In another discussion, an extreme course of action was proposed, to which I responded that it would be a bad idea because, while one might derive personal satisfaction from it, the greater lasting effect would be the opposite of what would be desired. For saying this, I was accused of putting pragmatism ahead of ethics. This got me to wondering what the boundary would be between morality and pragmatism.
For, if morality lacks a practical element, how would it be less arbitrary than the spin of a dreidl? And if it is arbitrary, what value could it have?
To be clear, by “pragmatism” I do not mean strict adherence to utilitarianism. The frame of reference being morality, the pragmatic view must account for the emotional well-being of people, since morality always involves people. For instance, strict utilitarianism might reject monogamy for the sake of genetic diversity, but real world pragmatism will recognise the value of the comfort that faithfulness provides for some people. Pragmatism that ignores our humanity is simply oxymoronic.
The question is, in what cases might sensible morality legitimately diverge from real-world pragmatism, and how does that work?
Ethics are a tool. Where would objective morality originate? Since ethics are a tool and are subjective at some point pragmatism must play a role in society.
Sorry, I am not differentiating between ethics and morality. Consider the terms interchangeable.
Depending on your definition of objective morality (mind independent vs. universal vs. descriptive facts of human belief), possibly the same places as the rules of chess, English grammar, or the value of money. Check out The Normative Web by Cuneo.
I don’t think reality is ever a matter of morality VERSUS pragmatism. Although it’s been popular for as far back as I can remember, to claim that morality is all about denying what you really want, and ignoring straightforward pursuit of goals, my experience has been that the opposite is true, mostly.
Maybe what has to be paid attention to in this area, is how morality is “done.” That is, whether morality is limited to other people telling you how to behave, or not. The fact that a lot of people do try to get others to behave differently by insisting that their own sense of right and wrong is superior, and should be adopted as universal rules, is really more of a coincidence, than a causative thing.
All the morality I have studied, really is entirely pragmatic. It’s just that the goals involved with being moral, are different than those of being a short-sighted hedonist.
And not meaning to get too esoteric or semantic, but it really is true that someone who thinks there should be no morality, really is describing their own morality. It’s like the whole deal about philosophy: declaring that you have no philosophy, is inherently a false statement.
Business ethics are completely pragmatic, from the point of view of maximizing positive results over time. Social moralities are designed to minimize conflict, and maximize productivity, among other things. Short term goal seeking is very anti-pragmatic.
What I’m trying to get at, is that lots of people who think they (or you) are ignoring morality for the sake of pragmatism, have things exactly backwards.