How Morality Works
I think morality works essentially in the following way:
Firstly, we have certain reactions to phenomena, negative or positive. This is the basis of "good" and "bad". I think the negative responses are more likely to be universal than the positive ones, because we have more evolutionary incentive to avoid bad things than chase particular good things (I could be wrong about that, but it's a guess).
Secondly, actions can result in phenomena that we either react positively or negatively towards. Those actions that result in negative phenomena (i.e. we feel negatively towards the result), we feel they are bad. Those actions that result in positive phenomena, we feel they are good. In other words, our basis for moral reasoning/justification is: if the action results in a negative phenomenon, it was bad, and the inverse for good. This sounds simplistic at the moment, but we'll see why morality is fucked up in a minute.
We grow to learn what actions result in what kinds of phenomena, generally speaking, but this is simply our propensity to seek out and learn patterns. What comes next is what fucks morality up and causes us to have divergent moral systems.
We, thirdly, have the ability to downplay or augment our feelings in response to certain phenomena. We can downplay negative feelings and augment positive ones. So, for example, it may take 3 actions for some target-phenomenon P to be achieved. Those actions will also have collateral-phenomena. So, say, action 1 (A1) results in collateral-phenomenon 1 (CP1), CP2, P. Say A2 results in CP3, CP4, and P. And finally say A3 results in CP5, CP6, and P. Now, if CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, and CP6 are all examples of negative phenomena, one might be tempted to think that we would consider A1, A2, and A3 to be bad, and P to be not worth it. But if P is positive and we augment the positivity of that tenfold, and we downplay the negativity of all the collateral-phenomena twenty-fold, then we suddenly have moral justification for our actions. Even though A1, A2, and A3 resulted in numerous bad things, it also resulted in one massively augmented good thing (P).
However, in some other societies, it may be that they downplay and augment differently. Perhaps they do not augment the collateral-phenomena as much, or the negativity of some of them are in fact augmented -- then that society may consider the actions bad, where the society we were originally considering considered them good. Thus we have an explanation for the pluralism of societies.
If I get into any masters courses in philosophy, I intend to study stuff like this a little more deeply, so I just wanted to jot down this original idea I had with my girlfriend of the time, so as not forget it.
(P.S. -- mostly directed at a future me who is bound to get hastily embarrassed at the use of the words "original idea" -- I'm not so deluded as to think this hasn't been thought of in some capacity, or that there aren't criticisms of it. I haven't looked into it further at all at this point; I'm just noting it down so that I can do that later, if I get into a masters course. I hope you have, future me).
Firstly, we have certain reactions to phenomena, negative or positive. This is the basis of "good" and "bad". I think the negative responses are more likely to be universal than the positive ones, because we have more evolutionary incentive to avoid bad things than chase particular good things (I could be wrong about that, but it's a guess).
Secondly, actions can result in phenomena that we either react positively or negatively towards. Those actions that result in negative phenomena (i.e. we feel negatively towards the result), we feel they are bad. Those actions that result in positive phenomena, we feel they are good. In other words, our basis for moral reasoning/justification is: if the action results in a negative phenomenon, it was bad, and the inverse for good. This sounds simplistic at the moment, but we'll see why morality is fucked up in a minute.
We grow to learn what actions result in what kinds of phenomena, generally speaking, but this is simply our propensity to seek out and learn patterns. What comes next is what fucks morality up and causes us to have divergent moral systems.
We, thirdly, have the ability to downplay or augment our feelings in response to certain phenomena. We can downplay negative feelings and augment positive ones. So, for example, it may take 3 actions for some target-phenomenon P to be achieved. Those actions will also have collateral-phenomena. So, say, action 1 (A1) results in collateral-phenomenon 1 (CP1), CP2, P. Say A2 results in CP3, CP4, and P. And finally say A3 results in CP5, CP6, and P. Now, if CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, and CP6 are all examples of negative phenomena, one might be tempted to think that we would consider A1, A2, and A3 to be bad, and P to be not worth it. But if P is positive and we augment the positivity of that tenfold, and we downplay the negativity of all the collateral-phenomena twenty-fold, then we suddenly have moral justification for our actions. Even though A1, A2, and A3 resulted in numerous bad things, it also resulted in one massively augmented good thing (P).
However, in some other societies, it may be that they downplay and augment differently. Perhaps they do not augment the collateral-phenomena as much, or the negativity of some of them are in fact augmented -- then that society may consider the actions bad, where the society we were originally considering considered them good. Thus we have an explanation for the pluralism of societies.
If I get into any masters courses in philosophy, I intend to study stuff like this a little more deeply, so I just wanted to jot down this original idea I had with my girlfriend of the time, so as not forget it.
(P.S. -- mostly directed at a future me who is bound to get hastily embarrassed at the use of the words "original idea" -- I'm not so deluded as to think this hasn't been thought of in some capacity, or that there aren't criticisms of it. I haven't looked into it further at all at this point; I'm just noting it down so that I can do that later, if I get into a masters course. I hope you have, future me).
Comments
Post a Comment