Towards a Phenomenology of Moral Choice

In this post, I propose to work towards a phenomenology of moral choice. Allow me to broadly construe what I take to be a few mainline positions on the topic:

1. Moral choice according to a Eudaemonistic Ethics is in choosing the appropriate good at the appropriate time. So what brings about the choice or what justifies the experience of a moral choice is a hierarchy of goods; what should be chosen at a given time is what pertains properly to one's ultimate fulfillment.
   
2. Moral choice according to a Rationalistic Ethics is choosing between what one ought to do and what one desires to do. So what brings about the moral choice is the principle of reason and some irrational principle.
3. Moral choice according to a Value Ethics is choosing between what ought to do in response to something of intrinsic value and importance and the importance of subjective satisfaction. The choice is brought about by value and want for subjective satisfaction where it is in competition with value.
   

Though there are many other moral theories out there, I think many who stand within the Christian tradition of philosophy fall somewhere within these three categorizations. Also I have found that they are often debated about. And they offer, as I think we can bring out, very different views on the moral life.

I will go ahead and say that I most firmly stand within the third category. I think it is the position which most adaequately accounts for our moral experience. But without here going into a further expose as to why I hold this to be the case, I would like to open this post up for discussion, so that hopefully I can open up more of my own position along with those of others though dialogue.

Discussion Format & Topic Proposal

Alright, let's begin this. Here are my thoughts...

It seems like picking a specific topic within philosophy to discuss and post about would be beneficial, since we could all focus our attention toward something common and enhance the dialogue with (semi)unified research, etc. Naturally, we all have different areas of interest, but the goal is to pick something central and have analyses and contributions coming from all angles.

After an initial post on the preferred subject matter, we can all pitch in posts as-able to continue a discussion of that topic. Comments will be reserved for the readers, and for germane comments from contributors. However, contributors should—as authors of the blog—submit posts in lieu of comments when they have the chance. Posts will, most probably, diverge quite a bit from the initial scope of the issue, but that is precisely the point: to broaden consideration and research for the sake of the others—as long as the primary focus remains the same.

When posting on a particular topic is brought to some sort of close (however long it takes...), we will recommence with selecting a new one. That should keep ideas fresh, but give enough time to argue them clearly and completely before moving on.

Comments and suggestions on this format are welcome; we all have to agree if this is going to work well. If the format seems okay, then leave comments here on topic proposals, and we'll select something and go with it. (The proposal winner gets the first post.)

Inauguration & Welcome

Welcome to The Synopsis Project, the brainchild of a few philosophy students who want to learn from the great minds as well as from one another. As the sidebar notes, the goal of this blog is to establish a meaningful dialogue among contributors and readers, ultimately resulting in a wealth of research and input usable in various other manners of publication. By utilizing one another's constructive feedback and original contributions, we hope to diversify the content of our discussions and truly articulate a "synoptic" approach to philosophical inquiry.

Nicholas Rescher, a prolific author and philosopher currently teaching at the University of Pittsburgh, writes:

[T]he present situation of philosophy is such that satisfying systems can no longer emerge from single minds like Athene from the head of Zeus. Philosophy has had to come to terms with the fact that the problem situation with which it must nowadays grapple has grown in extent and complexity to the point where adequate systematization lies beyond the power of any individual intellect. And so the order of the day is disaggregated collaboration through the development of schools and circles. (Philosophical Reasoning, p. 268)

I think Rescher is certainly onto something. But he is also correct in acknowledging that "the dream of systemic understanding and holistic cognition is something that philosophers are unlikely ever to abandon altogether." ( p. 273) Accordingly, we hope that this site will provide—in some small way—elements of consideration for other students of philosophy throughout the world.