A man in dilemma is a man with no moral

“A man in dilemma is a man with no moral”

I know it’s a bit too strong to propose a statement like this, but nothing is too strong for a philosopher :)

Let us begin the enquiry with a dilemma of moral dilemma that already been discussed in previous entry. A man in dilemma is ought to do Y and ought not to do Y. The problem with this statement is that it is contradicting. I for sure cannot be in England at the same time I am not in England. It just cannot be true. But one cannot reject that we in real life do experience ought to do and ought not to do concurrently. I ought to go to dinner but I ought not to go because I already made promise to go to concert as well.

Let us assume that the statement do contradict and cannot exist in parallel. Given two options that first we thought as a dilemma, the dilemma is automatically deprive because the two options is just not realistic. It cannot exist together. Then the option is not an option at all. It has transform to become item of preference—one which is superior or poorer from the other one. As a result, the two options we thought we had and which cause the dilemma earlier, has always been preferred of one item from the other. It is just the case of ignorance in which is the preferred one.

Because the preference is always there, it must be govern by some law. If I prefer fish to chicken, then the reason of the liking is the law—in our case, the moral outlook.

The moral outlook is the one that ensured “ought to” and “ought not to” to be incompatible to each other thus result in the deprivation of dilemma.

In contrary, let us assume that the statement of ought to and ought not to are compatible, if in the first case the incompatibility is cause by the existence of moral outlook, the compatibility must now cause by the removal of it. We can now proceed to conclude that dilemma can only exist if there is no moral outlook thus verify the earlier statement that a man in dilemma is a man with no moral outlook.

Dilemma of Moral Dilemma

The dilemma of Moral dilemma arise when there is a principle such as utility principle that would in every case tell us what was good, or right or virtuous. This will deprive the reality of the dilemma itself.

If there was no dilemma because such principle exists to deny it existence in the first place, what was our thought of having dilemma is merely an illusion or a mistake, which is absurd because the experience is so real.

We have now a real experience of dilemma in one hand, and in the other hand a resolution which is always exist to deny the existence of the dilemma in the first place.

How can we have a dilemma of A and B whereas A is always the morally right obligation to be made as revealed by the principle?

It seems that moral principle or law is not compatible with the dilemma itself. Or is it?

My opinion on this incompatibility requires some deep insight and not just some heuristic thinking to the problem.

If there was a principle underlying moral, where does it come from?

I propel to propose that it must originate from humankind itself. If it indeed correct, it forced us to accept the probability that a perfectly or a complete human being exist.

The principle of morality thus ingrained in within this complete human being. Whatever he does must be accordance to the highest standards of morality thus deprive of any wrongdoing.

We, on the other hand, although real in existence was only a bit of those completely human being. Our deviation from the “true self” varies from person to person. There is a noble man whose deviation is modest and some who is morally degraded departure farthest from the true self.

I think if we understand the concept of true self, it is clear that common people are always deviated but there will always be a correct or right path which we can follow.

Back to the question on how can we have a 1.dilemma of A and B whereas 2.A is always right, it can be solved by separating 1 from 2.

Let us take a complete human being as an example. Even though he is free from any wrongdoing, this does not take away the probability that he might encounter a dilemma.

He might promised his friend to go to concert while forget that he had already promise to have dinner with his wife the same day. As a complete human being he instantly knows that the most preferable thing to do morally, for example, is to have dinner with his wife.

Although he always know the answer to any moral incompatibility, forgetfulness which is the source if his dilemma is not part of his completeness. He being complete does not deprive his nature to be human which include—to forget.

From this we can see clearly that having a principle of morality as a foundation of moral will never deprive dilemma because it simply a different issues.

Moral Dilemma

What if your boss told you to stay back but you had already promised your wife to go to cinema? You decision: Angry boss? or angry wife? If the dilemma arise from our own desire, it is a practical dilemma. But dilemma involving obligation like promise is a typical of Moral dilemma, one that cracks the head of philosopher.

One of them is British philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1973) with his utility principle which is based on the thought of Epicurus, an Athens philosopher of 341 B.C. He rejects moral laws (religion etc) as being incapable and insufficient to be an umpire to solve the dilemma. The solution from moral law is often taken literally from the text. Too rigid? Metaphorist should rejoice then.

What is utility principle is all about?

Sometimes called Greatest Happiness Principle, utility principle said that pleasure is human being ultimate goal. Sound interesting? Well, how many times have you heard people said that they just want to be happy? Many times I guess.

So our end is to be pleasure, which include of being happy and away from pain. But some opposition of Mills accused that if pleasure is the ultimate end, then it is comparable to animal or beast. It is true though, that animal is easily pleasured. Noisy cat, will go licking its fur happily after been served food. If pleasure is what human being is up to, then it is no different to the cat, rat, boar, pig and all other animal. But does human being can be satisfied as easy as animal? Errrr… not many will claim yes.

So if there is different in the degree in where pleasure can give satisfaction to human and animal, quality of pleasure must exist. One pleasure can be better than other. Therefore, the “brainless” animal can never attain the pleasure of literature, culture and other mental pleasure. They are stuck with their bodily pleasure of eat, sleep, sex, etc. Mills claim a consensus of utilitarian philosopher where they put mental pleasure ahead of bodily pleasure. Human as a superior being will never lower itself to the standards of inferior beings no matter how easy the lives of inferior being seem to be. Because of pride? or dignity? or perhaps liberty?

He famously said: “it is better to be human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”

Wow! Well said.

Back to the original dilemma that we had encountered earlier, the decision can be made using the utility principle as an umpire. Whether we accept our work obligation or fulfilling the promise we made, it is dependable to the sum of all happiness. If the sum of all happiness to work is greater than the sum of happiness in fulfilling the promise to go to cinema, than the former is the morally right decision. Sum of all happiness should consist all of the stakeholders which can include the wife, boss, society, government, culture and all that is relevant to the said circumstances.

The ironic is, if utility principle or any other theories can give better understanding on how decision of moral dilemma is reach—there will be no dilemmas exist at all—because one moral obligation is always perceived better than the other. It is disturbing because the way I see it, moral dilemma is so real!! This is what philosophy is all about. Crispy.

It's good to be back

After a year I decided to blog again.

I changed the name a little bit and add "philosopher" to reflect my newly founded enthusiasm in philosophy. By the way, I'm now officially called amateur psychologist (of lower caste, of course) after completing my diploma in psychology early this year. Now, I am a philosophy student attached to Birkbeck college, University of London.

I added new ingrediants to this blog: 1. Yawning and 2. Babling of philosophy mumbo jumbo.