In this thesis, I argue that the moral residual argument, interpreted in terms of the independent standard of integrity, can support the existence of genuine moral dilemmas. After defining what a genuine moral dilemma would be, I discuss what the moral residual argument is. Consequently, the agent need not be in a situation of genuine moral dilemma to experience moral residual.
I then discuss two primary objections to the effectiveness of the moral residue argument. It remains, however, that all emotions of moral residue involve some degree of suffering for the agent. This explains how the moral residue argument is used as . evidence supporting the existence of real moral dilemmas.
Proponents of the moral residue argument would argue that the agent in the Sadistic Hijackers case faces a genuine moral conflict, or a situation that meets the requirements of a prohibition dilemma. 89In this way, the moral residue argument focuses on the commitment the agent has violated, and its impact on her. It can also be argued that moral residue is a reassuring sign that the agent has taken her obligations seriously, i.e.
However, it remains the case that the moral residue argument rests on the assumption that the emotions experienced by the actor are appropriate and that they thus support the existence of genuine moral dilemmas. It follows that the emotions of moral residue cannot be used to support the existence of genuine moral dilemmas. In such a case, opponents would argue that although her moral residue is appropriate, the agent has done nothing wrong in the sense that she is not morally blameworthy.
If the agent's moral residue does not point to a world-imposed situation that satisfies the demands of the. I then argue that the moral residue argument can be used to demonstrate the existence of a genuine moral dilemma in each case. It follows that the evidence in the novel shows that Sophie did experience moral residuals.
The choice or ultimatum facing the agent is only an indirect cause of the moral residual. The fact that their moral balance is appropriate means that the condition of the situation is met. According to Williams' argument, Sophie's moral remains are evidence that she is an admirable moral agent.
Conclusion
The obligations of Sophia and Agamemnon met the conditions for integrity set forth in the third section. As a result, in their decisions, both of them violated the identity-granting covenant and thereby invalidated their integrity. If Sophie or Agamemnon were to fulfill their second commitment, they would similarly compromise their integrity and do something wrong.
It follows that both of them would be undermining their integrity and thus doing something wrong no matter how they acted. Given that Sophie and Agamemnon had compatible commitments, they were not responsible for the inevitable mishandling of the choice they found themselves with. By showing that Sophie and Agamemnon experienced relevant moral residuals and both would have done something wrong no matter how they acted, and by showing how their situations meet the criteria of an.
The implications of my discussion are that much of moral theory as it stands will need to be revised. People like Kant, Ross, and followers of utilitarianism and other rule-based ethical theories will have to revise their general conceptions that a conflict of commitments is globally solvable and allow for the possibility that genuine moral dilemmas exist and that not all conflicts are rational. solvable by resorting to a rule-based ethical theory or hierarchical system of ordering values and associations. The fact that moral residuals can be preserved points to the fact that moral psychology can tell us a lot about whether a person is a responsible moral agent or not.
It can also shed light on whether the officer actually did something wrong or not. It is important to look at moral dilemmas, moral residue, and integrity because of the further implications for moral theory and moral decisions. Given that the emotions of an agent's negative self-evaluation can be used as evidence that she has violated her integrity, it follows that moral residue and integrity are a central part of an agent's moral decisions.
Moreover, the fact that there are moral dilemmas and that a violation of integrity means that the agent has done something wrong is evidence that all morality is essentially personal morality in the sense that an agent with integrity makes a series of commitments that are essentially to decide, to which it is committed and ensure that it does not undermine or violate those commitments. Although agents should ideally seek to minimize the conflict between their personal commitments as shown – there are cases where this is not possible and not necessarily intended, meaning that much of moral theory as it stands needs to be improved to would consider the degree of moral happiness associated with morality and making moral decisions. Thus, goodness appears to be fragile and that moral residue sentiments and the moral residue argument, interpreted in dozens of independent standards of integrity, play a role in supporting the existence of real moral dilemmas.
Nussbaum, M, 2001, The Fragility o/Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy, New York: Cambridge University Press. W, 1990, Collected Works on Greek Tragedy, Oxford: Claredon Press Stocker, M, 1992, Plural and Conflicting Values, New York: Oxford University Press Styron, W, 2000, Sophie's Choice, London: Vintage. Williams, B, 1982, Problems of ,';Cambridge: Cambridge University Press WiIliams, B, 1973, Morality: An Introduction to Ethics, Harmondswortb, Penguin Books.
