Ok so I am REALLY struggling with this idea that 1) we're at "fault" for the things that happen in the world 2) things are going to happen whether we like it or not because we're doing things right now that will have future implications that we will then want to "fix" 3) that somehow we will one day not have to "fix" things because we will automatically just choose the "right" so there will be nothing to fix.
1) If we choose the "right" then why does that mean there will be nothing to fix? We will still be implicated in things that happen around us (aka seeing a homeless person on the street, or getting hit by a car accidentally, etc), and will therefore be at "fault" for the things that happen, even if we "chose" the right.
2) We will still have to make choices. Choices don't go away. I do not think there is just a way that we will "automatically" do the right thing without thinking... we will still be choosing... it will be a choice to do the right thing
3) Why does "doing the right thing" matter anyway, if all we're supposed to do (not do?) is think rather than do (acc'd to Morton) Thinking IS doing. You're doing something by thinking, are you not?
4) I can't get past the idea that the "ecological thought" equals some sort of "utopian" world (which we know technically can't exist) in which everyone will just "automatically" do the right thing? What is the "right thing?"
5) Where do Serial Killers come in? I'd venture to say their idea of the "right thing" is a bit different than yours or mine.
While I agree it's something of a conundrum, I think it might help to think of what the world would be like if people didn't think things in terms of "good" and "evil". Good and evil are terms which are cemented in our unconscious, as well as our conscious-- I've seen really cool studies which hinge upon the connotations people apply to both of those words (like at harvard.edu/implicit). These constructs allow you to make decisions in a split second. No matter how much I read about why it is beneficial to save the life of a child getting hit by a truck-- that it benefits me in this way, society in that way, etc., etc.-- no matter how much I study ethics, when the truck is coming at the kid I'm not going to think "let's see, what would be best for myself and society in this situation?" I'm going to think saving child's life = good (I hope). It's quick, it's easy, and in many situations it works.
ReplyDeleteI think the ecological thought involves a new sort of good and evil. For instance, running over a kid with a car = evil. Is eating a hamburger evil? What if the hamburger comes from a cow which was murdered in a heinous fashion, polluting the environment along the way? If the long-term consequences of eating the burger, as well as the not-exactly-evident ones, are evil, is the act of eating the burger itself evil?
I think our current ethics (what you know in your gut to be right, almost without thinking) say no. (I've never recoiled in moral revulsion from the act of eating a burger). I think the ecological thought says yes. That, I think, is the difference.