My personal morality theory

Post Reply New Topic

Given my objections to your idea that the concept of ownership is always at the root of morality, I may be scuppering my own position in saying this, but I don't quite see eye to eye with bravery as a moral thing either. Granted, it's often admired, but when it's unpacked it gets more complicated. What is the fear that's to be faced down? Why is that particular fear to be ignored? I think sometimes it's wiser to do a tactical retreat. But I guess most moral principles are like that - they don't hold up perfectly to being unpacked, they break down when you think carefully about them. Being the kind of person who thinks about things in depth, I see flaws in most moral principles.

The other thing I don't like about bravery as a moral thing is that we have little control over it. I suppose I have a certain amount of bravery and a certain amount of cowardice in me, but I don't know of any way of changing the balance. It's not always even clear to me whether some of my actions are brave, cowardly, wise or foolish.

Being brave is often seen as good. It could just have a different root and maybe I'm being too all inclusive in trying to find a single root, but I feel like it's a big chunk of the puzzle.

^
Well, it's probably only a construct, but without constructs it would be hard to think much about anything, and if yours turns out to be flawed, so are all the others. I still like the utilitarian construct best, because the only instances it breaks down under seem to be very improbable or impossible, like pushing somebody onto a railway track to stop a train that would otherwise kill several people. Would it really stop the train? And assuming the one who thus intervened would be convicted of murder and imprisoned for a long time (as far as I can see the law would do that), it would complicate the decision.