Confusing Terms: Moral and Immoral
by Joseph Rowlands
I've noticed over the years that when discussing certain topics, some words don't help. They actually get in the way of a clear understanding. The use of "moral" and "immoral" are two examples that create massive confusion.
One of the sources of this confusion is that "moral" and "immoral" are conclusions to a complex set of arguments and a very specific ethical foundation. To say that something is moral or immoral says that you have concluded that it is good or bad, but little else. It doesn't communicate what is good or bad about it. It doesn't explain what standard you are using to justify that conclusion. It provides no real information or argument. You could come to that conclusion for countless reasons.
A different problem is that many people treat morality as a set of rules or values that must be obeyed. So when they say something is moral, they aren't claiming that they think you should do it or that it'll lead to the best results. They're saying that, according to an artificial an abstract set of rules, you are or aren't supposed to do it. Which means you should do it, or are expected to do, or demanded to do it. The rules tell you what behavior is expected, and saying that something is "moral" in this case only indicates what the rules have spelled out.
But simply saying what the rules have spelled out that you should do is different from agreeing with it or arguing for it. It takes it for granted. This assumes a morality that is disconnected from consequences. It assumes that morality is this set of constraints outside of our lives and interests, and saying that something is "moral" is referencing this arbitrary set of rules. It isn't an argument. It is just saying that an action is either following a set of rules or not.
In a morality of rational self-interest, you should choose an action because it's beneficial, not because it follows some rules. Rules are a bad way to talk about morality because they don't handle context or degrees. And when morality is put into that form, adherence to the rules is viewed as being equivalent to choosing the most optimal action based on the standard of your life. But it's not the same.
And so the use of "moral" and "immoral" to reference the rules is not useful in deeper discussions of morality where you are trying to determine what is and isn't appropriate behavior. Referencing rules is not an argument or presenting some value. It is only a claim that a decision was already made, and describing what the conclusion was.
It causes confusion because while it is simply a description of a previous conclusion, it is often thought that it provides some additional argument. If it literally just means that "I used to think X", or more likely "I was told I have to do X", the uselessness would be transparent. But when it does get used, it is treated as communicating something important. "Oh, you shouldn't do that because it's immoral". It is implied that there is something significant and meaningful in that term and that it provides additional and relevant information to the conversation.
If you're trying to discuss whether someone should do something or not, which means you are trying to determine the morality of the action, then saying that you should or shouldn't because its moral or immoral makes no sense. It is begging the question. It assumes what it is out to prove.
All of this confusion comes from the idea that morality is a set of rules that constrain your actions or demand your obedience, and that this set of rules is one of the factors you must consider when making a decision. But that's not right. Morality is the decision-making process, not just a factor. Consequently, it's not a large or small factor either. It's not something that you weigh along with your self-interest when making choices. Morality is the method of weighing your choices.
The conventional morality views decision-making as a two step process. First, you check if the rules permit an action or not. Second, you make a choice within your "morally" constrained options based on a real process of evaluation. In that view, it makes sense to bring up what is "moral" or "immoral" as a factor in determining what you should do. But that treats "morality" as a very narrow set of values or requirements. In that view, morality is not a method of determining which decisions to make. It is a set of constraints on your choices.
When discussing whether you should do something or not, you should be able to do so in terms of whether it benefits your life and whether it is superior to other choices. There should never be a reference to whether or not the choice is "moral" or "immoral". That is what you're trying to figure out.
Discuss this Article (5 messages)
|
