Reason, Science and God

3: The Principles and Opinions of Induvidual Ethics

Now that the groundwork for this essay has been established, I will discuss the opinions held by this theory.

The Key Principle

The key principle of Individual Ethics is that ethics and morality is entirely subjective and the result of childhood development, adult development and socialisation, as well as internal natural urges (see the Four Mechanisms discussed later).

This means that the laws of someone's country, the teachings of someone's religion, faith or practice, the teachings of their parents etcetera all have affected and developed a unique set of morals in their mind, either by them agreeing with what they have been told, or disagreeing with it. This suggests that everyone has slightly different morals, in the same way that each human's DNA is unique and different to the next person's. This is called individual difference, and is a key aspect to morality.

Morality, what someone believes to be right and wrong, is therefore inherently personal and subjective: no two people have exactly the same morals.

So what does this mean for objective moral systems? It is arguable that if morality is a socialised aspect of personality, that there is no objective way to make moral decisions. Even if you are looking at moral problem objectively, you are using an inherently subjective moral compass due to the aforementioned individual difference. This means the other people involved might have different moral systems (such as the difference between situationism and deontology). If you all have different opinions, and therefore might have different conclusions about the course of action, who is to say which one of you is right and more moral than the other?

Furthermore, when looking at moral problems, you are not invested emotionally in the process, so cannot fully understand every aspect of the ethical or moral problem [see the Four Mechanisms].

The 4 Mechanisms of Decision Making

The Four Mechanisms are an objective model of decision making used to split up a complicated process into understandable chunks. The way people approach decisions obviously varies due to individual difference, and all these aspects will mix together into a seamless process, but this model helps to explain why people think differently and come to different decisions.

The Four Mechanisms are four aspects to decision making. As someone approaches a situation, whether a moral dilemma or not, their mind will use and intertwine these four aspects – they may not even be conscious of the individual parts. These aspects also often rally against one another, creating dilemma in the mind of a person. They are:

1. The Brain: This is the logical and rational side of the decision making process. This is the logical, unemotional response is to a problem, using pure reason. Often, moral systems are contained within this aspect.

2. The Emotional Heart: This is the emotional side of the decision making process. This is what someone's emotional needs or wants are. It might contrast with The Brain's logic.

3. The Spiritual Heart: This is the spiritual side of the decision making process. If someone belongs to a religion, faith or practice, they will often believe a higher power is talking to them and influencing them: these feelings fit in this heart. This can be misinterpreted, or just plainly ignored.

4. The Instinct: This is the instinctive side of the decision making process. This is what someone wants from a base, animal level, such as lust or hunger. This aspect is often overpowering, overriding the other aspects. It is linked to the nature debate, and the innate behaviours within all mammals and humans.

How the Four Mechanisms can be applied

The Four Mechanisms are all well and good, but they are rendered useless on the subject of morality if they can't be used to explain the moral decision making process. Therefore, I have devised an analogy to help explain this, which I will call "The River Analogy" for referencing's sake.

Imagine that you are walking down a path, when you happen upon a river. You have no phone coverage, there is no one else about, and you are faced with this: a young girl of about 8 years is drowning in a river. Another passer-by, a famous scientist studying cancer, jumped in to save her, but is also drowning and therefore cannot save her. You have no way of getting any help, as in the time it takes, the two will drown.

You can jump in, and risk drowning yourself, but no matter what you choose to do you will only be able to save one of them. What would you do?

1. The Brain: You might start thinking which the most logical option is to save. Any moral theory that you use will be considered here, and you will generate a rational response to the situation.

2. The Emotional Heart: You might start thinking about what you feel like doing. If you teach children, your emotions might be drawn to choosing the child; if you have a family member with cancer, your emotions might be drawn to choosing the scientist.

3. The Spiritual Heart: If you are religious, you might start thinking about what the spiritual aspect is telling you to do. You may have a 'spiritual' feeling or inclining to choose one of the people over the other.

4. The Instinct: You might have the instinct to just jump in and save someone, and not take any time to think about it. If you're a mother, you might have the instinct to save the child. You might also have the instinct of survival: you won't want to jump in, and will feel great fear.

Now you have read an example of how the decision making process is split up, try applying this system for yourself. What might each aspect of the decision making process say? What might you choose to do? Might you try and devise a way to save one without jumping in yourself? It is important not to forget that this is not a way of making decisions, but merely a way of explaining the differences in choices that people make.