[Serious] Moral Obligations toward Possible Worlds

[vulcanlogician]

Far too much moral reasoning is based on speculations about the future. The trolley car problem, for example, relies on comparing two possible futures and the dilemma of having to choose one over the other. Rather than judging the choice on either utilitarian or deontological grounds, I want know how the moral agent at the crux of the dilemma made his or her decision. Maybe the rightness or wrongness of the moral agent’s action isn’t in the action itself or its outcome; but rather embedded in the nature of the moral agent. Did he or she act in his or her fullest capacity as a human being attempting to exercise sound judgement?

I think it's an interesting issue where the locus of morality lies. In the act? In the rule or maxim? In the moral agent?

I tend to want to say "in the act." There are right and wrong actions, and even responsible moral agents commit wrong acts.

With respect to future generations, I would like to see a moral justification based on the notion that the people alive today are not necessarily obligated to speculate about possible events in the far future but can be obligated to live virtuous lives with the incidentally effect of benefiting future generations. For example, the moral dilemma of the ancient world was not about whether to abolish slavery, which was inconceivable; but rather how to best accommodate an apparent necessary evil. IMHO, we cannot fault the ancients for failing to imagine a world in which industrial-technology replaced forced-labor, whether it be chattel slaves, serfs, or in-debted servants. But we can reflect on whether they did the best they could overall, which I think is all anyone can ask.

IDK. I love the Greeks, but they were insensitive bastards when it came to ideas about slaves. I'm sure you know Aristotle's thoughts on the matter. Plato urged against talking to slaves as if you took them seriously. Those thinkers, who were dedicated in many respects to discovering what is right and just, didn't even speak up for slaves... or consider their welfare at all. They can be faulted for those morally blind ideas.

Do you think there is such a thing as "moral progress" Neo? I think there is. And I think slavery is a fine example. While it was once inconceivable to abolish slavery, now it is inconceivable to reinstate it. To me that means that good triumphed. There have been many steps forward made, and many more to come.

That's my issue with religion. It seems to want to keep morality stagnant (at least some factions of it). I mean, slavery is biblical, right? In one sense doing unto others as you would have them do to you would seem to take slavery off the table. But then: "slaves obey your masters." I know the passage doesn't usually get a fair shake from atheists; it's more compassionate that it seems at first blush-- but I still hate it, and think it's wrong... morally wrong. And it was indeed used in the South to legitimize evil. I don't hold THAT against Paul. But I do question his motivations in saying it in the first place. And I'm very hesitant to say he did the right thing by putting that passage in his letters. Of course, maybe he wouldn't have said something so dumb had he known people were going to treat his communiques as the word of God.

---

@The Grand Nudger

Do you think intention factors into moral theory at all? In one respect, I think consequentialism does capture the importance of good intentions. After all, good intentions generally lead to better outcomes. But again, fringe cases threaten this position. Also, if a moral agent considers all possible outcomes, from which she selects the "best" or "most good"... isn't that what good intention is?