Source of morality is found within man?

April 5, 2007 Thursday
SECTION: ST FORUM – ONLINE STORY
LENGTH: 643 words
HEADLINE: Source of morality is found within man

I REFER to the article, ‘Think, and don’t just rely on your moral intuitions‘ (ST, March 31), by Mr Peter Singer.

This article questions the legitimacy of people’s intuitive moral sense.

The writer uses a hypothetical situational ‘moral dilemma’ of a trolley about to crash into five people to elicit the moral response of the individual acting in the capacity of a hypothetical witness of that impending danger.

It turns out that the moral choice – through the use of leading questions – varies from individual to individual, including one of doing violence to another person to avert the danger.

The writer seems to insinuate that this shows there is really no universally valid intuitive moral principle to start with.

The writer therefore recommends reasoning rather than listening to one’s moral intuition when it comes to making moral choice. But are not people already reasoning in varying degrees in deciding their moral responses?

Perhaps the writer wants to suggest that we should adopt a utilitarian approach in ethical reasoning – an approach I understand he is renowned for through his other writings.

Ah, that’s where one can get caught in an insidious loop. On what basis shall one decide such a utilitarian response to a situation is morally right?

This article reveals as much about this hidden question in this statement: ‘But the fact that our moral intuitions are universal and part of our human nature does not mean that they are right’.

Where does this fundamental sense of right arise from? Clearly it is internally based, in other words intuitive in nature. It is otherwise known as our natural human sympathy.

The rational or utilitarian approach to morality really cannot escape from this point of reference within man.

However, in believing that a utilitarian moral doctrine of ‘greatest good to greatest number of people’ is a better guide for making moral judgment can only result in muddled ethics because it at once attempts to limit the scope of our human sympathy.

In fact I think it is precisely such an utilitarian approach that has led to controversial and dangerous socio-political policies as ’survival of the fittest’ and ’society is more important than the individual’.

With that it is possible to justify deprivation of masses from social welfare, exploitation of the weak and in more chaotic times even the massacre of despised racial groups and handicapped people thought to be inferior and hence dispensable.

It is true that while people may want to do good to others, they are hampered by various limitations – like one’s physical and emotional strength, and material resources – to fulfil this objective.

It is also true that from time to time people do make mistakes in their moral judgment.

However, these considerations by no means show that our basic moral intuition or sympathy is invalid.

Therefore by asking people to find their moral compass in something else than this natural sympathy will only serve to further cloud and distort their moral judgment and worse to eventually blot out their human sympathy.

Before I end, to illustrate what I mean so far, here’s two contrasting examples between utilitarian morality and natural morality (sympathy):

1. Utilitarian: A relative said to a mother of a severely handicapped child that the latter was useless, of no value whatsoever. The implication was that the handicapped person has no economic productivity and is only a burden to the family.

2. Sympathy: A manager was approached by a worker with some personal difficulties which he was unable to solve or help. The manager felt very sympathetic and, looking at his worker, his whole countenance intensely reflected that.

While I dread to think that society may take the path of the former case, I certainly find hope and encouragement in the latter situation despite the practical incapacity of the sympathiser.

Chia Hern Keng

Copyright 2007 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
All Rights Reserved
The Straits Times (Singapore)