Thread: The Art of Ethics *highbrow alert*

As for the point about this being merely a method to rationalize action, that's precisely what morality is; giving the conditions under which an act would be good or bad, permitted or not. When someone asks you why you did something, you tell him the conditions, and what you were trying to achieve. In my opinion, the world is too diverse to suppose that any particular kind of action, such as telling a lie or killing another human being, is always going to be immoral in any circumstances. I don't think it immoral to use deadly force to protect one's own life or the lives of others, and very few others do either. Those who would argue against this typically offer the simple fact that the favorable outcome (everyone's safety and continued survival) could possibly be achieved through non-violent means. On this matter, the world can prove that belief true or false. If this outcome is not really possible through non-violent means, then who can fault the person for resorting to violence to protect themselves? Of course, knowing what is really possible involves knowing a great deal about the world, so it's easy to be wrong. But we often excuse mistakes made from ignorance of how the world really is, so long as that ignorance is come by honestly.

It might help to think about how we can try to do the right thing, but get it wrong. You might be mistaken about what conditions obtain in which you are going to act, either being too general in your description, or in emphasizing a feature that is of little relevance. Of course, you can also just be flat wrong. You might mistaken about what it is you propose to do. Euphemisms can hide the full significance of an act to others and yourself. Using "terminate" rather than "kill" makes it easier to swallow the effects of that act. You might merely deceive someone by withholding information, but consider what you're doing lying (which would technically be incorrect). You might not know precisely what your goal is, or what it will look like when it's achieved. Often, the goals of which we are aware do not directly meet the needs of our natural impulses. And these are just mistakes that can be made when it comes to understanding what is we're doing, let alone whether we're doing the right thing. We might be mistaken about whether what we propose to do is something that everyone could in principle do. We might be mistaken about whether the realm of really possible ends would be made larger or smaller should everybody do this.

The first three sorts of mistakes (mistakes in specifying conditions, act and goal), mistakes in understanding what we're doing, can only be corrected through critique. Nothing about the world itself will help you fix them, you have to acquire new meanings to overcome them. But the world itself is enough to correct the latter two mistakes (mistakes in universalizing or in willing the universal law), for it involves real possibility, and if you act as though something is really possible when it is not, you will be caught out eventually.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

As for the point about this being merely a method to rationalize action, that's precisely what morality is; giving the conditions under which an act would be good or bad, permitted or not. When someone asks you why you did something, you tell him the conditions, and what you were trying to achieve. In my opinion, the world is too diverse to suppose that any particular kind of action, such as telling a lie or killing another human being, is always going to be immoral in any circumstances. I don't think it immoral to use deadly force to protect one's own life or the lives of others, and very few others do either. Those who would argue against this typically offer the simple fact that the favorable outcome (everyone's safety and continued survival) could possibly be achieved through non-violent means. On this matter, the world can prove that belief true or false. If this outcome is not really possible through non-violent means, then who can fault the person for resorting to violence to protect themselves? Of course, knowing what is really possible involves knowing a great deal about the world, so it's easy to be wrong. But we often excuse mistakes made from ignorance of how the world really is, so long as that ignorance is come by honestly.

I believe this is the kernel of it here. This is the seed we must plant to uncover the root of morality.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

... You might merely deceive someone by withholding information, but consider what you're doing lying (which would technically be incorrect).

I believe that a lie of omission is still a lie, but I quibble.

X

Originally Posted by xman

I believe that a lie of omission is still a lie, but I quibble.

X

Omitting information can have the same effect as a lie, as can merely using body language and facial expression to give a false impression. The difference between deception and lying is that deception involves any act who's intent is to make another believe something that is false. Lying is saying something that you know to be false. While lying is always deceptive, deception need not involve lying, and in some contexts, neither is immoral. Playing poker encourages deceptive behavior, and often the most successful player is the one who can be most misleading. Rarely do the players come out and say something false about what card they're holding, claiming that they've got a 7, 2 offsuit when they've got Ace, King suited. Should the SS come to your door looking to execute a friend of yours you are hiding in your basement, it would be at least permissible to lie to them, explicitly say that he is not there.

Ah, well I guess there is a difference between "morality" (defined by a society), and what may truly be "right" or "wrong".

I had always thought that "morality" was about the absolute "right or wrong". But I guess that really isn't the definition of it...

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Ah, well I guess there is a difference between "morality" (defined by a society), and what may truly be "right" or "wrong".

I had always thought that "morality" was about the absolute "right or wrong". But I guess that really isn't the definition of it...

Morality is about that code or set of norms that are followed and believed to define what is right or wrong. Nothing need be absolute about it, especially given limitations in human knowledge and ability. Indeed, what is right or wrong in any situation seems to be entirely relative to the conditions in which you exist and the goals toward which you strive. (which isn't to say that's it's arbitrary) The appearance of absoluteness in moral codes is explained by the near identity in goals and conditions experienced by most people.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Morality is about that code or set of norms that are followed and believed to define what is right or wrong. Nothing need be absolute about it, especially given limitations in human knowledge and ability. Indeed, what is right or wrong in any situation seems to be entirely relative to the conditions in which you exist and the goals toward which you strive. (which isn't to say that's it's arbitrary) The appearance of absoluteness in moral codes is explained by the near identity in goals and conditions experienced by most people.

I think this is essentially correct. Since the human condition is, by its very nature, highly relative, it follows that morality, such as it is, would tend towards the non-absolute. A quote from my latest book:

"The idea of absolute Good and Evil, based on any absolute foundation, (such as the alleged words of a deity) is flawed. There are things that are and are not evolutionally beneficial to humanity, and that's it. (This manifests as being helpful or harmful to society. In our current state, we succeed or fail as a society, not as individuals.)"

note: the book is concerned with the history of religion, the modern expression of religion, and how it influences ethics, morality and daily living.

Originally Posted by jockeys

I think this is essentially correct. Since the human condition is, by its very nature, highly relative, it follows that morality, such as it is, would tend towards the non-absolute. A quote from my latest book:

"The idea of absolute Good and Evil, based on any absolute foundation, (such as the alleged words of a deity) is flawed. There are things that are and are not evolutionally beneficial to humanity, and that's it. (This manifests as being helpful or harmful to society. In our current state, we succeed or fail as a society, not as individuals.)"

However, since we do have a specific make-up that tends to be benefited or deprived by specific interactions with other things, and these interactions are themselves law-like, then our moral or social codes that guide our choices would tend to be law-like themselves, as would the relationship between things that are good. It is important to remember that simply because all the significant features of the the world are always relative to some context and purpose, this does not mean that those relations are not absolute, or nearly so. The flaw that can be committed here is one of presuming that the lack of an absolute, outside point of view for judging means that one is absolutely free to define the good and right for themselves. We are constrained in this regard, just as we are constrained in our judgments of what makes nourishing food or adequate shelter. We would be be quite wrong if we believed that we could eat, say, wood to nourish ourselves, or that the only protection from the arctic environment we required was a light jacket. It is my opinion that the condition that must be served by morality is the condition that makes possible our unique form of sociability.