What makes a question a moral question PDF

Preview

Summary

Download What makes a question a moral question PDF

Description

What makes a question a moral question?

This essay will focus initially on trying to explore some common questions that may be seen as being moral. I hope to find a common theme that will possibly lead to a coherent ideology in showing what makes a question a moral one. On face value, my personal thoughts are that it is not so much the question, as the values behind the question that define the moral value of it. Hopefully I will be able to explore the idea of what is involved with a morally based question, and will work along the lines of simply defining a moral question as a question that involves morals…

I suppose the first thing that needs to be done is to examine what it is that will separate a question of morality apart from a question of other natures. The Oxford English dictionary explains the term ‘moral’ to mean:

“concerned with the goodness or badness of human character or behaviour or with the distinction between right and wrong”

Therefore, one would assume a moral question would simply be a question that is concerned with the above definition. This is very neat and concise, but is, in my opinion, not clear enough. A moral question will involve that situation, but not exclusively. However, morality is not so clear-cut as to be neatly divided. A question of morality for me, may be a meaningless proposition to you, such is the subjective nature of morality.

A moral question will generally be less of a direct interrogative, and more of an appeal to the emotive side of a person. It is difficult for a moral question to be answerable in any sense other than the loosest, we might say ‘Is killing wrong?’, only

to be presented with a list of social situations in which it both is, and isn’t. Let’s take the example of a British soldier fighting for his life against enemy soldiers in Afghanistan, now he may be wholly entitled to kill to defend the lives of his comrades, and the values of his culture. If that same soldier kills a person in a pub car park, which is counted as territory belonging to a gang, it will be a different legal and moral situation, even if he is still trying to protect the lives of his comrades and values of his culture. Morality is a very specific, yet oddly subjective experience. In the example of the soldier/gang member, the same act takes place i.e. A person dies as a result of someone protecting what they believe in, the issue is more to do with context. In this case, the intent is the same, the person is killing to protect something of value to them, and the only difference seems to be the legality of the act. So a moral question is perhaps implicitly concerned with challenges on acts that would be considered socially acceptable.

With regards to the definition of morality, the soldier/gang member’s example uses the same question, but has opposing answers. Putting aside anti-war sentiment, which is again a moral issue, we would be justified, at least legally, to say the soldier did the right thing in killing a hostile aggressor. However, the same soldier would be facing a prison sentence after committing a similar act away from the context of a war. So the definition of a moral question merely being one concerned with right and wrong is already clouded. A moral question would seem to be one in which either answer is viable, but the aforementioned answer may have different social ramifications.

If asked, ‘Is a Megagon a 1 million sided shape?’ I can know, or at least Google it, that a Megagon is a 1 million sided shape, even though I have never encountered one, and even if I did, I would not be able to comprehend it properly with my senses, but at least I know by definition that it is a correct and factual answer. However, if

asked ‘Is it right to give money to charity?’, I can’t give an entirely definable answer. There will be many situations in which it is probably justified, and others in which it isn’t. A person who has little money for themselves would probably feel that they are more deserving themselves, where a person with enough expendable income may be undecided as to which charity to donate to. The question then has to take on a sub-clause to remain morally relevant. From a financial point of view, you could argue that if it is fiscally plausible, then there is no reason to withhold charitable giving, and thusly, if it is not financially viable, it would be right to not donate, although Nigel Dower, in his paper ‘World Poverty’ would argue that there is no cut off point of financial viability until you hit a similar financial level to the recipients of your charity. Again though, this merely clouds the issue, it is not the case that we can reasonably say either yes or no, there will always be contingent factors.

So far, a moral question would seem to be a question that deals with not so much there being a correct answer, but merely an exploration of the possibility of a consensual answer. Ironically, it is the need for a objectivity that hones our sense of subjectivity, that is to say, a moral question requires us to look to our own idea to create an acceptable on for all. It is commonly understood that morality can only occur within a society, if we live solipsistically, there need be no moral code. However, that doesn’t preclude us from asking introspective moral questions, such as ‘Should I eat meat?’. This question is interesting, as it does regard the conduct of people, but only in the regard of affecting themselves. Morality is given as a code of guidance as to human behaviour, but normally only in the sense of an action having implications on another person. This particular question doesn’t have an objectively true answer, but does have subjectively true answers, in a manner similar to most moral questions.

In the case of the question of meat, I would say it couldn’t always count as a moral question, as morality can only exist in a society, and the question of eating meat is an issue of individual self-governance. It is a completely personal choice within our society. The difference being that a moral choice would bring judgement from others, with socio-political implication, where a lifestyle choice has no major ramifications. In a society of Hinduism, or Buddhism, the eating of meat would cause these ramifications to occur, and so it would, in that cultural setting, become a moral issue. Again, this adds to the complexity of discovering the definition of a moral question.

To try and take another example of a ‘moral’ question, so as to see if there is a common theme ‘Should we physically discipline children’. This would seem a straightforward enough question, either a yes or a no. But, there is the complication as to whether or not everybody’s opinion on this is relevant. For people who haven’t got children, can their judgement be considered valid? In this instance, the issue will not be relevant to the entirety of a society on a subjective level. I think this would make it a moral question, but only insofar as people who have the responsibility of disciplining children, or are children themselves. To others, it is merely a statement of preference. I cannot claim to know whether or not I should be allowed to strike a child unless I will realistically be in that position. It may seem to me to be wrong, but my judgement is impaired by not being in that situation. Thus, we make laws as a society to ensure we do not have to wait until a situation arises to know the socially appropriate response.

A moral question would seem to be similar to a rhetorical question, or an anacoenosis; in that we already have a preconception on what we think the answer should or will be. We are inviting the persons questioned to share in, and judge, an issue in which we will hopefully have a shared interest. When asked if, say, ‘Is Euthanasia wrong?’, I will already have in my mind an opinion, I believe it is inherent

in my humanity to have a standpoint on such an issue. Thus, I am not really looking for an answer, more of an opinion. Unlike a rhetorical question, however, the answer is not apparent. From an emotivist standpoint, merely phrasing the question as I did is appealing to my audience’s prejudices, perhaps it should be phrased ‘Should Euthanasia be legalised?’ so as to avoid too much bias.

So far, the only common theme appears to be the fact that all moral questions supply a proposition that is not empirically provable, or disprovable for that matter. Morality would appear to be little more than an expression of preference. Therefore, moral questions would appear to be a pointless venture in any sense other than to help us justify a decision that is already made one way or the other. However, this pointlessness is tempered by our society, and changing cultural norms, without this constant challenging of established laws and values, we will not be able to adapt to new social conditions, and would, if taken to conclusion, produce social conflict. Certainly with issues such as killings and ethical conduct within business and medicine, these are cornerstones of our society, and require us to push the boundaries of our understanding of what it is to be a part of a culture.

Perhaps then, a moral question can be defined as

‘A question concerning the conduct of an individual, which is to be judged by the society that said individual is a part of, as being a socially relevant issue, which is not necessarily intended to produce a definite answer, but to promote discourse in the aim of finding a consensual moral direction.’

In response to the initial question posed, I feel that a question becomes a moral one, not as a result of the question posed (at least not in a literal sense), or even as a result of the answer. I believe a moral question to be one in which our thought

process is forced to consider the impact of our response on the behaviour of ourselves and of those implicitly involved in the response. Even a seemingly amoral question can have ethical implications. An example given in ‘Teach Yourself Ethics’, takes the seemingly harmless example of a friend asking what colour jumper they should wear to go on a walk with you, red or blue. This initially is a harmless moral question, but then if an external factor, for instance, your chosen walk will take you through a field with a bull in it, the question is given a moral value. If you tell your friend to wear the red one, they may be attacked by the bull, which would then become your moral responsibility etc. The example is somewhat crude, but the idea that a question can become moral is a strong one. As I stated earlier, perhaps it is the effects of the question being asked or answered that defines the inherent morality, as opposed to the literal or semantic proposition implied....