In this blog post, we will examine various cases and philosophical perspectives on the conditions under which personal preferences can be justified in moral judgments.
When faced with a moral choice, is it morally justified to reveal one’s personal preferences to others? Most moral philosophers respond negatively to this question and propose fairness as a condition for moral justification. From the perspective of egalitarians, no one has privileges. All people, regardless of race, gender, or age, have equal value in terms of their bodies, lives, welfare, and happiness. Therefore, moral choices that express an actor’s preference for a particular individual can never be justified. Egalitarians do not recognize discrimination between people, so they say that the direction of action should be determined by the circumstances of the individual.
However, we all live our lives maintaining special relationships with certain individuals. When the other person is a family member, the intimacy and importance of personal relationships are very strong. Is it morally justified to express special personal preferences toward someone because they are a family member? If so, to what extent is it acceptable? Consider the following two cases.
Cheol-soo received an urgent call from his headquarters while he was at work. He was told that there was intelligence that a suspect was attempting to flee to Japan from a port on the east coast and that he should arrest him. After lying in wait, Cheol-soo arrested the suspect, who turned out to be his only brother. After much deliberation, Cheol-soo let his brother go and reported to headquarters that he had missed the suspect.
Min-soo owed 50 million won to two people. One was his uncle, and the other was a business acquaintance named Young-soo. Coincidentally, both of them found themselves in difficult situations at the same time and urgently needed 50 million won, and any amount less than that would not help them. Upon learning this, Min-soo worked hard and managed to raise 50 million won, enabling him to repay one of his debts. Min-soo paid off his uncle’s debt.
Can Cheol-soo’s actions be morally justified? Since he knew that the suspect was his brother, his actions expressed his personal preference for his brother. Therefore, he did not uphold the standard of fairness, which requires that everyone’s welfare and happiness be considered equally. His actions seem difficult to justify morally.
In that case, can Min-soo’s actions be justified? He clearly expressed his personal preference for his uncle. If Min-soo is an egalitarian, he must judge based solely on the situation, as his uncle and Young-soo’s happiness are equal. If Young-soo were in a more difficult situation and his uncle were not, he would have no choice but to pay off Young-soo’s debt. However, since Min-soo’s uncle and Young-soo are in exactly the same situation, Min-soo is allowed to have a personal preference.
Strict egalitarians argue that even in such a situation, Min-soo should roll the dice to decide whose debt to pay. This is to completely exclude personal preferences. On the other hand, moderate egalitarians believe that there needs to be room to consider such claims because they do not reflect our natural preferences for individuals. This room is the scope of personal preference. They argue that personal preferences can be allowed only when the situational conditions are the same.
This discussion is not merely a theoretical issue, but also has important implications for real life. There are countless moments of moral choice in our daily lives, and those choices shape our relationships and moral identity. For example, when parents invest more resources in their children or help their friends, we instinctively feel that these choices are morally justified. This stems from human nature and is an important consideration in relaxing the strict standards of egalitarianism.
Furthermore, the complexity of moral choices is even more pronounced in modern society. In a globalized world, we interact with people from diverse cultural and social backgrounds, which forces us to reexamine the concept of fairness. Fairness is important as an ideal principle, but in real-life situations, personal preferences and contextual factors must also be taken into consideration.
In conclusion, expressing personal preferences in moral choices is not always negative. By considering situational conditions and the importance of human relationships, we can make more balanced moral judgments. This is an important issue that goes beyond mere theoretical discussion and has a profound impact on our daily lives and moral behavior.
