Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2021 10:08 am
Personal judgments and decisions made by individuals [in real life or from thought experiments] related to moral elements are not Morality Per se.
These are subjective opinions and beliefs of the individual[s] and they are not moral facts.
Examples of judgments and decisions claimed to be related to morality are those casuistry cases, e.g. the Trolley Problems that question whether it is immoral or moral to kill one fat person instead of 10 on a rail line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
To based 'morality' on judgments and decisions that are supposedly 'moral' is not practical at all. It is impossible for every person to pause to think or argue out a judgement and decision in most cases where a choice of action is required, especially in a short instance.
In addition, human life is so complex that one cannot think of and practice all possible 'moral' situations.
If one make a personal judgment, say, abortion is not morally wrong based on one's strong reason, that is not a moral fact and not morality per se.
It is a fact one made a judgment about abortion, but what is judged 'abortion is not morally wrong' is not a moral fact.
Most will agree the above a subjective opinion or belief.
Since personal judgments and decisions are not morality per se, we need to define what is morality.
Here is a definition of morality in general, [there are more refined definition than the one below].
This is why, whatever the body of standard and principles, they must be derived from moral facts that are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system.
Case Study:
The implementation of the moral standard based on moral fact [e.g. no abortion allowed] as a guide thus set an objective of ZERO Abortion.
With a standard on hand, there are so many fool proof [other than dictatorial] strategies to strive towards the ideal of ZERO Abortion that humanity can generate and implement.
Therefore personal [or group] judgments and decisions related to moral elements are not moral facts, not morality per se, they are merely personal opinions and beliefs - thus not objective.
What is morality per se is related to the establishment of a moral framework and system [FSK] with justified moral facts as moral standards which are justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK - thus morality in this sense is objective.
Caveat lector: What is proposed above is merely a theory [for this Ethical Theory section] thus cannot be implemented effectively at present. However I am optimistic the above theory can be implemented in the future perhaps >50 years or later.
These are subjective opinions and beliefs of the individual[s] and they are not moral facts.
Examples of judgments and decisions claimed to be related to morality are those casuistry cases, e.g. the Trolley Problems that question whether it is immoral or moral to kill one fat person instead of 10 on a rail line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
To based 'morality' on judgments and decisions that are supposedly 'moral' is not practical at all. It is impossible for every person to pause to think or argue out a judgement and decision in most cases where a choice of action is required, especially in a short instance.
In addition, human life is so complex that one cannot think of and practice all possible 'moral' situations.
If one make a personal judgment, say, abortion is not morally wrong based on one's strong reason, that is not a moral fact and not morality per se.
It is a fact one made a judgment about abortion, but what is judged 'abortion is not morally wrong' is not a moral fact.
Most will agree the above a subjective opinion or belief.
Since personal judgments and decisions are not morality per se, we need to define what is morality.
Here is a definition of morality in general, [there are more refined definition than the one below].
The central issue with morality is thus how can the body of standard or principles be objective rather than arbitrarily selected by humans or delivered from a God.Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1]
Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]
Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
This is why, whatever the body of standard and principles, they must be derived from moral facts that are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system.
Case Study:
- On the subject of abortion and the moral fact,
what is the related moral fact is this oughtness, i.e.
"no human ought to abort the unborn [human*]"
* only applicable to humans and to not non-humans.
Now the above oughtness can only be a moral fact when it is verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system.
Thus the moral fact is objective, i.e. independent of an individual's opinion and beliefs regardless of how strong the reason the individual has.
Every fact is that claimed to be a moral fact must be individually verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system.
To justify no-abortion as a moral fact is a bit more complicated.
- What I have justified quite sufficiently as a moral fact is the following;
"no human ought to murder* humans"
as a Justified True Moral Fact within a moral framework and system.
* or killing in other instances.
The implementation of the moral standard based on moral fact [e.g. no abortion allowed] as a guide thus set an objective of ZERO Abortion.
With a standard on hand, there are so many fool proof [other than dictatorial] strategies to strive towards the ideal of ZERO Abortion that humanity can generate and implement.
- For example instead of fire-fighting the issue of abortion why not tackle to root of the problem, i.e. the inability of humans in controlling their sexual lusts that lead to unplanned conceptions.
There may be other issue besides the problem of sexual lusts, regardless, we need to resolve them at the root level rather resorting to abortion on demand.
Therefore personal [or group] judgments and decisions related to moral elements are not moral facts, not morality per se, they are merely personal opinions and beliefs - thus not objective.
What is morality per se is related to the establishment of a moral framework and system [FSK] with justified moral facts as moral standards which are justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK - thus morality in this sense is objective.
Caveat lector: What is proposed above is merely a theory [for this Ethical Theory section] thus cannot be implemented effectively at present. However I am optimistic the above theory can be implemented in the future perhaps >50 years or later.