Morality DBQ

DBQ

“Moral requirements are based on standards of rationality” (Johnson). Rational thinking allows us to determine right from wrong. This conscious decision leaves one with a choice of whether or not to act upon it. Understanding that a certain action, or lack thereof, will lead to negative consequences yet deliberately choosing such action is the bases of moral culpability. However, subjectivity of ethics and philosophies such as utilitarianism prove that moral culpability is entirely 2-dimensional and cannot account or explain the wide range of conflicting morals and ethics. An action can not be convicted as morally culpable because morals are entirely subjective and cannot be classified as right or wrong.

It is human nature to view a

situation and decide a right or correct outcome. However, David Noebel points out that there is “no objective basis for determining what is right”. There are numerous ways to interpret the same scenario, which subsequently leads to a multitude of different conclusions based on action. Morals; the ideals of right from wrong, are entirely subjective and are developed based on past experience and current circumstances. There is no way to define one's morals as more correct than another's, for “every moral view is as good as every other”(Noebel). This inability to dictate morals as fact leaves the question of whether the concept of moral culpability is a reliable conviction. In order to be morally culpable, the person must understand their actions were evil and will lead to a negative outcome. Yet how is one to determine whether or not a person truly believes their actions are immoral. Some of the most infamous dictators such as Hitler and Stalin, despite committing horrible and atrocious acts to man, honestly believed that their actions were necessary to better their country. Because of this, it is impossible to decide whether or not these men’s actions were morally culpable. The idea of moral subjectivity discredits the bases of moral culpability completely.

Utilitarianism is a philosophy that justifies actions based on the circumstantial outcome. The bases of Utilitarian ideals are that “an action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to produce the reverse of happiness”(West). The majority must benefit from the outcome, or said outcome will be denoted as wrong. However, “it is possible for the right thing to be done from a bad motive” (West). An individual might act in a way that harms another, but if it positively affects the majority the action would be just. The concept of moral culpability is questionable under these circumstances. The individual in question would know that their action is evil to some extent, but because it betters the majority of people they will do it anyway. This arises the question on the value of an individual's life versus that of a whole. Moral culpability only can atest to black and white situations, but in grey areas such as this, it simply does not hold up.
Objectivism is a philosophy built around moral culpability, or in this case a person's lack of culpability.

In theory, this philosophy “rejects the idea that reality is ultimately determined by a personal opinion or social convention” and “advocates the virtues of rational self-interest” (Harnes). At first these ideals don’t seem entirely flawed. “Independent thinking [and] productiveness”(Harnes) are important traits and qualities man should possess. However, the major flaw in this philosophy is the belief that an individual's fate is determined by the choices they make, not the circumstances they are in. The idea that it is impossible to “achieve goals by wishing, voting, or praying” but by “enact[ing in a] cause” (Harnes) completely disregards the limitations individuals may have based on their socio and economical situations. Objectivism is a philosophy that only appeals to the elite and rich, while casting out those living in harsher conditions that simply cannot risk actions that their richer counterpart can. The entire philosophy is based off of the lack of moral culpability an individual has, yet paradoxically proves the concept as being entirely real. Those who “correspond to the facts of reality” (Harnes) are morally acceptable and those who “do not” (Harnes) are morally culpable for their

actions.