When I think about moral behavior a few separate definitions come to my mind. The first idea to pop into my head in the idea of altruistic behavior. This in the biological sense simply means an act or behavior that sacrifices the own good of the altruistic actor in a way that benefits the recipient of the behavior. In this way many behaviors can be classified as moral behaviors, altruistic, varying in their degrees of sacrifice and benefit. Unfortunately, the more that I think about this definition, the less I feel it encompasses all moral behavior. The first thought being why would moral behavior exist at all if it didn't serve some benefit for the user? Looking at this more evolutionary perspective for morality leads me down a road that I will travel later, but for the sake of finding a more abstract morality, perhaps for the moment set aside.
The next definition of morality that enters my mind is it being a set of rules governed by an community to hold people accountable for their actions. In this way I think of morality almost as a legal system. So, if I am to perceive morality as a set of rules governing a particular group of people, by noticing that there are many diverse groups of people I would next propose that this definition makes morality a flexible term. Because of the diversity that we see in cultures today, something that may seem incredibly immoral in one place may not seem that horrible in another. By defining morality in this culturally fluctuating manner we move the definition of moral behavior into the general sentiments of the population from which the judged actor is in. A behavior will receive its judgement by comparing the behavior committed to those set down by the cultural norms of the region. A behavior that is seen to coincide with an immoral deed will be ruled to be immoral, and likewise behaviors that are culturally seen as praiseworthy will be seen as moral. I am skeptical of this account of morality though, possibly because of my naive vision of human behavior, or possibly because of the human universals that I would propose lead people to have more similar views on moral and immoral behaviors than one would think, or for that matter, like to think. Regardless, morality can be defined in these relativistic cultural terms, but in other ways as well.
The final construct for morality that I wish to examine, for the moment, is whether or not it is something that is relative or concrete. Are moral standards something set in stone, or are they judgements based on the events, previous events, etc.. As far as I understand it, I am attempting to display two theories, one of consequentialism and one of an objective moral order. First of the consequentialist thought, this would be the notion that moral actions should be judged according to the outcome that the possible actions would promote. If the consequence is good, then the action is morally praiseworthy, if the consequence is bad, then the action is immoral. Consequentialism, so far as my limited understanding supposes, takes this calculus to be determining factor between moral and immoral behaviors. On the other hand, Moral Universalists try to place an ethical code applicable for all similar situations—that anyone in a particular situation can refer his actions to this moral code to determine if the action is moral or immoral. Extending from this is the idea of Moral Absolutism, the idea that there is a moral code extending beyond situation-specific details. That there is a moral ethic independent of individual complications.
I'm not trying to convince you that I have a complete understanding of these theories. These are just labels that I have found for thoughts about the definition of morality that I have found helpful in determining how to judge moral behaviors. My ultimate goal is get a better grip on what to judge as moral behavior and what to judge as immoral behavior. I will have to ponder these moral theories and decide how to go about pursuing the question of where moral behavior comes from.
No comments:
Post a Comment