Reply to comment

I think Haidt's argument fits in verywell with Michelle and my ethical dilemma about whether or not to make thedecision to help those less fortunate.  In an examination of young adultsTuriel, Hildebrandt, and Wainry discovered that “people who judged the actionsto be moral violations also talked about harmful consequences, whereas peoplewho thought the actions were not wrong generally cited no harmfulconsequences.” In trying to decide if it is humanities responsibility toprovide aid to the less fortunate or those in need, Michelle and I have are tryingto consider the consequences of that help. We are speculating that help incertain situations, can be harmful or helpful. If you give a homeless man$20you don’t know if he will use it to buy drugs, which would be harmful or go buyhimself food, which would be helpful. Philosopher Hume states that, “unless wecare…unless with have some sentiment…reason alone cannot advise against takingthe action.” If a person doesn’t have compassion for those less fortunate thenthey aren’t going to take action to help them. Some people feel that in manycases it is a person’s own fault for becoming homeless and that helping him isonly fueling his lack of motivation. Haidt states that "moral reasoning isan effortful process, engaged in after a moral judgment is made, in which aperson searches for arguments that will support an already-made argument."To me, this means that it would be difficult to change one's moral reasoning.It sounds as though a person's mind will already be made up and that it doesn'tmatter if their argument is incoherent because they won't change their opinion.This makes me feel as if there is no solution to my ethical dilemma becausepeople are simply going to make up their mind whether or not to help the poorand there will be no changing of their mind.