Sunday, December 10, 2006

Personal guidance and moral responsibility

I'm convinced that we should look for personal guidance.

I'm convinced that we should ask ourselves: Do I feel free to do that? Do I feel bound to do that? Can I do that in the right spirit (or, for a theist, in the spirit of God)?

But I don't see that we have any guidance in a more general way. My feeling can't tell me what other people are to do (or "what is to be" in society). But a lot of people seem to believe this. They equate personal guidance with "moral intutionism", the idea that any moral statement can be grounded immediately on our observation or our emotional reaction to a certain situation. ("I simply SEE and FEEL that that or that is to do.") Moral intuitionism is mostly connected with "situation ethics" (in a broad sense), meaning that we don't need general rules or standards at all.

Let me tell you that moral intuitionism opens the door to all kinds of lazy thinking, prejudice, double standards and hypocrisy.

So, personal guidance, even if it's important, is not enough. It must be accompanied by "moral responsibility".

Responsibility means literally that I respond - namely, I respond to everyone who questions my conduct. I respond by sincerely telling why I did this and what I would have done in that or that other case - in short, I lay open my basic motives. And at the same time I form a kind of general rule how I tend to react on different situations. I form that rule, and when I see it before me, I may question it and modify it.
That's the use of moral responsibility for me. For others, I tell them what they can really expect from me in such or such a situation - giving them security; and perhaps giving them an opportunity to argue and criticize me.

So, general rules ARE important. Not always for my own behaviour, but always for my living with other people. Moral intuitionism must not be used as an opportunity to avoid that way of speaking and living with others.

No comments: