The Moral Butterfly Effect
You’re having a great day. You’ve just helped an old lady across the road, given money to a busker and now you’re off home to read the latest Moral Melbourne. You're feeling really good about yourself.
As you walk back down Johnston Street, you spot someone driving a battered up old Ford Falcon trying to pull out of a parking spot. You see them scrape the shit out of the parked Porsche in front. Eeep. The driver gets out, sees the damage, swears loudly then jumps back in his Ford and speeds off.
As your moral blood boils to your head, you catch the Ford’s rego. You write it down on a bit of paper along with your mobile number under the Porsche’s windscreen wiper.
A few days later, you‘re at home baking cookies for homeless people. You get a call from the cops asking to verify the Porsche event. You do. You’re thanked. You’re a good citizen. Yay.
Then something strange happens. You get another call a month later while you are writing a letter to Julia Gillard about a really important cause of some description. This time the call is from another police officer updating you on the whole Porsche ordeal. As it turns out, the driver of the Ford was a student who had come over from India to study medicine. He couldn’t afford the thousands of dollars it would take to repair the damage to the Porsche, so his parents had to fork out the cash. Since then they could no longer make the student fees needed to continue his education. This resulted in his return to India and discontinuation of study; all because of your ‘moral’ actions.
If you could do a Cher and turn back time, perhaps you wouldn’t have ruined someone’s life over a scratch on a rich person’s car. The more important question is whether you’ll now be crippled by the possibility that your future moral choices may damage people’s lives. Say you were to encounter a similar situation again, should you consider the butterfly effect before jotting someone’s rego down and dobbing them in?
Although I think foresight’s important, I guess we can only make decisions based on the information at hand. Yet I can’t help but feel there is value in trying to put more consideration into moral choices we’re presented with. It may save us from getting complacent and assuming that obvious moral decision is the right one.
Check back weekly for Moral Melbourne with @MrSimonTaylor (Twitter).
Breaking News
Gig of the Day
all gigs »Discussion
3,868 views 0 comments
803 views 3 comments
1,215 views 0 comments
248 views 0 comments








Comments
So this is kind of a post about consequentialism vs non-consequentialism, which is a really interesting debate. The idea, if I remember my philosophy classes correctly, is that you can judge whether something is 'right' by the consequences of that act or you can just believe that some things are innately right or wrong, which is what Kant believed. He claimed that some acts - like murder or lying - are just plain wrong, and we should never do them, but a consequentialist claims that if the result of one of those acts might be 'for the greater good', it's the right thing. But how can we tell what the consequences of an act might be? It's almost impossible. For me, it's easier to just hold that some things are right and wrong - and stick by that. So if the person thinks it is The Right Thing To Do to report the ford driver's actions, he shouldn't feel too guilty about it. He hasn't acted immorally just because the consequences of his action have hurt some people - the action itself was still according to his moral beliefs. But I'm a non-consequentialist, so that's just my opinion...
I struggled for a good five minutes to not comment on this but I couldnt help myself. I think the person did do the best thing based on the information available. As for if they could turn back time with all the relevent information, I have a couple of points. Firstly to indulge the hypothetical, it is possible they should change their choice. Secondly it's an unrealistic hypothetical, which in a way makes it a null example to start with.
Also as to your point Amelia about acting as though some things are plain wrong, consequentialists have good reasons for actually adopting a deontological (non-consequentialist/rule-based) approach to every day moral decision making. The reasons for this are several fold but I'll just outline the main reason; it is highly impractical to attempt to acquire all the relevent information and weigh every option based on that info. It would take too much time and effort and the costs of doing so would outweigh the benefits. Thus as Peter Singer suggested a consequentialist in every day life should try and be like a good tennis player and go for the 'percentage shots'. So in most situations being honest (and obviously things like do not kill/harm others etc) will produce the best resulsts. Insofar as this strategy can be expected to maximise good consequences it can be understood as being consistent with consequentialism.
This example assumes that obeying the law = acting morally.
also, why are you more responsible for the situation simply by being a witness than both the student who was driving recklessly (take public transport if one mistake will force you to drop out of school!) or the owner of the porsche who decided that despite the obvious circumstances, they'd push for relatively unreasonable payment terms from the poor family.
this commentary seems to say more about not having such a naive approach to evaluating self worth than the importance of predicting the future in order to be morally upstanding.
Hmm, perhaps I need to establish a difference between being moral and being socially responsible.
often one action achieves both, and the two are related, but i see a clear distinction between the two. similar to the difference between "doing the right thing" for a religious argument, or because you have a personal conviction that some action is inherently benevolent and correct.
I would have thought acting morally and being socially responsible were pretty much the same thing. I guess they might come apart in some rare circumstances. As for acting lawfully and acting morally there would be many, many times where they came apart.
Also Beef it's not so cut and dry that the Porsche owner is acting for an unreasonable settlement for damages to their car. They could just be asking for the actual price of the damages to the car that are v. expensive due to the nature of the car. Basically it's not clear that it is unreasonable to make someone pay for their mistake simply because you are in a better position to pay for their mistakes (not that I necessarily agree with this).
you're right, it isn't unreasonable to ask for compensation when your shit gets damaged, but surely the payment terms can be reasonable enough that the person making payments doesn't have to ruin their life to meet them.
also, what about acting morally towards animals.. that doesn't really fall under the "socially responsible" banner.
Let's pose this question then: if you are the only human being left in the world, does morality still exist? If so, is it even relevant?
Depends who you ask Beef but I do probably agree that animals don't fall under the banner of social responsibility. Not necessarily anyway.
As for does morality exist if you are the only person alive is an interesting question. Consequentialist theories (most of them anyway) could make sense of this, it's just that without other people around your moral obligation would be to do whatever you'll enjoy the most (or whatever most satisfies your interests/preferences or something to that extent). I think deontological theories will have a harder time. I guess Kant would say something like don't use yourself as a means to an end. How that would be cashed out I'm not sure.
As for being relevant in those situations. It probably wouldn't be. Morality tends to be about how our actions affect others.