Moral philosophy isn’t too well advanced in some
respects or as equally advanced as other areas of philosophy; the philosophy of
logic for example. The modern world tends to prefer simple formulae or rules
with a virtual algorithmic simplicity, structure and logic for making moral
decisions, and that is improbable and maybe illusory in light of the broad
variety of potential situations to which anyone might wish to apply a moral
template for making a morally correct (or incorrect if from a negative and
malevolent alternative reality) decision.
It has been said that morality is what people and
society actually do. Moral relativism is something of a pejorative fact of mass
social behavior without any sort of transcendent foundation. Many there are
that take the broad road leading to nothingness or worse in eternity. Others
simply believe scripture as inspired and correct thought from God about proper
human behavior and follow that as best they can.
There have been a few simple moral expressions of
genius. One considers the Golden Rule
and Kant’s Categorical Imperative as
tow examples. That kind of moral paradigm for making a moral decision is the
exception; the field might be compared to primitive, pre-electronic sailing in
which dead reckoning was as valuable as sailing maxims and general guideline
and no simple formula for determining what sails to put on, directions to
travel, vector for a heading and so forth could serve as a unified tool.
Building a moral system with technical rigor in the modern era was perhaps
started by British empiricists such as Bentham and Mill who invented the philosophical
method of utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism follows the basic principle of
finding the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In that regard it
is more or less a sort of expansion of the Golden Rule, though it has added in
the problem of sometimes choosing evil to be allowed if the harm to a minority
is far less than the great good done to a majority. An example would be saving
a metropolis of millions from a nuclear blast by destroying the citizens living
in a comparatively small town in order to stop a nuclear missile there from
being launched at the metropolis from a terrorist missile launch truck that had
parked and set up in a Wal-mart parking lot with the launch sequence already
under way. What to do in the circumstance might need to be determined by a
Commander in Chief that had a B-52 loaded with high explosive bombs flying over
the small, sleepy town. Her utilitarian criterion for making a morally valid
choice would probably bring her to order the annihilation of the sleepy little
town for the greater good.
If utilitarianism was the first modern system for
moral philosophy that provided a more detailed technical paradigm for
evaluating moral challenges and responses, the criticisms of utilitarianism
have been of equal value in finding numerous ways wrong moral choices or no
valid moral correct choice could be made with utilitarian criteria.
One derivative of utilitarianism is the currently
popular field of consequentialism whereby one may determine if a choice is
morally correct depending upon the outcome of the moral choice. Obviously there
are innumerable problems with consequentialism that might be found not the
least of which is the somewhat familiar legal problem of determining proximal
causes for events and assigning responsibility to them; the consequences of
moral choices cannot easily be found if the consequences of the moral choice intervention
aren’t the direct cause of subsequent events or if development of circumstances
through causal interactions external to the moral choice have brought a good
outcome. No credit to the maker of a moral decision should be given if a good
outcome was not a consequence of her choice. The Commander that chose to drop
the bomb on the sleepy little town would have made a valid moral choice in
consequentialist criteria if the launch on the metropolis millions was
prevented, yet a bad choice if the missile was not a real missile threat but
some kind of promotion by a radio station for a newd sexy dating service, or if
the B-52’s bombs landed on an oil pipeline that caught fire and sped along
flames and gas explosions to a dozen metropolitan areas down the line. It is
difficult to determine the moral validity of an act by the consequences for the
moral choice is then contingent upon the consequents with retro-causal
responsibility given along the temporal line of time. In effect no moral choice
is made at all and circumstances determine the morality as if it were like the
end-justifies-the-means moral choice system.
Consequentialism has a dark side to it that could
usefully be considered anti-utilitarian as every quantum particle has an
anti-particle. Moral choices that wreak the most evil to the greatest number of
people could be evaluated by the consequent harm. For example; if sending kids
of the U.S.A. back to public school in September causes a third wave of Corona
19 virus in October resulting in deaths of older parents and those with
weakened conditions, that consequence of ordering kids back to school could be
considered a bad moral choice if a moral criterion was used for making the bad
decision, and otherwise just a dumb decision.
Covid 19 challenges have given a lot of politicians
and others the opportunity to make bad decisions. Political managers experience
challenges to innovate ways of keeping business and public health safety
environments healthy simultaneously. Politicians may be unable to meet the
challenges. From some moral viewpoints taking jobs for which one isn’t well
qualified is immoral.
The public
would have benefited from smarter politicians finding more intelligent ways to
keep the economy working and citizens safe from infection in 2020. There was a
profound lack of cleverness and inventiveness in addressing the challenges.
Recently full face masks that cover the eyes as well as filter nose and mouth
been introduced to the market- even small producer-manufacturers in the U.S.A.
and of course Chinese manufacturers via ebay have slowly started sales. Full
face coverings including eyes can be made weatherproof and work in a variety of
business and urban areas with population densities unsuitable for the
undefended. Full face masks fairly effectively defend against covid infection
in public places.
A challenge for creating and building up
functioning moral philosophy to reach an algorithm status of formalization that
can be mass-produced and made into a computer app is necessary reductionism
that must occur in defining/describing the complete complex of compresent
conditions and events. Language and human understanding may have inadequate
comprehension of what was involved in creating a situation asking for moral
intervention; the moral premises may be wrong and a moral choice for an
intervention may bring a wrong conclusion. Faulty or incomplete input processed
with a moral determination algorithm engine can output junk Just as in a
syllogism, if the premises are incorrect the conclusion will be incorrect.
One may of course simplify moral engines in
processing certain data (regarding people as external empirical data) such as
the famous Hell’s Angel’s maxim; ‘Kill
them all and let God sort them out’. Intentionally overly simplistic moral
engine processing criteria can result in undesirable output consequences.
Formulating valid moral questions concerning race
are quite challenging to make exclusive of all races. Race is a physical
characteristic rather than a thought or idea. If one makes the premise that
1) all white people are human
and
2) all black
people are human
then it follows that premise 1 and 2 are equivalent
regarding humanity from a question of morality concerning humans. That is it
would be difficult to make a moral proposition concerning either black or white
people as a questions for humans that wouldn’t mean each group. It is easier to
construct moral questions regarding ideas that lead to actions regardless of
race.
For example, if it is said to be morally wrong for
a black woman to have an abortion then it should be equally valid for women of
any race. The paradigm has something of Kant’s categorical imperative about it.
The same principle should be applicable to race and political economy.
Kant’s
categorical imperative of creating laws that would apply if it were a universal
law is consistent with the idea that it would be more effective to concern
oneself with economic changes to relieve the poor of any race in the United
States as humans instead of searching for ways to change or better the
conditions for particular races that leading to a pursuit of non-rational or
racist legislative remedies.
There is a long way to go in the construction or
even exploration of potential systems of moral philosophy just as there are in
exploring philosophical paradigms for cosmology and in relating physical
cosmological and quantum construction systems to theological points of view
concerning the potential for divine capacity to contain systems of physical
cosmology.
The Lord Jesus Christ provided a moral system
through the example of his own life conduct, the things he said, and in
prophecies of future events concerning the end of the age of mankind instead of
giving a moral formula to calculate the right or wrong of a moral choice made
by a content-less agent existing within an empirical commune of
cipher-individuals. Not just anyone can provide and ontological and
deontological reference system that changes the nature of believers so they can
respond to moral challenges on the basis of character rather than calculation
thus abbreviated empirical algorithms used to justify perhaps innately
conditions moral choices are valued by some.