Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Are most decisions moral decisions?

Are most decisions moral decisions?

In an attempt to comprehend the nature of ethics/morality one will find a forest of writings but essentially each person must build his or her own model of what ethics/morality means. Somewhere along the way toward becoming an enlightened person regarding this matter we all must settle on that which makes sense for us. That does not mean that we remain static about the matter but it means that we settle on some model that is our personal guide until we decide to change it.

I cannot remember where I read it but is resonates for me; ‘all decisions, wherein there is a choice, are moral decisions’. One may find quibbles to get around this message but the essence of the matter is that for a person seeking to be moral, all judgments from which decisions are derived warrant careful consideration.

Our community and our family mold our moral sense as we grow up. But at some point we must remold that model to fit our adult self. I am an American and my sense of ethics/morality was codified by the Declaration and the Constitution as I grew up and it is what determines, to a large extent, my adult sense in this matter.

The Declaration declares ‘We hold these truths to be self evident, all men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights’. The Constitution sets forth a listing of the rights of all citizens that are to be protected by law. These declarations are part of my heritage and are what I accept as the foundation of my sense of morality.

It appears that the two concepts ‘right’ and ‘good’ form the foundation of any moral system. The ‘good’ is ‘rational desire’ and the ‘right’ has varying meanings. The status of the right seems to be the important variable that determines what one’s ethical/moral model becomes.

I call my model of morality as being a closed system as opposed to an open system. I call my system a closed system because ‘right’ is clearly defined in the Declaration and the Constitution as being prior to the good. That which is right has a fence around it with a big “No Trespassing” sign and is closed to usurpation by the good. A different system could be called an open system when there is no closed area representing rights but that the right is considered as being that which maximizes the good.

I suspect that often we do not have the knowledge and understanding to determine at the time we make our decisions which matters might be immoral, or amoral, as opposed to moral. I think that a moral person needs to have that consideration constantly in mind and thus to form habits that help to keep us on track even though we often act unconsciously. It is all a part of developing character I guess.

This is not to say that we must become fanatical about it. Is flossing a moral act? If I floss or do not floss, does it, in some minute way, affect others? I think so. Is watering my lawn a matter for moral consideration? It might be.

Questions for discussion

Would you say that an act can be a moral or immoral without our being conscious of the matter? Can a sociopath perform an immoral act?

Where do these two concepts, right and good, fit into your model of morality and or ethics? I use the term ethics/morality to mean that the two terms are the same for me.

Assume that some young person reads my OP and is inspired by it to study what morality is all about. Then that person goes on to read a response and s/he sees that the responder ridiculed the OP. This then deflates the idea to study morality. Can the ridicule be considered to have been an amoral act?

Are most decisions moral decisions?

It's impossible to say whether most of our decisions are involved with moral choices, but my guess is that the percentage is probably higher than most people realize.

Will someone be harmed by our act? If the answer is yes, that's a moral decision.
Will someone be endangered by our act? If the answer is yes, that's a moral decision.
Does someone need our help? If the answer is yes, that's a moral decision.
Will an animal suffer unnecessarily because of our act? If yes, that's a moral decision.

Those questions listed result from classifications based on the observations of feelings produced by electro-chemical reactions somewhere in our brains. For example, brain scientists at the National Institutes of Health in Maryland discovered that the pleasure derived from an altruistic act originates in the same, very old part of the brain linked to the pleasure derived from sex and food. So, the question -- Does someone need our help? -- originated as the good feeling we get when we help people. After we we have intentionally harmed someone innocent, we feel guilt or remorse. So, the question -- Will someone be harmed by our act? -- originates from those feelings.

We seem to get those feelings only when we consider specific, unique situations. We don't get them when we ask ourselves questions about moral issues or in trying to make moral rules. When we ask ourselves -- Is it always wrong to kill another human being? -- we feel nothing, probably because we are using the rational part of our brains which would know nothing about morality if not for those feelings.

We need to consider the possibility that our moral decisions should only be made case-by-case, in specific situations, based on feelings. The question to be asked is -- what is the proper role of the rational mind in making moral decisions? I suspect that we will learn to refrain from making moral rules and writing criminal laws so as not to hinder case-by-case judgment based on instincts which have evolved over the ages. Put another way, making moral rules and writing criminal laws is probably just foolish micromanagement.

I think it's a mistake to begin by classifying acts -- killing, stealing, incest, ballroom dancing, kite flying -- and then trying to make rules and laws about them because general rules mislead in the exceptional cases and absolute rules rarely apply.

Would you say that an act can be a moral or immoral without our being conscious of the matter? Can a sociopath perform an immoral act?

Without being conscious of the matter? I think it has been established that sociopaths know the difference between right and wrong. Is that what you mean?

When a child does not realize the harm that might result from his act, there is no intent to harm. Our instincts tell us that intent is needed to make it a wrongful act.

Where do these two concepts, right and good, fit into your model of morality and or ethics? I use the term ethics/morality to mean that the two terms are the same for me.

I don't try to define terms like right and good. My model is a simple one (I gave you most of it in answering your first question).

Assume that some young person reads my OP and is inspired by it to study what morality is all about. Then that person goes on to read a response and s/he sees that the responder ridiculed the OP. This then deflates the idea to study morality. Can the ridicule be considered to have been an amoral act?

If I were to ridicule your effort here, it would be an insult. I'd be doing you harm. So, it would be an immoral act, a common, minor one on Internet boards, but still immoral. However, I would not be responsible for the unforeseeable consequences to others. I can't think of any way that ridicule might be amoral.

Humor is a very powerful tool. I often watch a TV show where ridicule is used to denegrate some possible legislation. I would say that ridicule has often either a moral and an immoral impact. In fact people are more easily influenced to oppose or support important legislation by sarcasim than they are by reasoned argumentation.

Sorry I wrote this before I recognized that you said amoral rather than immoral. Guess we agree on this matter.