22 January 2013

Doth Light of Light Beguile

  • "Which approach is closest to your way of analyzing moral issues?"

Logic is my approach and as much closest to the way I analyze moral issues. I would be remiss and duly charged with being vague as I deliberate this, but it is in my best assumption that all of the approaches are reliant upon the others if success is the desired goal, it is honestly not my intention to seem wordy, but they smack of the common indifference of modern political moral relativism, in simply that each are susceptible to confirmation bias aka, the foregone conclusion.

For instance, a "Virtues Ethics" approach stands alone as a choice reflecting societal norms but surrounds itself the shortcoming of success before plenty, that is a company can win and invoke emotive spite from other companies with similar goals or the average spectator in competitive society whether it be friendly or not.

As compared to, the "Utilitarian" approach seeks to achieve the greatest amount of benefits with the least of harm, in greatly taking this harm principle into consideration, the ability to overlook the need for instituting a plenary code of ethics and instruction apparatus, this highly objective 'libertarian' principle though it does not purposefully imbue unethical behavior does not detract it either. I have to this point in my life considered myself in this grouping, a utilitarian logician.

By modern standards, a "Fairness" approach to ethics is (in my standard) illogical and detestable. It can be readily defined as an emotional reactionary effort, though not reprehensible, can be impetuous and sensationalist, its primary negative affect is its institution becoming virulently irresistible while offering nothing in regards to acceptable standards of living. Populism is a nicety it does offer, not merely in humans; if a plant spreads its leaves first and predominantly, it is only fair that it grow better than competitors, but in foremost fair to itself and not always the niche in whole.

On we are to, a "Common Good" approach, this to me is motivation and ambition influenced, morality tows this directive and it's actors to the highs and lows of the human condition. In a society a 'bad seed' can influence pivotal events in any direction. The unthinking majority, the general public, the assessment of civilization, and the future of these in any combination and endless more, are affected in so that the common good is affected by the availability of what is truly common, value of what is defined as truly good.

  • "Now that you are aware of different approaches, do you think you might modify your approach to include other perspectives?"

Had I not, I would for the very asking, to be liberal and not for namesake, in moral judgement it is only logical to entertain other perspectives. Not to sound callous, but the goal of perfection can be lost as easily as it is found. To be intelligent one needs merely intellect, to be successful one must have an analytical approach, insomuch that any one of the afore mentioned approaches to ethics are relevant it is logical that they can favor themselves, or be forgotten, and/or require the assistance of one or many trusted others, thus the need to remain receptive, procedural and intuitive, is at least desirable and at most vital.