Possibility of an objectivistic view point
It is singularly impossible for any observer to have an objectivistic view point. We all construct our set of realities based upon our perception and cognitive reasoning. The point being that the argument both of you put forth are very much subjective and it can be just debated or discussed but cannot be sold, preached or forced upon. It is however possible to have an unbiased and rational view point which is guided by reason and logic. Such a view point even though not objective from purely philosophic angle can however be construed as practical objectivity
Rational Morality
For both emotions and rationality we have only one reference point that is humans. Both are human and are displayed by human beings. What is proposed by the thread originator is a post conventional morality based on a rational approach. Most people never evolve into out of conventional morality which is guided by social dictums of right and wrong. Their never bother to think as to why and prefer always being guided by a set of rules that are socially acceptable and is thus good. Society and religion as an institution however is a product of human thinking and thus is not infallible. Its dictums of right and wrong thus are neither omniscient nor infallible. Morality I believe cannot be emotional it must have rational basis. It is thus not rational to attach and defend these set of rules…more so force them on fellow men as a divine decree.
Where does rational morality leads us ?
The movie I robot has a reference of such rational probabilistic morality. The robot prefers to save one life instead of two because he calculates a higher probability of survival in saving one. (Rational but not emotionally appealing decision). Again it takes over the control because it feels that humans are too emotional conflictive and prone to indulging in self destructive activity. Such a rational morality automatically approves mercy killing for instance a person who is no more productive and is terminally ill need not be pulled along in pain and agony for little more days, again rational but not emotionally appealing decision. In such instances the only guiding principle as I see is that individuals must be conscious about the subjectivity of their morality and thus not expect others to follow or confirm with what they believe. In the same way it must be accepted by a free society in general as long as it does not infringe into freedom and right of an another person
Role of Emotions in morality
It would be foolhardy to deny existence of emotions and their role in human affair. Most decisions are taken by humans under some kind of self serving bias and emotions. A study on effect of mood on reasoning revealed that both positive and negative moods severely hamper the reasoning ability of an individual. An emotional sense of goodness or a feel good factor however cannot be termed as morality. It won’t be at least prudent from a philosophical perspective to leave issues of morality of fluctuations of mood. At the same time it is neither feasible nor appropriate to apply the dictums of rational morality on masses in general. It has to be on a personal basis and may be practiced at own volition by an individual of appropriate intellectual and emotional maturity.
It is singularly impossible for any observer to have an objectivistic view point. We all construct our set of realities based upon our perception and cognitive reasoning. The point being that the argument both of you put forth are very much subjective and it can be just debated or discussed but cannot be sold, preached or forced upon. It is however possible to have an unbiased and rational view point which is guided by reason and logic. Such a view point even though not objective from purely philosophic angle can however be construed as practical objectivity
Rational Morality
For both emotions and rationality we have only one reference point that is humans. Both are human and are displayed by human beings. What is proposed by the thread originator is a post conventional morality based on a rational approach. Most people never evolve into out of conventional morality which is guided by social dictums of right and wrong. Their never bother to think as to why and prefer always being guided by a set of rules that are socially acceptable and is thus good. Society and religion as an institution however is a product of human thinking and thus is not infallible. Its dictums of right and wrong thus are neither omniscient nor infallible. Morality I believe cannot be emotional it must have rational basis. It is thus not rational to attach and defend these set of rules…more so force them on fellow men as a divine decree.
Where does rational morality leads us ?
The movie I robot has a reference of such rational probabilistic morality. The robot prefers to save one life instead of two because he calculates a higher probability of survival in saving one. (Rational but not emotionally appealing decision). Again it takes over the control because it feels that humans are too emotional conflictive and prone to indulging in self destructive activity. Such a rational morality automatically approves mercy killing for instance a person who is no more productive and is terminally ill need not be pulled along in pain and agony for little more days, again rational but not emotionally appealing decision. In such instances the only guiding principle as I see is that individuals must be conscious about the subjectivity of their morality and thus not expect others to follow or confirm with what they believe. In the same way it must be accepted by a free society in general as long as it does not infringe into freedom and right of an another person
Role of Emotions in morality
It would be foolhardy to deny existence of emotions and their role in human affair. Most decisions are taken by humans under some kind of self serving bias and emotions. A study on effect of mood on reasoning revealed that both positive and negative moods severely hamper the reasoning ability of an individual. An emotional sense of goodness or a feel good factor however cannot be termed as morality. It won’t be at least prudent from a philosophical perspective to leave issues of morality of fluctuations of mood. At the same time it is neither feasible nor appropriate to apply the dictums of rational morality on masses in general. It has to be on a personal basis and may be practiced at own volition by an individual of appropriate intellectual and emotional maturity.
No comments:
Post a Comment