Jacob Recha LIS 120 Blog Post Reading Reflection #1

Over the last few weeks, what has engaged me most, and therefore, what I've been obsessed with trying to apply are objective moral truths to life, even if there is not one particular best moral truth for every situation, or indeed, there are some situations where only wrong moral answers can be pointed out, I do believe that some objective moral truths exist.  I've also been trying to comprehend just how my objective system of ethical theory relates to the roles I portray both in life as an information professional, a human technology user, and in video games, as various characters whose cultures are far foreign to my own.  I pose that while I believe objective moral truths exist, they are complex statements evaluated by ethical theories such as act or rule utilitarianism, as well as act or rule based duty ethics(deontology).


Moral Truths


Firstly, I identify an objective moral truth as a directive, or rule of conduct that should be defensible as true, through reason alone to show that the statement is true, in all situations.  For example, Tavani states "Many philosophers and ethicists argue that reason alone is sufficient to show that stealing is wrong - reason informs us that there is something either in the very act of stealing or in the consequences of the act that makes stealing morally wrong" (42).  This does not mean there are not reasonable defenses as to commit the opposite of the rule, simply that the rule is a claim that can be made and defended by reason alone.


Objective moral truths I argue are those that can be evaluated as a statement to prove that they uphold an intrinsinc good, or discourage an intrinsinc bad, based on criteria set forth by a specific system, or ethical theory, I believe ethicists to be most capable of performing the tasks required of defending objective moral truths, while moralists may be less able.  Moralists, and absolutists may claim to have objective truths, "some moralists may have a particular agenda to advance" (Tavani 44), I take this statement by Tavani to mean that a moralist of any sort may be more likely concerned with imposing their rules of conduct on others by belief alone that they are universal, rather than having analyzed the moral directives for universality.  An ethicist, in comparison to a moralist, is someone who studies "morality from the perspective of philosophical methodology, and who thus appeal to logical arguments to justify claims and positions involving morality" (Tavani 43).


Relative, Absolute, or Objective


Moral relativism, absolutism, and objectivism, like cultural relativism, all fail in providing universal truths, or even ways of evaluating statements for partial truth, or equivalent morality to other truths.  Cultural relativism does little more than state a fact that "Different cultures have different beliefs about what constitutes morally right and wrong behavior" (Tavani 50).  Moral relativism implies that we can not, or should not judge, or form evaluations of other cultures' moral behaviors, and therefore any behavior or answer to a moral question can be appropriate given the majority of a given culture holds the same view.  Moral absolutism is similar to moralist methodology of claiming single truths for all ethical dilemmas, regardless of the naivette of such a claim.  Moral objectivism and ethical objectivism are views Pojman and others "believe that it is possible to hold... which is between the two extremes." (51).


Personal Application


All of this leads me to a current obsession over moral truth in our world, a world that I believe holds infinite possibilities, including the unbinding of the laws of physics.  Applying what I've learned to scenarios that occur in my life lead me to believe I am in the moral minority of my culture, in what I deem to be right and wrong (I believe "professionalism" as a requirement to certain types of work to be ethically unsound, as it creates a false atmosphere, and requires a dichotomous lifestyle, forcing employees to give up freedoms, and in many cases, money they earn from working, to lie about themselves for the sake of some social construct.)  I would not benefit from assuming a relativistic outlook.  I also have been obsessively applying or attempting to apply the idea of a moral truth that stands the tests of time, and science fiction, by applying ethical objectivstic ideas and theories to video games in which cultures embrace the slaying of "monsters" or allow "heroes" to go around thieving, breaking objects, or otherwise doing a lot of what would be considered bad things in the real world.


As I look at my own theories about what is right and wrong, a game like Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor, has me making moral choices like: Chase down the young lady, Midori, whom I know will die today based on a premonition my computer tells me about, or chase down my former ally Keisuke, who has become the spirit of vengeance, before he harms innocent people.  There is backstory to why the former ally is now calling out for justice on the humans who are mostly innocent.


The backdrop of the game is that everyone within a subway loop near Tokyo Japan is now trapped, and demons have been appearing, people are becoming aware of their presence, and the party, as well as a few NPCs, have the ability to summon demons through their little computer devices, to combat the evil ones running rampant.  Midori has been wildly showing off her demon summoning ability to protect normal humans from demons that she sees attacking them, however, having been in a lockdown for three days, the humans are afraid and lash out in a witch hunt style manner, intending to kill her for being in league with the demons that are part of the cause of their being trapped in the first place.   Keisuke has a crush on Midori, and has a very strict moral system, on top of that, he's a highly stressed individual.  When he realizes that it's not demons who will kill his crush that is predicted to die today, Keisuke has a near mental breakdown, and rushes off.  We catch up with Keisuke just as he is summoning a new and powerful demon, with which he intends to kill the civillians who have backed Midori into a corner.


We rescue Midori, but she runs off, unconvinced that she should stop 'helping people' so publically, and our computer continues its premonition that she will die today if something does not change.  With that, our party is given the choice:


"Chase down and stop Keisuke before he hurts someone.
Rescue Midori." (SMT: DS 2009)


My own view of ethics in this matter is somewhat utilitarian, and states that I have to sympathize with the innocent civillians, protect them from harm, both from demons and from tamers alike, even if they resent being saved, and that Midori is one life, while Keisuke could take many more lives in the time it takes me to find her.  The game however railroads me into finding her first, obviously disagreeing with my own evaluation of the ethical dilemma at hand.


This brings me to my ethical dilemma on objective moral truths.  I believe killing to be wrong, and yet I am playing a game, attempting to apply my own moral directives to the choices given to me, a game in which I regularly slay or banish demons (and team up with them).  I am however given options to save lives on a regular basis, even given tasks in certain battles that require me to scare civillians without killing them.  Yet when it comes down to a choice that I spent fifteen minutes weighing out consequentially, the world that the programmers designed disagreed with my application of morals from my particular school of ethical thought.  The world said to me that at least one programmer believes: "It is better to save a guaranteed life now, than to possibly prevent numerous deaths in the short term."  I can't argue with it, it is not fundamentally flawed, it is a valid moral statement, saving a life is a morally positive action.  However, saving more in my mind is more moral, even if those lives are of ungrateful, xenophobic, near-racist individuals.


Conclusion


Do objective moral truths exist?  I believe so, due to their ability to be wrought by pure reason alone.  Are they as simple as "stealing and killing are wrong"?  I don't believe so, because situations can arise in which there are few options, perhaps only two, and either one include death or stealing.  An ethical theory is needed to evaluate the consequences of the actions, and one must decide whether duty, utility, and rules or acts are the best way to evaluate moral dilemmas.  I tried to apply rule utilitarianism to a role I portrayed in a video game, but I was balked by the way the world in which I was taking part was created.

Works Cited
Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor. Atlus Co., 2009. Computer software.

Tavani, Herman T. "Ethical Concepts and Ethical Theories: Establishing and Justifying a Moral System." Ethics and Technology: Controversies, Questions, and Strategies for Ethical Computing. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2011. 35-70. Print.


Jacob Recha
LIS 120 Spring 2012
Bradley Compton