The previous discussion focused on exploring fundamental concepts related to reasons, particularly the philosophical implications of why individuals may act in certain ways based on their motivations.
Focus
In Episode 2, the exploration deepens to examine the concept of "moral" reasons, particularly how people understand moral obligations and judgments in relation to their motivations and actions.
Part 1: "I Don't Care! I Love It!"
Reasons Internalism vs. Reasons Externalism
Reasons Internalism: Proposes that for rational action to occur, individuals must have some intrinsic motivation or desire; without it, actions may lack rational justification.
Reasons Externalism: Contrasts with internalism by suggesting that it is possible for actions to be rational even if the individual lacks motivation; in this view, rationality can exist independently of personal desires.
Clash with Moral Absolutism
Definition: Moral absolutism posits that certain actions are universally recognized as wrong, such as murder, regardless of individual beliefs or intentions.
The Central Problem: The challenge lies in enforcing these moral rules consistently across varied individual motivations, especially when some may disregard moral reasons altogether.
Example: An individual who remains ignorant or chooses to overlook moral reasons cannot escape moral judgment; their actions are still accountable.
Real-Life Implications
Legal systems rigorously uphold that a lack of motivation cannot be accepted as a legitimate defense for actions deemed immoral; the pursuit of justice requires accountability.
Challenges arise when considering personal motivations, particularly in contexts such as mental health, where individuals may struggle to align their motivations with rational moral reasoning.
Addressing the Central Problem
One answer: Accept that morality may cease to apply in instances where appropriate motivations are absent, potentially limiting the effectiveness of moral guidance.
Alternative response: Reformulate moral claims to connect them with tangible outcomes, such as the threat of punishment (e.g., "If you don't want to go to prison, then you should not commit a crime").
Concern: This reformation could potentially weaken the objective nature of morality, which is fundamentally aimed at ensuring the well-being and rights of others within society.
Part 2: Playing With Yourself
Integration of Moral Absolutism and Internalism
Proposition: While moral reasons may necessitate the right motivations, it is posited that all individuals innately possess these motivations intrinsically.
Kant's Perspective
Rational Beings: According to Kant, rational beings are inherently driven by moral reasons that guide their actions; these moral laws emerge from within, suggesting a self-imposed moral authority.
Moral Contradictions: Acting immorally is seen as inherently irrational as it contradicts one’s own foundational motivations to act morally.
Simon Critchley's Contribution
Foundational Influence: Critchley argues that the self is fundamentally shaped by moral values; there exist no beings that are value-neutral. This suggests a deep connection between identity and ethical standards.
Ethical Subjectivity: The interplay between the self and moral demands creates a dynamic of ethical subjectivity, where one's moral decisions reflect inherent values and the health of the self.
Moral Integrity: Critchley posits that actions against one's moral values represent a detrimental impact on one’s self-concept and integrity.
Part 3: Eeeeviiill!
Motivation to Avoid Evil
Critchley's Premise: Critical to one’s identity is the moral approval from within; individuals are influenced significantly by their understanding of good and evil.
Distinction of Values: It is crucial to differentiate between genuine moral considerations and personal preferences, as the former are essential for true moral reasoning.
Contrastive Reasons by Justin Snedegar
Context-Dependent Reasoning: Rationality is not a one-size-fits-all concept; rather, it must be evaluated within the context of alternatives available—this introduces a comparative element to moral reasoning.
Comparative Rationality: Attempts to rationalize actions must consider viable choices and alternatives, reflecting the necessity of a broader contextual understanding in moral decision-making.
Implications of Contrastive Reasons
Construction of Humanity: Human beings are inherently driven by the motivations to pursue goodness and avoid evil, suggesting that moral frameworks are built on these fundamental drives.
Social Morality: Moral demands from others play a vital role in shaping an understanding of good and evil; thus, morality is not just an individual concern but a social construct that reflects collective ethical standards.
Conclusion
In summation, philosophers’ attempts to align rational actions with moral imperatives reveal the complex interplay between individual motivation and collective moral values.
