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

Reply to comment

abhattacha's picture

TOEING THE MORAL LINE

I think that each one of us has a core morality - a set of central attitudes which prescribes/disallows certain ways of thinking , feeling , and acting NO MATTER WHAT .

In addition to this core morality ,  we have , what I can best describe as , a  peripheral morality . We stick to our moral principles - core and peripheral , in most life situations . In crunch situations , however , peripheral morality might be dispensed with , but never core morality .
If I were a member of the ill-fated Uruguayan Rugby team , I would have taken my chances and chosen not to eat my companions . I might have been killed by my friends who did , because compromising with even peripheral morality is painful and the compromiser does not want to be morally flagellated by reminders of his compromise . But a quick death would have been infinitely more preferable than a slow , painful one from revulsion at choosing/resorting to  cannibalism to survive . Cannibalising companions to survive was peripheral morality for them , but core morality for me . I would have eaten something I had found without sharing it with my starving friends - I hate myself for it , but that would have been peripheral morality for me .
Morality is predominantly learnt without either the teachers ( parents/elders/teachers/oneself ) or the taught being aware of it . Morality - core + peripheral , forms moral intuition . It is a kind of emotional grammar which switches on instantly , and subconsciously , in a situation requiring a moral judgment . It is deeply personal . Rationalist decision - making models do not take us very far because they need to account for the infinite variety of individual moral responses , which the individual is not even aware of . He has to think to put his moral stance into words if he has to explain it to himself or to his csem class . 
Does my choice of an ethical dilemma to research involve my core or peripheral morality ? Am I searching for an answer to a question that has already been answered by my moral intuition without my thinking about it ? And if it is so , will I then choose only that data or point of view which is in sync with my answer ? Will I choose to make ex-post-facto explanations of my moral intuitions ? That is the only answer I have at this point in time - I have to CHOOSE .    

Reply

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
3 + 11 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.