I recently ready "Heart of Scars" by Brian P. Easton. I highly recommend both of the books in the series; When the Autumn Moon is Bright (An Autobiography of a Werewolf Hunter) and Heart of Scars. The books themselves are not relevant to this post, but what the main character, Sylvester, says in one part of "Heart of Scars" is. At one point, Sylvester muses over his sanity and consequently his morality. He concludes that if you have the mental capacity to question your sanity, then you are (for all intensive purposes) sane. He then wonders whether or not the same is true of morality. This is a very minor part of the plot, but I found it very thought provoking. So the question is: "If questioning your sanity declares you sane, does questioning your morality declare you moral?"
There are a few thing we need to consider first. Is the first statement true? Does questioning your sanity declare you sane? In a very specific sense it could be argued that it does not, as there is a fine line between genius and insanity as they say. However, in a general sense, and for the purpose of this discussion, I think it does hold true. If you are mentally and cognitively capable of arranging a logical argument in your head whether you are mentally sound (sane) or not, then decisively it is more likely that you are indeed sane than it is that you are insane. I am aware that there may be many people suffering from mental illnesses who can arrange arguments for their sanity when clearly (to outsiders) they are not. I think it could be argued that though their arguments may be flawed, in accordance to what their brain declares to be rational, their argument is flawless. My greatest sympathy goes out to these people who can function on their own but by the bounds of the law are condemned to forever rely on the assistance of others. However, excuse me for getting a bit off topic. In the Aristotelian sense of the question, yes, the ability to argue over whether you are sane or insane does vindicate your sanity. In a more platonic and universal sense the answer may be "no" but for the vast majority of situations to be considered, the answer is "yes."
Now on to the real question. The first thing that must be noticed is that in the question of sanity, there were only two possible answers. Either you were sane or insane, there was no "half-sane" option. While this may lead to some ambiguity in the above paragraph, it becomes a matter of the glass being half empty or half full. Sanity is partially defined by the ability to logically reason and insane is to be of a not sound mind. This means that even if we are as insane as we are sane, the tie goes to the side of sanity. When arguing over the same question only with morality instead of sanity, there are three options involved. They are; moral, immoral, and amoral. While I am skeptical of anyone who claims to be 100% amoral ( much like true stoics or nihilists) the side is at least possible in theory if not in practicality.
Kant said that we do as we are, in a much different light Nietzsche said that we are as we do. These two philosophical greats of course lead us to very different directions when discerning what is moral or not, what is good and what is evil. However, this is not a blog on the thought of Nietzsche or Kant, but a blog on my thoughts. So, if you were to ask me the question; "Does questioning your morality declare you moral?", my answer would be "yes."
I would answer the question yes, for the following reasons. Doubt or questioning itself is not directly indicative of morality. Questioning morality is, however, a byproduct of guilt. This immediately eliminates the possibility of questioning your morality declaring that you are amoral. If you are amoral and feeling guilt, then you were not truly amoral in the first place. The remaining choices are immoral and moral. In order for our questioning to declare us immoral, it would have to be proven that there is an ethical violation in asking questions. Certainly, not asking any questions (due to the vast potential for abuse and malicious intent) would be unethical. Therefore, by default, asking questions is not immoral. This leads to my next point. Being moral does not always indicate doing the "right thing." The "right thing" can mean very different things depending on the slightest religious, cultural, environmental, essential, or educational context that place specific conditions on such an argument. It is simple enough and accurate enough to establish that to be moral is to question whether something is right or not much more than it is to say that to be moral is to do the right thing.
In the conclusion of my reasoning listed above: "if questioning your sanity declares you sane, then questioning your morality does declare you moral." Consequently if you were to ask Kant this question, I believe he would have come to the same answer. If we are as we do, what we are doing is questioning right and wrong, questioning right and wrong is moral, thus we are moral. For Nietzsche, if we do as we are, then we are uncertain if we are moral, uncertainty does not equal immorality, uncertainty may mean amorality, questioning is indicative of concern, concern over morality cannot lead to amorality, therefore we are uncertain of right and wrong thus we question right and wrong and may be categorized as moral. What a strange irony that Kant and Nietzsche would actually come to the same answer (though through different means) on something as controversial as moral behavior.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Social Psychology Critical Thinking Pt 3
The Story: A 24 year old man was found beaten to death at a road side rest stop bathroom. Several people heard his cries for help, one saw him struggling to breathe and walked away. Another saw his bloody body and did nothing. Finally, a 12 year old boy see's the man and calls the police in 20 seconds but they were too late to save the man's life.
The Question: What factors made people unwilling to help? To what extent did personal character play? Shed light on why a 12 year old was the only person to help?
Information: Many people adhere to an "out of sight, out of mind" mindset. Or perhaps "don't ask, don't tell", or "don't make your problem my problem." This is somewhat of an output of our capitalistic highly individualistic society. We are taught that we can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, however, a common side effect of this sense of capability is that we become selfish. We only care about ourselves, our means, and our ends. The factors that could contribute to the bystanders' unwillingness to help could have been that they did not want to get involved with the police or cause any trouble for themselves (let alone the fact that someone was dying in front of them). Personal character could have a widely varying effect on this situation. There is no doubt that a person with a friendly and optimistic personality would be more likely to help a stranger than someone with a selfish and skeptic personality. This demonstrates that not all bystanders are equally likely to help a stranger. If there is a personal or even subtle connection between the victim and the bystander, then the bystander will be more likely to help the victim. This could be anything from promising to watch a woman's purse while she gets up from her seat to use the restroom; to a token small-talk conversation during which you (the bystander and the potential victim) connect over politics or beliefs, music or clothes. The more you have in common or connect with a stranger (even on the simplest and "cheapest" level), the more likely you will help them in time of need. Personal obligation also factors into the situation in the opposite fashion of altruism. However, there are psychological factors that affect our decisions that are both independent from and override our "personal character", in other words, cause us to act out of character. For example, people are less likely to help a stranger when there are more bystanders around to witness their action(s); the same is also true of the opposite. The fewer the number of spectators, the greater probability that a person will assist a stranger. Also, if a group of people pass a stranger in need; they are each less likely to help the stranger than they would be if they had been walking by themselves (opposed to walking in a group).
Answers: In the story told above, and in the information provided, we can conclude several things about the unfortunate story. The people who passed the man being assaulted likely did not know him and thus involuntarily felt no obligation to help him and possibly fear for their own safety. People who may have passed him in pairs or a group were also unlikely to help him regardless of "moral obligation." This was also a public place which meant there were other people around to witness the events which lessens the chances of a victim receiving help. Though the man cried out for help (which increase the chances of receiving assistance) there were too many other subliminal psychological factors involved that involuntarily override one's sense of altruistic moral duty. As for the 12 year old boy, the answer is actually quite simple. He is at the age where his parents probably are drilling "moral" ideas into his head so that he "behaves more like an adult." Think of a child catching a parent in a white lie and feeling completely betrayed. In this sense the young boy has not lived long enough for some of the psychological bystander effects (and others) to draw their full potential. The impressionable yet rule-based mindset of a child allowed him to remain free of the subconscious (all be it subjective) factors that unwillingly shade morality.
The Question: What factors made people unwilling to help? To what extent did personal character play? Shed light on why a 12 year old was the only person to help?
Information: Many people adhere to an "out of sight, out of mind" mindset. Or perhaps "don't ask, don't tell", or "don't make your problem my problem." This is somewhat of an output of our capitalistic highly individualistic society. We are taught that we can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, however, a common side effect of this sense of capability is that we become selfish. We only care about ourselves, our means, and our ends. The factors that could contribute to the bystanders' unwillingness to help could have been that they did not want to get involved with the police or cause any trouble for themselves (let alone the fact that someone was dying in front of them). Personal character could have a widely varying effect on this situation. There is no doubt that a person with a friendly and optimistic personality would be more likely to help a stranger than someone with a selfish and skeptic personality. This demonstrates that not all bystanders are equally likely to help a stranger. If there is a personal or even subtle connection between the victim and the bystander, then the bystander will be more likely to help the victim. This could be anything from promising to watch a woman's purse while she gets up from her seat to use the restroom; to a token small-talk conversation during which you (the bystander and the potential victim) connect over politics or beliefs, music or clothes. The more you have in common or connect with a stranger (even on the simplest and "cheapest" level), the more likely you will help them in time of need. Personal obligation also factors into the situation in the opposite fashion of altruism. However, there are psychological factors that affect our decisions that are both independent from and override our "personal character", in other words, cause us to act out of character. For example, people are less likely to help a stranger when there are more bystanders around to witness their action(s); the same is also true of the opposite. The fewer the number of spectators, the greater probability that a person will assist a stranger. Also, if a group of people pass a stranger in need; they are each less likely to help the stranger than they would be if they had been walking by themselves (opposed to walking in a group).
Answers: In the story told above, and in the information provided, we can conclude several things about the unfortunate story. The people who passed the man being assaulted likely did not know him and thus involuntarily felt no obligation to help him and possibly fear for their own safety. People who may have passed him in pairs or a group were also unlikely to help him regardless of "moral obligation." This was also a public place which meant there were other people around to witness the events which lessens the chances of a victim receiving help. Though the man cried out for help (which increase the chances of receiving assistance) there were too many other subliminal psychological factors involved that involuntarily override one's sense of altruistic moral duty. As for the 12 year old boy, the answer is actually quite simple. He is at the age where his parents probably are drilling "moral" ideas into his head so that he "behaves more like an adult." Think of a child catching a parent in a white lie and feeling completely betrayed. In this sense the young boy has not lived long enough for some of the psychological bystander effects (and others) to draw their full potential. The impressionable yet rule-based mindset of a child allowed him to remain free of the subconscious (all be it subjective) factors that unwillingly shade morality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)