Quote:
|
An activity deserves to be called 'moral' if it is consistant with reasoning which derives from an outlook aiming to produce positive feeling in general.
|
The problem I've always had with the topic of ethics is that there is so much subjectivity and relativism. It seems almost impossible to avoid using words that are defined in the mind of the beholder. You mentioned this "Moral Vocabulary" earlier. I'm currently a philosophy major and I'm seriously considering going down a new path because the semantics that underly all philosophical discussions are so frustrating.
I mention that vocab again because I am left with questions after reading your justification for a moral action. What I take your justification to state is that as long as a person has intentions of promoting positive feelings in general (I assume that to mean for the majority) and he has reason to believe a certain action will promote those feelings, then both the person and the action are moral.
Your justification doesn't mention an actor, however, just an action, so I'll focus on that. Whose reasoning supports this action in being consistent with promoting a positive feeling in general?
Positive is, of course, the "moral vocab" that muddles the discussion. But let's presuppose that we all have agreed upon a definition for positive. I would suggest to you that quite a few atrocities in history could still be justified using your morality.
Of course, who am I to say those atrocities are atrocities?
It must really sound like I hate philosophy, haha.
As an added note, your justification sounds Utilitarian to me. There is no problem with that, Utilitarianism is pretty solid as far as I am concerned.