Ask, and ye shall recieve
Or more appropriately, complain on your blog and you shall recieve. I'm sitting here at 11:30, practically the beginning of my evening, and I have nothing that I need to do... at least nothing I need to do that I can do until morning. I've been sitting here listening to classical music, reading a book, and I thought that you guys deserved an update since you were willing to listen to me whine. Anyway, I've been thinking.Our philosophy course this semester is Ethics, and I am enjoying it; it's one of the first times we've been able to actually "practice" philosophy, use reasonable methods to try to consider the way things are. I've thought about these things on my own before, and I have to admit that I've not come to any real conclusions yet. But it's always good to put your thoughts on... well, not exactly paper, but something more permanent than memory. If I start making no sense, feel free to either ignore me or slap me around in the comments.
First. I make a distinction between ethics and morality, one that is different from most people's distinction. I consider people in two ways: as individuals and as part of the herd. Individuals, I believe, make their moral decisions because of their conscience, whatever that may mean. It is internal, though, not forced upon them. People as part of the whole, however, follow laws. These are ethical rules that relate to the working of the whole rather than the individual. So: morality, individual conscience; ethics, rules of the whole.
This solves a number of problems. Most people who think about these things (poor sods) divide into two camps: consequentialists, who think that the outcome is the most important part, and... er, well, nonconsequentialists, who for the most part think that doing the right thing has intrinsic value. Both sides often go head to head because, while no one wants to admit that they're wrong, everyone seems to think that both sides are kind of important, and it's really hard to reconcile them. But me, if people can be seen as part of the whole (and that's a whole 'nother shebang, but take my word for it) then it's the consequences that matter. As far as it concerns the individual, it is the act of doing the right action that matters.
I know, the wording of the last sentence is awkward, but it's on purpose. I don't believe anymore that someone's intent matters. I used to, but now I don't. Well, I do, but in a different way. I've picked up an idea from some people who disagreed with me. They said that if someone claims to be doing something for a good reason, then they are not doing something to be good, but only for the credit. I don't think about it in those kind of cynical terms, but I have noticed that anytime you consider why you do something, you run into trouble; that is, you are simply doing things for your own good, and that's no good at all. Pretty much any justification other than "it's the right thing to do" leads me into trouble.
So, I shouldn't do things because it's the law, or because the person I am helping will help me later. What, then, is my motivation? It'll sound corny, but it's not. Love. If you are doing something out of love, then you aren't thinking about why you're doing it. It's just the right thing to do. This is unconditional, Godly love I'm talking about; the Big Love as a churchmate used to put it. This is also why humans fail at being moral a lot of the time; they're not capable of that kind of love.
Ethics is different, but that's really another post.
Anyway, tell me what you think.