Recent events have turned my gaze once again to this idea of personal "principles". I'm struggling to grip the level of devotion to which these principles must be followed. I've always been vaguely arrogant about following certain principles that I live by and only recently accepting of the idea that they change and mold with the times, as well as your own personal perspectives.
The real world is, unfortunately, far more grey, than the idea of a clear black and white distinctions between choices and actions of: good and evil; right and wrong; than heroic fiction would have you believe. Although this is true for normal decisions, like whether to give the hobo/charity worker the £2 you were going to waste on a comfort item, it's when it becomes personal that choices become difficult. If something appeals very strongly to your principles and yet to pursue it may be completely futile, or worse: negatively effect your life, then surely your logic must refer to the trusted reward vs risk/cost model. For example, you're not going to pay £1000 for a random lottery ticket. The problem with that logic however is the very nature of "principles", we use the reward vs risk/cost model daily, without pause, because obviously it's the only way we can gain assets as opposed to lose assets. The idea of "principles" however is that it transcendent of the "now" or direct consequences and refers to something that is far more important than personal gain/loss. So do we choose to follow principles on that basis or do we sometimes decide its risk/cost is too much and so essentially place a distinct purchase value on those same principles?
This is all very complex and confusing and despite me trying to find some sort of universal calculator that can decide how we value certain principles, and how we follow those principles, I think that's impossible. The problem is we're only scratching the surface, the awful reality is that this can become even more complicated when the risk involves others and yet you the one making the decision. How can you justify risking something that someone else values for your own selfish "principles" (especially if you have no direct link to the particular situation)? Who's to say your set of personal principles are the correct ones?
I feel extremely frustrated by these extremely murky and grey areas, partly due to the fact I grew up reading many fantastical, heroic novels whereby the hero goes to great effort for some pure ideal such as saving his people/kingdom/world from the dangers of some malevolent and evil forces.
These stories are important but I don't think they address the more day-to-day and realistic problems of non-contrasted moral/life decisions. I think that fighting for good against evil is a pretty easy choice, I think the real question comes in when there is no good and evil but rather conflicting views.
I think this is a pretty messy analysis and potentially full of missed arguments and lost statements, but I do hope it coalesces into some sort of meaningful conclusion. A "Right" or "Wrong" decision is very rare in real world activities, all one can be expected to do is to make the best judgement based on their own knowledge and their own principles, and to actually Make that decision. I think there is a value to decisiveness when coupled with principles, although there certainly is a delicate balance. I think it's more likely the definition of "Wrong" should be associated with absence of actually Trying to make the Right choice as opposed to the final outcome, and vice versa.
No comments:
Post a Comment