, two categories.

Consequential and Categorical

Consequential moral reasoning can be illustrated by being forced to choose one of the horns of a dilemma. For example, you are driving a train and the breaks fail. You are rapidly approaching a fork in the tracks and you have the choice to go left and kill 5 people or to go right and kill one.

Most people I know would say it's still a terrible outcome but it's better to kill one person than five. So the moral reasoning is based on the consequence of your actions.

Categorical moral reasoning is the idea that some things are never justifiable regardless of the outcomes because the act is always wrong. Using the train example again. If you were standing on a bridge over the tracks with another person and you realize you could save six lives by pushing that person over the side and onto the tracks but saving the six people doesn't matter because intentionally killing is always wrong no matter the outcome.

In both cases the choice is yours to save more lives than not but one is acceptable and the other is reprehensible.

Does this illustrate a conflict in our concept of morality?

 

[Crepitus]

A. You missed the whole point of the supposed conundrum you picked.

B. Morals are wholly situational, entirely dependent on the society you live in.

 

[Blues Man]

A. You missed the whole point of the supposed conundrum you picked.

B. Morals are wholly situational, entirely dependent on the society you live in.

There are those here who deny moral relativism and say that an objective standard of morality exists.

So what in the society we live in would you say about the OP? It's really the only yardstick we have anyway.

I think that using a hypothetical dilemma is a valid way of distinguishing the differing viewpoints on morality.

 

[rampart]

a utilitarian might decide based on "greatest good for greatest number."

the more conservative course would be to steer the train in the direction of maximum global profits, and if no billionaires are harmed, who is counting the plebes?

 

[Crepitus]

There are those here who deny moral relativism and say that an objective standard of morality exists.

So what in the society we live in would you say about the OP? It's really the only yardstick we have anyway.

I think that using a hypothetical dilemma is a valid way of distinguishing the differing viewpoints on morality.

The story you used in the OP is supposed to be a quandary because the "one" is a friend or loved one and the others are strangers. It's not a difficult choice if you don't know any of them. You save the most you can.

If that's my friend on the single end then the rest are SOL.

 

[Dadoalex]

Moral reasoning falls into, for the most part, two categories.

Consequential and Categorical

Consequential moral reasoning can be illustrated by being forced to choose one of the horns of a dilemma. For example, you are driving a train and the breaks fail. You are rapidly approaching a fork in the tracks and you have the choice to go left and kill 5 people or to go right and kill one.

Most people I know would say it's still a terrible outcome but it's better to kill one person than five. So the moral reasoning is based on the consequence of your actions.

Categorical moral reasoning is the idea that some things are never justifiable regardless of the outcomes because the act is always wrong. Using the train example again. If you were standing on a bridge over the tracks with another person and you realize you could save six lives by pushing that person over the side and onto the tracks but saving the six people doesn't matter because intentionally killing is always wrong no matter the outcome.

In both cases the choice is yours to save more lives than not but one is acceptable and the other is reprehensible.

Does this illustrate a conflict in our concept of morality?

Morality is not what you choose to do when faced with impossible choices.

Morality is how you live your life every day when the choices are not so dramatic.

When you see a wrong do you say something or remain quiet?
When the cashier mistakenly gives you $10.15 in change instead of $1.15 do you speak up or keep the $10?

It is the morality of your everyday existence that will guide your choices when the really hard ties come.

 

[Blues Man]

The story you used in the OP is supposed to be a quandary because the "one" is a friend or loved one and the others are strangers. It's not a difficult choice if you don't know any of them. You save the most you can.

If that's my friend on the single end then the rest are SOL.

I never said anything about a friend or loved one that's your assumption. But let's say you don't know any of the people at all.

If you're driving the train do you make the choice to save one or five

If you are on the bridge do you make the choice to kill one to save six

 

[Vastator]

Moral reasoning falls into, for the most part, two categories.

Consequential and Categorical

Consequential moral reasoning can be illustrated by being forced to choose one of the horns of a dilemma. For example, you are driving a train and the breaks fail. You are rapidly approaching a fork in the tracks and you have the choice to go left and kill 5 people or to go right and kill one.

Most people I know would say it's still a terrible outcome but it's better to kill one person than five. So the moral reasoning is based on the consequence of your actions.

Categorical moral reasoning is the idea that some things are never justifiable regardless of the outcomes because the act is always wrong. Using the train example again. If you were standing on a bridge over the tracks with another person and you realize you could save six lives by pushing that person over the side and onto the tracks but saving the six people doesn't matter because intentionally killing is always wrong no matter the outcome.

In both cases the choice is yours to save more lives than not but one is acceptable and the other is reprehensible.

Does this illustrate a conflict in our concept of morality?

Wrong. Intentionally killing is perfectly fine in certain instances. Defense of self being a prime example.

 

[Blues Man]

Morality is not what you choose to do when faced with impossible choices.

Morality is how you live your life every day when the choices are not so dramatic.

When you see a wrong do you say something or remain quiet?
When the cashier mistakenly gives you $10.15 in change instead of $1.15 do you speak up or keep the $10?

It is the morality of your everyday existence that will guide your choices when the really hard ties come.

Of course it is.

What else are you basing your choice on?

As I said this is a hypothetical example made to force people to think of the reasons for the answers they give.

 

[Blues Man]

Wrong. Intentionally killing is perfectly fine in certain instances. Defense of self being a prime example.

So you are more of a consequential moral thinker. If you're going to die you will kill but what if as in the examples you are not going to die?

 

[Crepitus]

I never said anything about a friend or loved one that's your assumption.

I know you didn't, but that's what makes it a moral problem.

As I already posted, if they're all strangers I save the most I can, if that's my friend on the single side then the rest better kiss their collective ass goodbye.

 

[Grumblenuts]

a utilitarian might decide based on "greatest good for greatest number."

the more conservative course would be to steer the train in the direction of maximum global profits, and if no billionaires are harmed, who is counting the plebes?

Indeed. Utilitarianism vs. Hedonism. Socialism vs. Gluttony. Like an "innocent child," Midas chose immediate, personal gratification over consideration of potentially horrible, long term or social consequence every time.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

 

[Blues Man]

View attachment 846084

Stage 6 assumes that there is a universal code of ethics.

I don't think there is.

The idea of some universal objective set of morals and ethics is part of the is/ ought argument.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Stage 7: Jim Jordan kills everyone.

 

[Blues Man]

a utilitarian might decide based on "greatest good for greatest number."

the more conservative course would be to steer the train in the direction of maximum global profits, and if no billionaires are harmed, who is counting the plebes?

The inherent problem with utilitarianism is that everything must be broken down into a cost/benefit analysis where the ends justify the means.