My Moral Philosophy, Part II

So here's some more of it....enjoy.

One way to describe my moral ethic is that you should only be obligated to perform the tasks that you have agreed to do, whether by obvious or implied consent. In this perfect world society, I wouldn’t be obligated to pay taxes, but I may not have the privilege of driving on the communal road. However, since this perfect society couldn’t spontaneously pop into existence for many reasons, I am obligated to perform the tasks that I have agreed to do. I choose to be a part of a community, to go to school, to work, to have a family, and to be safe. In order for me to choose to do these things, I must perform the act of paying taxes, going to class, doing homework, coming to work, and spending time with my family. Because there are implied agreements that accompany my goals in life, I must fulfill these agreements in order for my goals to be fulfilled. If I don’t go to work, I no longer have a job, and it’s my own fault. By violating my end of the agreement, I have given the other party the right to violate their end as well. How? By failure to fulfill my end of the agreement, I have shown that I do not value this agreement, and therefore I cannot claim to value my reward. My desire for a given benefit of an agreement is only as great as my willing to work for it. From this rule comes personal property, right to not get killed, right to welfare in a very extreme situation, when I become older, or for short temporary purposes. I would also agree to not take others personal property, not kill others, and help provide welfare for the needy who are trying or unable to support themselves. Forced agreements on others, however, would not be covered by this law. I could not force an agreement upon you to not carry a Bible if I don’t carry a Q’aran. You may agree to that- if you do, we’ve just made an agreement. If you don’t, then I can deal with it and still carry my Q’aran because you were not willing to give up your right to decide what book to carry. This action says that you believe people should have the right to carry religious texts, and so I should have this right also.

I don’t eat meat (maybe someday I’ll share my reasoning for this as well) simply because I have the power to prevent an organism from suffering. It hurts me emotionally to think that pigs’ tails are being cut off with no anesthesia, turkeys and chickens are being boiled alive, and cows are being cramped into small places in order for me to eat meat. Now don’t get me wrong here- I won’t judge you if you eat meat. I don’t think anyone in particular has a duty to eat meat, as a result of my moral theory. I think that I have a duty to eat meat, because this decision causes me no suffering or sacrifice, but helps animals. However, someone who cannot find food other than meat, who cannot afford meat alternatives, or will experience psychological stress if he or she does not eat meat is not comparable to my situation and therefore is not bound by this idea. I don’t think that I should control what others consume, and the Universality clause entails that others should not tell me what to consume. This includes alcohol, tobacco, even drugs! But wait, drugs can hurt others! Yes, they can, if you are coercing others (forcing them to have your belief that drugs are good, when indeed they can cause harm) then you are violating another’s right to not be forced to do something AND you are posing a threat of harm to that person. In this case, you’ve violated 2 of my moral code policies, and you’re in big trouble! However, if you’re doing all of these terrible drugs in your backyard away from the rest of us, then you’re not violating any provision of my moral code. Just don’t bring it around me, because my moral code does entail private property and personal space. For those of you who have a hard time imagining how drugs wouldn’t violate a well-thought moral code, think of this example: I have no right or power to tell you not to eat fried food, even though I know there are some serious health effects from eating it.

One big issue I have with my moral code is exceptions to the “norm”. I really haven’t taken the time to think out a formula for making these determinations because I make them based on the treatment I would see as fair if I were the exception. For example, if I break my leg and can’t work for a month, I think I should be allowed to receive some support from my society. Likewise, would have no problem providing funding for someone else through tax dollars in this situation. I would have a problem with someone who is like me in the sense that he or she is capable of working but won’t, or expects to receive assistance for 10 years for a 1 month injury. A disabled person would also be entitled to welfare, because I would expect societal support if I were in a comparable situation. I would also be willing to provide others with funding or some other service before, during, or after my disability as my part of the deal. For children, I would expect them to be exempt from the grown-up rules, eg. Taxes, etc. until they reach an age of understanding. This is the issue I have trouble with. I think that in return for support and guidance, children obide by Kidrules (Clean your room, make your bed, be good at school, help out at home), just as citizens obey the law of the community. One big flaw of my “perfect world” is that I haven’t decided how to address this issue. As a parent, it’s hard to define what the balance between making your own decisions about what is best for your children and when others should have some influence as well. I think this is a big problem in our society now- at what point do we say “Okay parent, you’re violating Kidrights, so we’re going to violate your right and make you do this instead.” One specific example that comes to mind is that of vaccinations. On one hand, I think the government should require that all children without other medical considerations have vaccinations, regular doctors’ visits, and 3 healthy meals per day. On the other hand, I think that telling one how to parent is a violation of the person’s parental rights. With proactive regulations, issues such as “How healthy is healthy”, how regularly must we visit this doctor, are you paying the bill since you forced me to send my well child to a doctor, etc. For my personal moral code, the solution is easy. I address this issue by determining that I would want medical care, healthy meals, along with some junk food here and there, and vaccines to prevent me from catching a disease later in life, so I provide my children with these things. I don’t believe that this could ever become a societal law because not everyone thinks like Leslie.
“So, are you going to kill this camel for food?”
“No, Leslie wouldn’t do that.”
“Okay, but we’re in the desert. We’re gonna die!”
“Leslie would never eat a camel. She’d die before she did that. I’ve heard her say it.”

In essence, it just sounds ridiculous. In real life, I seriously doubt that I could kill a camel for food. Who knows, maybe I would suddenly develop a taste for hump steak. Either way, my views cannot be forced upon others. People must use common sense, good judgment, and assess the likely outcomes of the situation in order to make decisions. My moral code works well for me, but may fail others who cannot predict my personal behaviour (or the behaviour of anyone) in such extreme situations. Likewise, someday I might find a situation where my moral code will not hold an answer to my problem. At that time, I will have to use my own intuition to guide me.

LQ

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •    •    •    •