 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||
|
|
On Relationships - morality--a post I wrote for a discussion list.
Peter wrote:
>How do you define morality? (as it relates to sexuality)
>My question is not "What is imoral?", but "how do you decide which
>of lifes options are imoral?".
Ohhh I just love a person who gets off on thinking! *grin*
Thinking and sex are the two best things around!
>"What is imoral?"
That's subjective and dependent on the person's values so
we could argue about that all day! :)
"how do you decide which of lifes options are imoral?".
Now, this is a question that we can figure out. I think that
everyone goes thru a similar process, but because the starting
assumptions about what's right & wrong differ, and processing
may be influenced more strongly by intellectual or by
emotional aspects, the answers we come up with about what's
right and wrong differ.
How bout this process... 3 stages
I think that whether the decision about what's moral or not
is rational depends on on which component (emotional or intellectual)
dominates the processing. I'm beginning to think that we acquire quite
a few of our strong feelings about what's right and wrong *long* before
we are able to use words and intellectual processing to figure out
what's going on. During the first 6 years of our lives for sure...
and probably much longer than that (until we can think using abstract
concepts) we develop *lots* of strong emotionally based attitudes
(the amount being a direct function of how punative of an environment
we experience during those years when we figure out how our worlds work).
I think that the more strong emotional reactions we have as a result
of childhood, the less likely we are to be able to process decisions
about what's moral using intellectional/rational processes rather
than just being jerked around by our emotions. I also think we
have some built in self protection mechanisms eg
Another aspect that you mention is the situation that we find
ourselves in.
After the last few months, I'm
thoroughly convinced of the strength (and uncontrollability) of situations
in producing outcomes for us (and I do hafta admit that I tend to
overestimated my control over the situation).
This person-situation interaction can be simplified into a 3 x 3 matrix.
(These two dimensions should be continuums, however it simplifies
explaination to present them as a trichotomy). Along the top is Situational
influences. Along the side is Dispositional influences. The continuums
are defined by strength and direction (valence) of influence.
Chart symbols
Predictions:
So you see, I don't believe that we can always behave how we wanted to
or thought we would or even that we can predict how we will behave
all the time, because how we act at least partially depends on the
situation we're in.
Your rape vs shooting an intruder delemma.
--------------------------------------------------------------
PERCEPTION PROCESSING DECISION
-----> Intellectual -
/ Reaction \
Perceive -- ----> reaction/decision
Something \ / / \
-----> Emotional----- Emotional Intellectual
Reaction
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fight:
feel hurt ---> anger ---> hurt back to make it go away.
Flight:
feel hurt ---> anger ---> distance physically and/or emotionally.
that are also involved.
>Some people (me included) might think that having an affair is imoral. But I
>know I would do it under the right conditions. Does that make me a "weak"
>person or an "imoral" person? or both? or neither?
Now you're talking about one's ability to behave congruently with one's
beliefs if the situation is pushing you to behave contrary to
those beliefs. One of my old professers used to say "Never
underestimate the power of an evil situation". I'd revise that
to read "Never underestimate the power of a *strong* situation".
Like the teen (or adult) who has said they aren't gonna have
sex with anyone other than their partner... their hormones are
raging and is in a situation (eg petting with someone) that says
strongly "DO IT!". In this case, we had strong intentions not to do it,
strong dispositional pressures (arousal) to do it, and
strong situational pressures (partner wants to and is busy
escalating that arousal) to do it. IN the case when there
are strong situational pressures and/or strong physiological
reactions, I don't think that intentions have much of a chance of
determining behavior. To answer your question... I think that
it would make you *human*. :) You see, I think that even if we
are aware of our built in biases, and we are aware of how
a situation can push us towards doing something, unless we
intentionally do things to minimize the dispositional factors
and to try and avoid letting strong situations develop,
we don't have a chance in hell of behaving congruently with our
intentions. On a side note, I think that the above is what
makes it a crime not to tell teenagers what's goin on
with their bodies...
Situational Pressures
+ 0 -
----------------------
+ | a | a | c |
Dispositional ----------------------
pressures 0 | a | d | b |
----------------------
- | c | b | b |
----------------------
+ = strong pressure to produce the outcome (do it!)
0 = weak or no pressure
- = strong pressure not to produce the outcome (Don't do it!)
a:
the outcome of interest will occur
b:
the outcome of interest won't occur
c:
conflict between the person and the situation (the strongest influence will prevail)
d:
poor prediction using a trichotomy, tho using a continuum instead
should allow acceptible predictions using the rule that the stronger
pressure prevails when both are weak.
That one's easy. :) That falls under the heuristic of
not intentionally hurting others, *unless* it's to protect
your life and *maybe* property (I'm ambivalent bout killing
to protect property thing).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|