I don't even know if there is an answer, I mean even askphilosophers.org didn't know.
January 24, 2010 8:57 AM   Subscribe

Has anyone yet attempted to establish a "baseline" for ethical reasoning? I am assuming that throughout incidents in a person's everyday life, he sometimes chooses between ethical "action" and "inaction". If he happens to choose "inaction", what is the natural ethical "baseline" he should be expected to maintain, lest he be morally obligated to choose "action" (to attempt to act on a perceived obligation to right a moral injustice)?

I first asked this on askphilosophers.org, but they've since deleted it. I like to think that was because it was too hard for them, not that it was a stupid question.

At first, I equated such a situation with simply regarding inaction as neither moral nor immoral, defining a "baseline" as what encourages human progress (but, of course, now I am having a hard time defining just what I want to mean by 'progress'). But then I read the last paragraph of this post, and it seemed to be ask the same question I had. So where can I find more information on action versus omission of an action, and more information about a possible ethical baseline? I would also love any references that cite this in both individual and political ethics.

I already know about Mill's harm principle, and Rawls' difference principle (those are two things that seem to function off a "baseline").
posted by lhude sing cuccu to Religion & Philosophy (3 answers total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: please ask this later in the week. -- jessamyn

 
Perhaps they deleted it because they had difficulty understanding it? Certainly, I had some difficulty understanding your question as it's presented here. Perhaps you could give an example which would illustrate what you mean by "incidents", "action", "inaction", "baseline" and "morally obligated"?

If my interpretation of your question is accurate, this article might interest you.
posted by Mike1024 at 9:13 AM on January 24, 2010


Agreed with Mike. The question doesn't make sense as posed.

No offense but it sounds as if you have read a smattering of philosophy and think you are being provocative and insightful with your question.

It is incoherent, though.

Perhaps reduce your question to a single line and people can suggest works that you can read.
posted by dfriedman at 9:18 AM on January 24, 2010 [2 favorites]


Are you just asking "what minimum duties does a person have?"

Otherwise, it's not clear to me what your question is.

The harm principle just says: you may infringe others' liberties only when they are doing harm to others. But I don't think this exhausts a person's moral duties, nor is it meant to. If you see someone drowning, you're still supposed to save them, and that has nothing to do with the harm principle. It's a principle of governance, not so much of individual morality. When you call this a "baseline" I really just don't get exactly what you mean.
posted by creasy boy at 9:22 AM on January 24, 2010


« Older Sheet music viewer for mac?   |   Help finding the cheapest polarized sunglasses Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.