How Humans Should Frame Morality

 

Image Source: Washington University in St. Louis

Morality

Morality is the idea that specific behavior is “right” or “wrong”. Without morality, all behavior is equally permissible and there is no government. Without government, there is no order or protection and humanity lives in uncertainty. Therefore, morality is inextricable from people's well-being, and it is the government’s duty to uphold morality in its decision-making. 

The Problem with Moral Frameworks

Morality may be a flawed abstract construct, but that is precisely why politicians need to understand it. By understanding morality, people can reconcile its subjective nature with the objective facts of politics to benefit people. It is then through benefitting others in a moral environment that humanity lives best. The problem is that there are many moral frameworks whose conflicting paradigms seemingly trivialize any deeper inquiry into morality. For example, if consequentialist frameworks evaluate morality through the consequences of an action and deontological frameworks evaluate morality through the action itself, there is already a potential disagreement that discredits both frameworks.

The problem with moral frameworks is that they are inherently viewed as frameworks instead of moral concepts. Surprisingly, thinking of morality in concepts is, in theory, both more practical and more ethical than reducing it to rigid frameworks. Take, for instance, the controversy surrounding capitalism. It is easy to demonize or glorify capitalism when adhering to strict moral beliefs, but when people comprehend the multifaceted nature of capitalism, that is when the best economic policies are made.

Moral Situationalism

I suggest that moral objectivism be replaced by “moral situationalism”. Moral situationalism is the notion that morality should always be analyzed as objectively as possible under multiple frameworks and that the morally ‘best’ decision in the given circumstances ought to be made. The two intricacies of moral situationalism are the ideas of objective analysis and moral optimality. 

Objective analysis is a complex, nonspecific process whereby moral decisions are assessed impartially. Although it is impossible to be completely impartial, politicians can strive for objectivity in discourse. Discourse mitigates subjective moral decision-making because it encourages solutions amidst differing personal beliefs. Discourse can be further refined by strategies such as asking the right questions, reframing problems, and voting.

Moral optimality is the most complicated component of moral situationalism because, like moral frameworks, it also confronts ideological conflicts. This means that moral optimality must be premised on why morality matters in a given situation. For example, one of the reasons murder is bad is that it causes emotional pain to people who lose loved ones. Ergo, one of the reasons it matters that murder is immoral is that people’s deaths cause emotional pain. It can be subsequently deduced that the morally optimal way to solve the problem of murder ought to minimize emotional pain. The gist of moral optimality is to determine why morality matters in a situation to devise a solution that best accounts for moral importance.

Situational morality transcends traditional moral frameworks by attempting to find the objectively best decision through an array of moral lenses. Whether in politics or everyday life, morality is crucial to success and people need a way to evaluate it.