Socrates don’t got shit on me.
The best part of Philosophy = You don’t have to have any idea what you’re talking about. Most people don’t think anymore. Well, I’m not most people. I’m the person. The person that made this ridiculously awesome blog.
Sorry ladies and gentlemen, God left. Do you want answers? Well, I have them. Ask and ye shall receive.
5/25/11 Dilemma of Morals, not Moral Dilemma
I’ve frequently heard people, including myself, use the phrase ‘moral dilemma’ and it’s never been something I’ve understood. I cannot think of an instance when a ‘moral dilemma’ actually exists. For, a moral should be something that adheres totally to Truth and is, therefore, defined infallibly. A dilemma about an absolute Truth (for the sake of this discussion we’re assuming that absolute Truths do actually exist) is not a dilemma; it’s an instance where an individual has not acted in accord with that absolute Truth and is having trouble figuring out how to rationalize their actions so that they are.
For example, if I were to spend time with a woman whom I knew was in a relationship and she were to begin kissing me, and I didn’t halt the situation, I would not be acting in accord with one of my morals: That Adultery Blows. In fact, I might claim that I were having a ‘moral dilemma’ because I would be able to subjectively say, ‘Adultery Blows, I don’t support it’, while simultaneously particpating in the act. Dilemma!? No, there is no Dilemma. The dilemma is: I fucked up. That’s not a dilemma, that’s just an instance of my human failure to mediate a circumstance that has the potential of harming others.
In every religious faith, and most philosophies independent of religious faiths, killing another human being is seen as an act of ‘evil’ (we are assuming evil and its opposite exist, during this part of the discussion). Most of these same faiths also claim that ‘justice must be served’, though it may be worded drastically (less violently) different. Now, what happens when we are in a situation where we feel justice needs to be served, and we feel the best way to do this is by eliminating the other person’s life (IE. War)? Do we have a moral dilemma? No, the individual morals themselves remain as Truths, but conflict with each other. Therefore, we have a dilemma of morals (two independent morals conflicting with each other).
Fortunately, a dilemma of morals is resolved easily, because there are no inherent faults of the morals themselves, which would be the case if we had a ‘moral dilemma’. All that is necessary to resolve a dilemma of morals is a new perspective on those morals. We must ask ourselves if the best way to bring ‘justice’ is to ‘eliminate the other’, or if we are only serving our selfish craving for revenge.
In the 9/11 ‘terrorist’ attacks 2,998 (most civilians) people were killed. I was told that, morally, we [America] needed to retaliate. After all, Justice needed to be served. According to http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ between 101,000 and 111,000 civilians have been killed since the Iraq War / Occupation. Bin Laden is now dead (another issue entirely, which I completely disagree with because of MORALS). Are we having a ‘moral dilemma’ (trying to make exceptions for our ‘don’t kill’ stance?), or a dilemma of morals (don’t kill vs. Justice)? Neither. Morals have dispersed and been replaced with the desire to dominate.
Until the general population begins to understand the perspective of the ‘other’, in this case those living, witnessing the US actions, in the Middle East, there will never be an end to the Iraq War. Look what we have done over the lives of 3000 of our citizens and ask yourself what we would do if 100,000 innocent people were killed. There are two sides of every coin. Never would I support a Terrorist’s actions, but I won’t pretend that I cannot understand where they are coming from. Violence begets violence (thank you Gandhi). Open Minds, not Open Fire.