Moral Framework

In an earlier post I blogged about what makes something wrong. I tried to focus on the role of harm. I posed the question, "Is there anything wrong that doesn't include harm?"

I would like to revisit the idea of morality. What makes things right or wrong? More specifically, how much of a role do specific circumstances play in our personal definition of morality? Are we rigid with our standards or do our moral principles vary widely depending on particular factors? Also, what factors are these principles dependent on? How wide do our principles vary as well?

In Do You Think What You Think You Think? by Julian Baggini and Jeremy Stangroom, four factors are presented including: "Geographical Distance," "Family Relatedness," "Acts and Omissions" and "Scale." I found it interesting to play their "Morality Play" and see which factors I was more rigid within or displayed a wider variance. It was not about being right or wrong, but measuring your framework and consistency.

"Geographical Distance" provided several examples in which proximity would play a role in their choice. Are you more morally obligated to help a homeless man in your town or one in another country? I tend to believe if I am going to help the homeless, I would probably help the one in my hometown only due to ease not to a higher moral responsibility. In my mind the guy in India deserves just as much help from me, I just can't do it as easily. I am more rigid here as I would determine the morality separate from distance. One's closeness to me in proximity terms means very little. Of course, this is with the assumption you would consider yourself morally obligated to help in the first place. Many people may feel you have no particular obligation other than to yourself and your children or partner.

"Family Relatedness" refers to a situation where you would be more morally obligated to help someone in your family over a stranger. They provided numerous examples but basically I find myself feeling like family does matter. This is where I find more variance. I could see myself modifying my moral framework in favor of a family member based on blood loyalty.

"Acts and Omissions" is in regard to the difference between committing an immoral act versus not doing something to avoid the same negative outcome even if you didn't create the outcome yourself and assuming you had the power to avoid it. Baggini and Stangroom use the example of poisoning a drink versus not stopping someone from drinking a poisoned drink when you could have. Are omissions just as bad as the acts? Are you just as much to blame as the one who poisoned it because you did not stop it? And does the severity of the act matter to you? In the case of poison I have to think it is immoral to not say something. But what if it was just somebody getting teased without any fatal or debilitating results?

Finally, "Scale" refers to situation of number. Is it more moral or more immoral if more people are involved? Is 100 lives more important than 10 or 1? Every life is important right? But if you could save 1000 people as a result of sacraficing 1 or 10 or 100, is it moral? Or is it immoral to NOT save those 1000 in order to avoid sacarficing the innocent 1, 10 or 100? That is a tough one isn't it?

Once again, morality is not a black and white discussion. Everybody has their own judgements and reasoning for their framework and principles. As Baggini and Stangroom state in Do You Think What You Think You Think, "On the one hand, we can't just go around making ad hoc adjustments to moral principles to suit ourselves. On the other hand, we cannot fail to take into account the differing circumstances in which moral judgements come into play." (Baggini and Stangroom, 120)

I plan to be more specific in the future with my "morality" blogs using particular topics to discuss these questions such as euthanasia, abortion, homosexuality, killing in war, beating up bullies, etc. Touchy stuff and a slippery slope I may decide to pass on by the time I get there.