Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...)
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Promoted to Headline (H3) on 6/10/09:     Permalink
View Article Stats

Paradigm Assessment Schemata (Part 3)

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend
Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan   -- Page 2 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com

That being said, I think this requires some minimal clarification. By “what works” I mean those actions that are effective in achieving the goals presented in answer to the first question—the latter question has no meaning without reference to the former. Concerning the first question, I am using the terms “you” and “want” in a broad sense. By “want” I mean all those volitional forces (ideas, considerations, feelings, desires, inclinations, pressures) contributing to the decisions and subsequent actions of an organism. One may, for example, want to act in such a way as to maximize pleasure and minimize pain concerning all organisms and irrespective of oneself—this is one possible value that one may or may not posit. By “you” I mean the organism, any organism (and society is an organism—or, more properly, a superorganism), that is partaking in the decision making process and acting—be that the individual, a group, the state, the world community, etc. Morality concerns what we should do, and so it is always in reference to that body that is deciding/acting. Values do not exist without valuers, but are posited by them and exist in reference to them. This being the case, it makes no sense to speak of “should” outside of the values posited by the given actor—all forces within it—and the factual circumstances of its environment—all forces outside it.

These two questions represent the core as well as the absolute limit of morality. This is what we are always talking about, have always been talking about, and will always be talking about. It is the sort of moralizing that we are always doing, necessarily, because it's inherent to the very nature of our being. But even though I say that morality is reducible to these two questions, in truth this is not a reductionist model. On the contrary, all moral theories that present singular standards through which to critique action are reductionist in comparison to this. This model alone takes into consideration all possible interests.


If you identify with the message of this article, please email it to people, tell your friends, even print out copies to pass around. Together we can raise awareness. Thank you.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

http://bendench.blogspot.com/

Ben Dench graduated valedictorian of his class from The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey in the Spring Semester of 2007 with a B.A. in philosophy (his graduation speech, which received high praise, is available on YouTube). He is currently (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Follow Me on Twitter

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments