I was wondering about this. The mantra “greatest good for the greatest number” is more or less communism, economically speaking. Problem is that in the real world, communism sucks compared to capitalism, standard-of-living wise. I could bring this into abortion and stem cell research, too. You can present a cogent argument that zefs* are fully deserving of civil rights, but because there is a demand for them, abortions will still happen. So, are all moral debates just getting a hypothesis to be tested? For that matter, do we have an accurate standard for morality? If we can’t measure it, than what’s the point of all these debates?
An interesting question for sure. As it is not an issue I am an expert on, I’ll steer clear of the Stem-cell issue, but I’ll address the general topic. The trouble with coming up with a coherent answer to this is that morality is subjective. If there were no laws, would we all steal and kill? of course not, so on some level morality is definately independent of practicality. At the same time, I’m not sure that morality can be “measured”. For instance, one way to measure morality would be law. personally, I’ve never felt compelled to obey any laws that I disagree with. In my life, however, that has been almost completely limit to violating the drug laws of the US(traffic laws make up a big portion too:)). Given that I have frequently ignored these laws and yet haven’t commited more serious crimes(or even laws that require equivelent punishment that I have no problem with) it would seem that practicality did not entire into the equation. I believe(no cite handy) that studies have not shown that levels of marijuana use are significantly higher in holland when compared to countries where pot is illegal, so it appears I’m not alone on this.
(and for the record, I’m an athiest so, no, religous ideas of morality do not enter into my decisions either)
Can’t say that I understand your examples too well (eg, communism, in practice, wasn’t “the greatest good for the greatest number” nor is that theoretically its basis) but I’ll take a stab at the premise of the question:
Moral imperatives are absolutes within each individual framework.
Life often gives us situations in which different moral imperatives conflict. (It is wrong to steal, it is wrong to let my family starve, I can easily steal food for my family who otherwise would starve, what to do as this puts two precepts in conflict)
The balance of different moral imperatives, the fulcrum, is ethics.
“The point of all these debates” is to help ourselves clarify those ways in which our individual moral imperatives differ (usually little), how much value (or weight) we each place on each moral imperative (often significant differences), and to discuss where to place the fulcrum as we balance them out.
robert, you wouldn’t be a fan of a certain David Hume, would you? If you’ve got a head for reading philosophy, Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature sounds up your alley.
I would more or less agree with the nature of practicality as the arbiter of morality. It is sort of trivial to create a system of absolute morals for a single person, but when we put two people together we end up with conflicts (see DSeid’s post). Hume also noted a conflict (later to be used as an example in Game Theory) of two farmers. The two farmers have a lot of work to be done, and it is the work of two men. Should farmer one help farmer two out on day one, and farmer two help farmer one out on day two, by day three they will both have the best possible outcome. But since they are, in effect, competing for the market, farmer two stands to gain from agreeing on the deal, getting the extra help, then welshing on the agreement. He gets all of his work done, gets to market a day earlier, and farmer one is left with the proverbial shaft. So farmer one would be a fool to offer this. So neither farmer gets the most from their crop.
Now, it is one thing to then say, “Well, farmer two was acting immorally.” Well, great; but that doesn’t put the buck in farmer one’s wallet. Not only that, the “So-and-so was acting immorally” contains (IMO) a keen insight into mrality in the first place, but only by working out the conversation. The next question is, “So?”
So the simple declaration of morality/immorality does little-to-nothing in itself. No, a means to enforce this morality must exist to give the declaration actual (think of the etymology here: act) weight. Because that is what morality concerns itself with: limiting the scope of action further than possibility itself. That is to say, there is no moral imperative to “not fly like a bird” because I cannot fly like a bird. But for all things I can do (have the ability), a moral system seeks to limit that.
But morality is always rife with paradox when created as a system of explicit rules/laws/deontological assertions, becasue we always find them in conflict with themselves, and then must make a new rule to cover the breaking of the rule, and eventually the system feels arbitrary. Which is good! It is arbitrary. And if it takes two thousand years of strict tenets to reach that point then so be it; the point needs to be made.
But by “arbitrary” I don’t mean inconsequential; a system of morality has clear consequence (it guides action for Pete’s sake). I just mean that there is no foundation other than assertion: thou shalt not kill (for example). It sounds like a simple coda, but it isn’t that simple. In America, the rule would really be something along the lines of, “Thou shalt not kill; excepting states of temporary insanity (defined elsewhere); excepting deaths which are not intentional but including deaths caused by negligence; excepting wards of the state which are authorized to kill for justice; excepting soldiers in times of war; excepting persons acting in self-defense (the limits of which are defined elsewhere); etc; etc; etc.” It was never satisfactory to have such a “simple” rule guiding behavior.
And we get to this system by means of practicality. But to say it is only practicality which guides morality is misleading, too.
Whatever moral systems can exist, will exist. That is erl’s First Rule of Meta-Morality™[sup]†[/sup]. Within the scope of a society, tribe, or group, if there is any flexibility at all in decided action then that flexiblity will be exploited at some time. Loopholes in gun control laws, tax dodges, and so on.
Whatever moral systems cannot be consistently enforced will find people breaking their codes. That is erl’s Second Rule of Meta-Morality™. People will murder if they desire to do so and feel they can get away with it; they will rob banks; they will cheat on taxes; they will do all sorts of crazy and stupid things.
Whatever moral systems can enforce, there will still be people willing to accept or ignore the consequences of that enforcement. That is erl’s Third Rule of Meta-Morality™. The quickest example is another reference to DSeid’s mention of the thief stealing to feed his family; he knows the consequence but ignores it. Other people may find themselves compelled to enact vigilante justice, aware of but ingoring the personal costs when caught.
Given all this, one might feel that moral systems are useless. Eh, I think a quick look around the world will show us otherwise. The exceptions, in this case, prove the otherwise standing rule: a great many people will follow the rules, sometimes against their own benefit. Here lies the application of practicality: given some initial assumptions about the goal of the moral system, the rest is whatever can work best; that is, whatever will serve the ends of the underlying assumptions without causing the whole system to crumble. But the catch here is that you can only know whether a proclamation will work by trying it, and if it causes the system to crumble then where do we stand? Knee-deep in revolution or war as a worst-case scenario, or rioting and general discontent otherwise (think Russian Revolution, civil rights movement).
Yes, law and morality are deeply similar in many respects. For some purposes I choose to distinguish ethics (what we, as a people, are inclined to frown upon) and morality (what I, as a person, am inclined to frown upon), and law (what we, as a people, have decided to explicitly punish); but, for the purposes of this conversation, it doesn’t seem particularly necessary. Not only that, but I have a tenative Fourth Rule that the “best” morals fall into ethical standards, and the best ethical standards become law, making the whole thing rather blurry anyway (and why religious states never seem to go out of style, thank you Mr Hobbes).
Yes and no, IMNSHO. The core assumptions around which entire systems are built are the least applicable to testing, and the nature of a test of morality itself sort of makes one question how we will decide which outcome was “better”, you see? On the other hand, one could always question, “Fine, this is how you want things to be; now, how are we to get there?” Hypothesis, test. Sort of a blurry question there (IMO).
†[sub]Not really a trademark, of course[/sub]
There are many, Mortimer Adler being an example, who argue that morality is ultimately grounded in expediency, i.e. actions best, or thought to be best, suited to the end in view. The end in view in our case being a stable society in which a gregarious animal can best survive.
For example, self preservation seems to be a necessary quality of all life, or at least conscious life. At the same time, a society can’t exist if people go around killing and robbing at will. Who could feel safe enough to live in proximity with anyone else? Despite the need for a moral imperative against killing, killing in self-defense isn’t a crime. I know that some will argue that it isn’t “killing” that is banned but rather “murder.” However, “murder” is carefully defined, by us, so as to purposely exclude many cases of killing on the grounds, I think, that it is expedient to so define it. So there is a rank ordering of moralities and they also shift from society to society and over time in any one society.
I think that “expediency” is the same as your “practicality.”
I think that there are many cases where morality is impractical.
It would be highly impractical to run into a burning building to save an infant. However, any parent who refused to at least attempt a rescue (in the absence of better alternatives, such as professional firefighters) would be reprehensible beyond belief. Granted, there are situations wherein it would be utterly foolish to risk one’s life in that way. Still, this does not excuse inaction in all such circumstances.
Cowardice can be highly practical – expedient, even. So can apathy. That doesn’t make them good foundations for morality.
I don’t believe in morality. I believe in ethics.
Hastur, that sort of makes one ask: then what is the source of ethics? True, the skyscraper (ethics) is the work of many men (morality), but can we have one without the other?
JThunder, lest we get dragged down the road to relativism versus absolutism, I must say I agree that practicality isn’t the foundation of morality (in case you were obliquely responding to me). It is the extension of it.
I think you have set up a hypothetical that might not be in the realm of morality. In any case, such instances are rare enough that whether one action or the other is taken has little effect on overall public order.
At some point in such discussions it usually comes time for someone to demand that terms be defined. It’s now my turn.
I tend to define morality in terms of utility: i.e. How does a particular individual action harm or benefit the society as a whole? Christians, and I suppose Jews, might define “morality” as obeying God’s law. Even if they do that, however, the question immediately arises as to which of God’s laws are important enough to social order to be obeyed, and we are right back in the same quandry about “morality.”
Are people born with an inate “morality?” I don’t know, but anthropologist Marvin Harris notes that the rules of behavior of all societies that we know about tend toward the same norms. For example; don’t decide all by yourself that another member of your tribe should be killed; don’t steal the property of other tribal members, etc. His position is that we aren’t born with a built in set of morals but, being gregarious, we have a genetic disposition to be teachable in the realm of how to not be a pain in the ass to everyone else in our group. This genetic disposition isn’t an imperative of course because many are able to ignore the group code of behavior and become real nuisance and menaces too.
Yes, Christians and Jews would define God’s law as moral laws. In so doing, all of them are important to be obeyed any time, any where.
Within the Ten Commandments is also provided a wonderful framework for a man’s interaction with other men. Which one(s) do you suggest is unimportant enough for “social order” to be left out, leaving you in a quandry of some sort?
I would define man’s law as ethics established for man’s interaction with other men (society). Though ethics and morals are intertwined in many areas, they are not one and the same.
I don’t want to turn this into a religious debate and I won’t answer further posts on this subject. However, your statement just won’t hold up. Christians claim that the dietary laws of God, which in the Old Testament are on an equal footing with the Decalogue, no longer apply. Jews don’t agree with that.
Numbers 1 and 2? And, of course in Matt 12, Jesus himself is portrayed as throwing out 4. And again in Matt 19, His list of the commandments to be obeyed left out 1 through 4 and number 10, substituting instead to Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself.
I really doesn’t look to me like the New Testament writers regarded the Decalogue as absolute for all time.
Very well then. Good luck in your endeavor.