A question of Moral Agents

[Vehrec]

So for one of my GEC classes, I'm taking a Morality/ethics course in philosophy, and the course has taken a turn for the practical. One upshot of this is the concept that a moral patient who we could be held responsible for our actions towards on grounds of morality is not necessarily a moral agent responsible for their own actions. A monkey for instance could not be held morally accountable for stealing your wallet, but you might be responsible for beating the monkey to get your money back. Vice versa is also conceivable, for instance, it is no skin of Yahweh's back if Darth Wong remains an atheist and denies the existance of God.

The point which has been troubling me is that the class seems to not have a very good idea where the distinction should be drawn. Lots of different ideas, and a general fondness for using a lot of words to say very little. So where do you draw the line? What criteria do you judge moral standings on? Who are you Responsible for, and who else is responsible in the same way you are?

[Junghalli]

So where do you draw the line? What criteria do you judge moral standings on? Who are you Responsible for, and who else is responsible in the same way you are?

Those are some big questions, and ultimately I'd say they're going to be ones you'll have to figure out for yourself.

I wish I could be more helpful but that's what it comes down to. I could offer my ideas but you'll have to make up your mind for yourself in the end.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So for one of my GEC classes, I'm taking a Morality/ethics course in philosophy, and the course has taken a turn for the practical. One upshot of this is the concept that a moral patient who we could be held responsible for our actions towards on grounds of morality is not necessarily a moral agent responsible for their own actions. A monkey for instance could not be held morally accountable for stealing your wallet, but you might be responsible for beating the monkey to get your money back. Vice versa is also conceivable, for instance, it is no skin of Yahweh's back if Darth Wong remains an atheist and denies the existance of God.

The point which has been troubling me is that the class seems to not have a very good idea where the distinction should be drawn. Lots of different ideas, and a general fondness for using a lot of words to say very little. So where do you draw the line? What criteria do you judge moral standings on? Who are you Responsible for, and who else is responsible in the same way you are?

You have moral obligations toward individuals, and aggregates of individuals, that have the ability to have interests. For example, a lizard all other things being equal will avoid death. You can therefore say that it has an interest in avoiding death.

An individual has moral obligations toward other individuals or aggregates to the extent that it can perceive and take into account the interests of others in its decision making.

The metaethics of that get hairy, but that is pretty standard among modern utilitarians...

[Vehrec]

So where do you draw the line? What criteria do you judge moral standings on? Who are you Responsible for, and who else is responsible in the same way you are?

Those are some big questions, and ultimately I'd say they're going to be ones you'll have to figure out for yourself.

I wish I could be more helpful but that's what it comes down to. I could offer my ideas but you'll have to make up your mind for yourself in the end.

I've already got my own opinion-Beings capable of rational thought and understanding of the consequences of actions are responsible for them, and beings that are self aware are the ones that the ramifications of actions must be considered in respect to- but I want to hear your opinions on the subject. It is a big question, and I want to hear how people answer big questions.

[Junghalli]

I've already got my own opinion-Beings capable of rational thought and understanding of the consequences of actions are responsible for them, and beings that are self aware are the ones that the ramifications of actions must be considered in respect to- but I want to hear your opinions on the subject. It is a big question, and I want to hear how people answer big questions.

OK.

Q: What criteria do you judge moral standings on?

A: The degree to which your actions have promoted the happiness of other intelligent beings vs the degree to which they have inhibited it.

Q: Who are you Responsible for?

A: I'm not sure exactly what "responsible for" is supposed to mean in this context. I am assuming it means "who's happiness should I worry about". My answer would be: in principle everyone. Though obviously there are limits on what it is practical for you to do and you will be able to do more for some than others.

Q: who else is responsible in the same way you are?

A: I would consider all human beings responsible in this way.