Optional Decisions are Moral Decisions

[coberst]

Optional Decisions are Moral Decisions

I cannot remember where I read it but is resonates for me; ‘all decisions, wherein there is a choice, are moral decisions’. One may find quibbles to get around this message but the essence of the matter is that for a person seeking to be moral, all judgments from which decisions are derived warrant careful consideration.

In an attempt to comprehend the nature of ethics/morality one will find a forest of writings but essentially each person must build his or her own model of what ethics/morality means. Somewhere along the way toward becoming an enlightened person regarding this matter we all must settle on that which makes sense for us. That does not mean that we remain static about the matter but it means that we settle on some model that is our personal guide until we decide to change it.

Our community and our family mold our moral sense as we grow up. But at some point we must remold that model to fit our adult self. I am an American and my sense of ethics/morality was codified by the Declaration and the Constitution as I grew up and it is what determines, to a large extent, my adult sense in this matter.

The Declaration declares ‘We hold these truths to be self evident, all men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights’. The Constitution sets forth a listing of the rights of all citizens that are to be protected by law. These declarations are part of my heritage and are what I accept as the foundation of my sense of morality.

It appears that the two concepts ‘right’ and ‘good’ form the foundation of any moral system. The ‘good’ is ‘rational desire’ and the ‘right’ has varying meanings. The status of the right seems to be the important variable that determines what one’s ethical/moral model becomes.

I call my model of morality as being a closed system as opposed to an open system. I call my system a closed system because ‘right’ is clearly defined in the Declaration and the Constitution as being prior to the good. That which is right has a fence around it with a big “No Trespassing” sign and is closed to usurpation by the good. A different system could be called an open system when there is no closed area representing rights but that the right is considered as being that which maximizes the good.

Where do these two concepts fit into your model of morality and or ethics? I use the term ethics/morality to mean that the two terms are the same for me.

[weber]

I don't understand. Why is right fenced in not to be usurped by the good. I thought good and right were in the same ballfield>

[Clint]

coberst wrote: Optional Decisions are Moral Decisions



It appears that the two concepts ‘right’ and ‘good’ form the foundation of any moral system. The ‘good’ is ‘rational desire’ and the ‘right’ has varying meanings. The status of the right seems to be the important variable that determines what one’s ethical/moral model becomes.

I call my model of morality as being a closed system as opposed to an open system. I call my system a closed system because ‘right’ is clearly defined in the Declaration and the Constitution as being prior to the good. That which is right has a fence around it with a big “No Trespassing” sign and is closed to usurpation by the good. A different system could be called an open system when there is no closed area representing rights but that the right is considered as being that which maximizes the good.

Where do these two concepts fit into your model of morality and or ethics? I use the term ethics/morality to mean that the two terms are the same for me.
Right is where the red buoys are when you are returning to port… or is that starboard??? I have to admit I’m a little confused too. Please help me.

[chonsigirl]

I use other resources for my concepts of "right" and "good."

I view the Declaration and the Constitution as being secular documents. Where would you place non-secular ones, such as the Bible?

[coberst]

weber wrote: I don't understand. Why is right fenced in not to be usurped by the good. I thought good and right were in the same ballfield>


The rights of citizens are protected in the Constitution. An example might be if even though the majority does not want the protection of religious practice the Constitution protects that right.

[coberst]

chonsigirl wrote: I use other resources for my concepts of "right" and "good."

I view the Declaration and the Constitution as being secular documents. Where would you place non-secular ones, such as the Bible?


I suspect many do. Why not elaborate?

[chonsigirl]

My basis of right or wrong come from my religious beliefs, one of which is that the Bible is the Word of God. From that I take guidance on many decisions that would come under the category of ethical or moral.

Every individual has different backgrounds and basic foundations given to them as children-whether it contains a secular or non-secular upbringing. Or a combination of the two. It is up to the adult to make the decision how to align their ethical thinking patterns, and from what basis they draw these conclusions.

[weber]

coberst wrote: The rights of citizens are protected in the Constitution. An example might be if even though the majority does not want the protection of religious practice the Constitution protects that right.


You said fence around "right" away from "good". Right and good are in the same ballpark.

What you really meant I guess is "rights" away from "good". The "s" on right changes the whole thing and I will have to think. But it seems to me that peoples rights are good and good is good. hmmmm I think I still don't get it.