Stimulus-Response?
Let me lead off on one of my tangents. Actually, this is something I'm not really sure about — if any of you have ideas, let me know... But I have heard the opinion that men are basically the same as animals in the way they make decisions. According to said opinion, both humans and animals process the inputs into their brains until they reach the (to them) most logical answer. Given a certain exact set of inputs, there is no possibility that a human could make two different choices. Turn the clock back, and there is no way I could have done anything different than attend vet school, do research this summer, or go to the Orval Smucker reunion. Such a philosophy completely removes free choice from the equation and makes me unresponsible for any sins I commit. I don't agree with it .
Maybe humans and animals are much the same with regard to amoral decisions. As long as a human is not insane, he will make the choice that makes the most sense on such occasions. If he is alone on a housetop (um, can you tell I use the King James Version of the Bible? that is honestly the word that came to mind instead of "roof") and flood waters are rising about him, he will naturally grab onto a boat that chances to float by. He possesses the inputs: "I can drown in water," "boats can float" and "death is undesirable." While animals do not process such thoughts with language (to my knowledge), they know similar truths and will go for the boat. In such matters, common sense tends to rule in both men and animals. Any two logical men will do the same thing as each other and as any logical animal.
Now, let's consider a definitely moral decision.
Let's say the man is a news reporter in the Middle East, a flood comes along, and he hies for the nearest building. He's sitting on the roof and he hears sounds from inside — there's a person in there. He realizes it would be morally right to try to save the person, but he also realizes there is little time before the flood waters have risen to the top of the house. He has a wife and children at home and important footage in his camera case. There are lots of variables to the issue (which he realizes because he is more intelligent than animals). Will the man make his choice based on common sense alone, as in the uncomplicated scenario when the house is empty? Is there only one logical way to weight the applicable issues and sort them out? I don't think so, and I believe this is where free choice plays a definite role. Aspects of situations do not come to us thoroughly preweighted. There is somehow an immaterial part to our minds that allows us to choose to act contrary to the summation of stimuli.
To a certain extent, a man's training will make him more or less likely to tend to save the person. But let's say he recognizes the man's voice for, say, bin Laden. Now, that introduces an extremely moral decision. Past influences may try to sway the man one way, but it is ultimately up to him whether he will show the love of God and save the fellow, or whether he will love himself most and remain physically safe.
Maybe humans and animals are much the same with regard to amoral decisions. As long as a human is not insane, he will make the choice that makes the most sense on such occasions. If he is alone on a housetop (um, can you tell I use the King James Version of the Bible? that is honestly the word that came to mind instead of "roof") and flood waters are rising about him, he will naturally grab onto a boat that chances to float by. He possesses the inputs: "I can drown in water," "boats can float" and "death is undesirable." While animals do not process such thoughts with language (to my knowledge), they know similar truths and will go for the boat. In such matters, common sense tends to rule in both men and animals. Any two logical men will do the same thing as each other and as any logical animal.
Now, let's consider a definitely moral decision.
Let's say the man is a news reporter in the Middle East, a flood comes along, and he hies for the nearest building. He's sitting on the roof and he hears sounds from inside — there's a person in there. He realizes it would be morally right to try to save the person, but he also realizes there is little time before the flood waters have risen to the top of the house. He has a wife and children at home and important footage in his camera case. There are lots of variables to the issue (which he realizes because he is more intelligent than animals). Will the man make his choice based on common sense alone, as in the uncomplicated scenario when the house is empty? Is there only one logical way to weight the applicable issues and sort them out? I don't think so, and I believe this is where free choice plays a definite role. Aspects of situations do not come to us thoroughly preweighted. There is somehow an immaterial part to our minds that allows us to choose to act contrary to the summation of stimuli.
To a certain extent, a man's training will make him more or less likely to tend to save the person. But let's say he recognizes the man's voice for, say, bin Laden. Now, that introduces an extremely moral decision. Past influences may try to sway the man one way, but it is ultimately up to him whether he will show the love of God and save the fellow, or whether he will love himself most and remain physically safe.
posted by Claire at 17:53
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home