Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

Reply to comment

atuttle's picture

A response to a response...

The problem with trying to derive an operational definition for what constitutes a "moral act"is that people do things for a great number of different reasons. In many instances these individuals believe that they are doing the "right thing," either because others in their immediate social environment laud these actions to be good/right/just, etc., or because they themselves believe that they want to do things that are generally right. In both of these cases the individual is fitting her actions into a social framework regardless or whether the locus of judgment is internally or externally derived. Basically, I believe intention is irrelevant to the definition of morality because the action is ultimately judged by the pre-existing standards set by society.

Addressing Emily's second point, I would hesitate to say that any human decision can be defined as completely objective or "rational" because emotions help to set all of our goals. Think back to our example of Spock or AI-- even these seemingly rational beings are emotional on some level. I agree with Emily that rather than claiming to be devoid of emotion, we focus on how our feelings help to compose our moral standards, and how these standards differ between societies.

 

~Alex Tuttle

Haverford '08

Reply

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
6 + 6 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.