[Originally Published December 16th 2017 on Wordpress]
INTRODUCTION:
When faced with a scenario that has the potential to yield a morally significant outcome, few of us would know precisely how we react under such circumstances. Yet, we are often very quick to pass judgment on others faced with a similar situation who fail to match our norms for the societal defined moral high ground. Aside from analyzing our swift judgment of others, what is more, prevalent in our attributions of moral responsibility the context or the end results? Essentially, the reason for the individuals chosen the action or lack of action or the result engendered by the action more significant and the main factor behind our attributions? The second portion of this question will be much more difficult to decipher than the later. Odds are the significance of one's actions are contingent on both variables from a moral standpoint.
Now, I have just described this philosophical conundrum in a high generalized manner. I should probably generate an example to bring more vibrancy to the conceptualization of this problem. Imagine that there is a house that is currently on fire and there is a child that is trapped inside and his family is crying and shouting for help. The firefighters and other emergency services have failed to arrive at the scene. There is a jogger on the sidewalk whom has no emergency services training nor a cell phone to call for help. This individual chooses to keep jogging by like nothing askew is transpiring. As a result of the callous actions of the jogger, the child ends up passing away due to smoke inhalation. While I apologize for the macabre example, it does have the compellingly visceral reaction that is pertinent to attributions of moral responsibility in such highly sensitive occurrences. What is the contingency for attributing responsibility for the death of the child to the actions of the jogger was it their decision to not assist or was it the end result? I postulate that both are inherent variables in attribution to the asserting blame.
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT:
Per the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, there are two major philosophical paradigms for asserting responsibility in regards to morality, the Merit-based view, and the Consequentialist view. The Merit-based view is defined as praise or blame for there actions should rest upon their chosen action in a specific situation. In contrast, the Consequentialist's perspective entails our attributions of responsibility should be ascertained by the results of that action. As you can see that both paradigms create this dichotomy of context versus results. Individuals who support the Consequentalist's views assert that outward reactions of others can reinforce or deter a specific action from happening, inferring that the locus of control is the result. Conversely, the Merit-based approach puts the locus of control on the individual. Purporting that the individual has the choice either engaging in the advantageous or morally base behavior. [2]
The views of compatibilists and incapability only deepen the conceptual chasm between these two competing ideas. Incompatibilists assert that moral responsibility could never be placed on the individual if determinism is true, it would make the end result inconsequential. Compatibilists postulate that the existence of determinism is immaterial to relinquishing responsibility to the individual as the individual does have a choice. [2].
DISCUSSION:
Where the context for the choice or the end result has more influence on the decision-making process is difficult to determine. However, slightly less complicated is whether or not the focal point for responsibility should be placed on the individual or the result or potential consequences of the results. In regards to attributing responsibility, it is not linear enough of a question to place it into one of the dichotomous categories and assert that it is correct. It is more likely that both to some capacity influence the situation at hand. Depending on the specifics the Consequential or Merit-based approach may be more applicable. However, it is also important to remember that in situations with the potential for grave repercussions, the moral outcomes and decision making process is profoundly nuanced. Multiple variables can be prime movers simultaneously, creating varying degrees to which both points of views can be valid at the same time. For instance, if the jogger in the example provided above, is it so outlandish that the potential end result influences their decision-making decision. When perceiving the scenario from this perspective it puts equal parts responsibility on the influence end result as well as the free will of the individual.
To treat the quandary of attribution of moral responsibility with a broad brush is analogous to forcing a trapezoid shaped block into a triangular slot. It may have the commonality of two vertically sloped lines fixed to the base at an approximately 45-degree angle, but that's where the similarities stop. If you generalize the topic to one specific and highly contested paradigm (both are) you are creating totalities out of circumstantial diverse situations. It is astute to utilize a one size fits all extrapolation for judgment of moral responsibility? Most likely not. However, it is important to understand both philosophical positions and does not view them as necessarily mutually exclusive or even as dichotomies. Even contradictions can exist simultaneously. As absurd as this may seem there are precedent and context for this. How do else do you explain paradoxical occurrences? Even oxymoronic phrases and thought? Both are the byproduct of contradictions occupying the same space at the same time for a specific entity. With this insight in mind, I would personally challenge everyone to really think this one over. Anytime you either want to blame the individual or proclaim them a victim of circumstance, try to consider the potential for other variables and contingencies influencing the situation at hand. As much as we love to find a quick, easy, and polarizing conclusion often times that is is just merely erroneous. This is something to especially ask yourself if you have an issue of clearing formulating a plan of action in the specific scenario you are assessing.
FOOT NOTES
1.https://invertedlogicblog.wordpress.com/2017/12/17/philosophical-rants-5-moral-responsibility
2. http://Plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-responsibility/
3. https://youtu.be/mEmC57K_lws
Comments