Thinking about this some more… if I am an object with moral weight—for example, if I have “agency” on your account—then how I ought to treat myself is a question with a moral dimension, and attempting to answer that question without a moral theory (or with an incorrect moral theory) makes it less likely that I will treat myself the way I ought.
So I think “A lone person on a deserted island has no need for morality” is simply false.
My original point was, that there are two different kinds of morality. There is a core morality about human interaction that I am arguing here and that does not exist for a single individual. There is however a second use of the word morality that is closer to the word’s ethymology of the latin “mores”, it’s the conduct that is expected from someone in some society. That second one definitely is a matter of preferences and it could extend to someone on a deserted island in as much as we still consider that person to be part of a “human society”.
I think the importance of keeping your agency could be of the second kind. Maybe when people reject their agency it’s their prerogative, or maybe we should expect from other people that they act as persons. I myself do regard people who reject their agency as beneath me, but I don’t care too much.
Now I feel like repeating myself. According to “core morality” you are not free to destroy someones agency unless in defense, e.g. you are not free to make choices that are expected to cause someone’s death unless in defense if he violates this principle.
I don’t know how to reconcile your comments in this thread.
It seems to me that if someone is dying, and I choose to let them die, that’s a choice that’s expected to cause their death. So by your account, core morality says I’m not free to make that choice. Also by your account, core morality doesn’t have anything to say about whether I should keep someone from dying given the choice.
Does my confusion make sense? Can you help resolve it?
The test whether a choice causes something is to see whether if I did not exist or could not act (e.g. was unconscious), the thing would not occur.
In the given example, if I poison someone I cause his death, since if I could not act for whatever reason there would be no poison. But if someone is drowning without my doing and I just happen to come along and choose not to throw a life belt I would not be causing his death since he would drown anyway if I could not act.
Thinking about this some more… if I am an object with moral weight—for example, if I have “agency” on your account—then how I ought to treat myself is a question with a moral dimension, and attempting to answer that question without a moral theory (or with an incorrect moral theory) makes it less likely that I will treat myself the way I ought.
So I think “A lone person on a deserted island has no need for morality” is simply false.
My original point was, that there are two different kinds of morality. There is a core morality about human interaction that I am arguing here and that does not exist for a single individual. There is however a second use of the word morality that is closer to the word’s ethymology of the latin “mores”, it’s the conduct that is expected from someone in some society. That second one definitely is a matter of preferences and it could extend to someone on a deserted island in as much as we still consider that person to be part of a “human society”.
I think the importance of keeping your agency could be of the second kind. Maybe when people reject their agency it’s their prerogative, or maybe we should expect from other people that they act as persons. I myself do regard people who reject their agency as beneath me, but I don’t care too much.
Does “core morality” have anything to say about whether I should keep someone from dying, given the choice?
No. That’s preference. Unless you’d be the reason why he was dying, and of course you are not free to keep other people from helping.
OK. So what kinds of choices does “core morality” contribute to making decisions about?
Now I feel like repeating myself. According to “core morality” you are not free to destroy someones agency unless in defense, e.g. you are not free to make choices that are expected to cause someone’s death unless in defense if he violates this principle.
I don’t know how to reconcile your comments in this thread.
It seems to me that if someone is dying, and I choose to let them die, that’s a choice that’s expected to cause their death. So by your account, core morality says I’m not free to make that choice. Also by your account, core morality doesn’t have anything to say about whether I should keep someone from dying given the choice.
Does my confusion make sense?
Can you help resolve it?
The test whether a choice causes something is to see whether if I did not exist or could not act (e.g. was unconscious), the thing would not occur.
In the given example, if I poison someone I cause his death, since if I could not act for whatever reason there would be no poison. But if someone is drowning without my doing and I just happen to come along and choose not to throw a life belt I would not be causing his death since he would drown anyway if I could not act.
Ah, I see. OK, I understand you now. Thanks for clarifying.