2010-05-27, 02:09 AM
I'm going to assume that you're trying to say that there is a moral dilemma. If we take two values: (a) morals and (b) happiness then here are some juvenile possibilities.
1. Perform moral good and attain happiness
2. Perform moral good and be unhappy
3. Forsake moral good and attain happiness
4. Forsake moral good and be unhappy
Instances 2 and 3 are examples of a moral dilemma. As you can see there is a conflict of interest between having both morals and happiness thus the "dilemma."
Second, I'm going to explain some general ideas behind moral thought. In Plato's "The Republic" Socrates and Thrasymachus have a long discussion about morality. Thrasymachus brings up an idea that is repeated by further philosophers of this notion that "might makes right." The idea reflects the notion that the conqueror establishes what is right or wrong. After all, in order to punish those who don't follow the rules, power is a prerequisite. Thrasymachus believed that morals were just a means to control a massive populace of people. By instilling those morals with power to punish, people would fall into line with the new leader and accept the morals imposed on them. In a sense, the victor determined what was right and wrong. Right and wrong really had no meaning except to signify the power of the victor.
My impression is that most ethical problems are approached from two major perspectives: (1) deontological and (2) consequentalist. An example of deontology is Kant's categorical imperative. Kant's "categorical imperative" notes that actions should be done for the sake of doing that action (no ulterior motives). An example of consequential thinking is Mill's "utilitarianism" which comes down to the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Utilitarianism gauges whether an action is moral or not based on the consequences. I'll give you an example: A doctor has five patients that have cancer in five different organs. They are all going to die. A patient comes in for a check-up and he is perfectly healthy. If the doctor kills him, then he can save the other five patients by splitting up his organs. What should the doctor do? Now a deontologist might say that it is inherently wrong to kill a patient, therefore the doctor should not do it. But a consequentalist might see the 5 for 1 trade off and decide that it would be the smart decision. Would you reconsider this question if the patient gave his permission that the doctor could murder him in order to save the other five? Again this is the modern embodiment of moral ethics that is being talked about in parties and social circles.
Deontology can be used to question things such as laws. For example, is it inherently wrong to drive on the wrong side of the road? How about killing someone? Is that inherently evil? Many other considerations are taking in political moral thought as committing certain actions in public and private have entirely different consequences. The most obvious is stripping naked. Again, this can be considered under a more political form of moral thought.
The major idea I want to pull across is that morals can often be varied and complex. It's hard enough to be "morally right" with so many contrasting forms of ideological opinion.
1. Perform moral good and attain happiness
2. Perform moral good and be unhappy
3. Forsake moral good and attain happiness
4. Forsake moral good and be unhappy
Instances 2 and 3 are examples of a moral dilemma. As you can see there is a conflict of interest between having both morals and happiness thus the "dilemma."
Second, I'm going to explain some general ideas behind moral thought. In Plato's "The Republic" Socrates and Thrasymachus have a long discussion about morality. Thrasymachus brings up an idea that is repeated by further philosophers of this notion that "might makes right." The idea reflects the notion that the conqueror establishes what is right or wrong. After all, in order to punish those who don't follow the rules, power is a prerequisite. Thrasymachus believed that morals were just a means to control a massive populace of people. By instilling those morals with power to punish, people would fall into line with the new leader and accept the morals imposed on them. In a sense, the victor determined what was right and wrong. Right and wrong really had no meaning except to signify the power of the victor.
My impression is that most ethical problems are approached from two major perspectives: (1) deontological and (2) consequentalist. An example of deontology is Kant's categorical imperative. Kant's "categorical imperative" notes that actions should be done for the sake of doing that action (no ulterior motives). An example of consequential thinking is Mill's "utilitarianism" which comes down to the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Utilitarianism gauges whether an action is moral or not based on the consequences. I'll give you an example: A doctor has five patients that have cancer in five different organs. They are all going to die. A patient comes in for a check-up and he is perfectly healthy. If the doctor kills him, then he can save the other five patients by splitting up his organs. What should the doctor do? Now a deontologist might say that it is inherently wrong to kill a patient, therefore the doctor should not do it. But a consequentalist might see the 5 for 1 trade off and decide that it would be the smart decision. Would you reconsider this question if the patient gave his permission that the doctor could murder him in order to save the other five? Again this is the modern embodiment of moral ethics that is being talked about in parties and social circles.
Deontology can be used to question things such as laws. For example, is it inherently wrong to drive on the wrong side of the road? How about killing someone? Is that inherently evil? Many other considerations are taking in political moral thought as committing certain actions in public and private have entirely different consequences. The most obvious is stripping naked. Again, this can be considered under a more political form of moral thought.
The major idea I want to pull across is that morals can often be varied and complex. It's hard enough to be "morally right" with so many contrasting forms of ideological opinion.