Past a certain point, human moral judgements are arbitrary. When we consider it, the majority of real-world situations are less than black and white -- some value calls must be made to be an ethical human being, and as any judgement may be in error there is a certain degree of uncertainty in the system.
For instance: the greatest thing a man can do is widely seen to be to sacrifice himself for another -- but where did one get the idea that that other was worth as much as he? An argument could be made that any individual who would willingly give up his most precious possession, his life, for another's gain is worth more than the average of his fellows, and thus should probably instead remain alive for the improvement of those still living, because unless the person being saved is worth saving (is as good or better than the savior) the death of the savior is too high a cost for the outcome, and is wasted.
And the waste of our most precious possession is abhorrent to us. Perhaps we cannot say that common understanding is in error -- self-sacrifice is likely the most moral thing to do in many situations. The point, though, is that sometimes blind acceptance of memorized moral absolutes seems unwise.
Morality contains an element of grey. An element of background calculation impossible to derive through mere top-layer observation. This element -- the judgement whether one's children's orphaned state would be worth the life of a stranger -- hard decisions are where character is thrown sharply into relief. Such moments illumine the soul.
For our purposes, we will use random chance to determine which of a pair of alternatives, both of which could be rationalized, should be taken if there is doubt. Not merely for Graham, but for all characters.
No comments:
Post a Comment