RoR: Forum

Joe,

I really liked your evaluation of the 2 senses in which morality can be viewed: event-based, or consistency-driven. Event-based moral views are reactionary, consistency-driven moral views are proactive things which hinge on character-building (via habit-formation). It's really a kind of Virtue Ethic, with the sole exception of virtue not being an end in itself, but always and everywhere a means to a value.

It reminds me of your article on "life" as a either static thing, or as a dynamic process. And again, well done.

Ed

Post 1

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 - 11:09am

I would have to say that event driven ethics like Utilitarianism tend to need some sort of principle to make them consistent (act Utilitarianism versus rule Utilitarianism), which is pretty much a given considering that an ethical system that is not consistent in its actions is not easily implemented or understood (no real premises to work upon to know what is really good and evil). I think that's why Objectivist Ethics tend to work the best, in that it still follows context based on non-contradictory premises without falling for the "whatever works" fallacy, and other absurdities. :)

-- Brede

Post 2

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 - 11:02am

Great article and alot of truth!

Classical example is in religion and people constantly argue that "nobody can follow the ten commandments anymore...blah blah blah". Realistically when people have good moral character they do follow the ten commandments consistently without thinking of them. True everyone does not attend church every Sunday but there were no churches when the ten commandments were given, however people do take at least one day a week to reflect on life and nature etc.

Morality is ultimately about relationship. When the man confesses adultery to his wife it is to receive forgiveness and freedom from guilt and ultimately re-establish relationship and growth with her. Society can still judge him as they wish but it's ultimately the relationship which the two parties have that counts.

Post 3

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 - 2:27pm

I would think the simplest way to make this argument would be to ask whether one would judge someone's happiness or his health based upon an event? Sure, the jogger won the lottery, or the singer got a number one-hit. And became a slovenly drunk or OD'ed the next day... Neither happiness nor health nor morality are events.

Ted Keer

Post 4

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 1:04pm

Ted, I suspect that's due to that the fundamental structure of all knowledge, even knowledge relating to ethics, is not 'atomic' in the Pragmatist sense. You can't just state without context, whether something is good or evil. That's what I've noticed in many arguments that I've had with "pragmatic thinkers" or strict Pragmatists, is this disintegration of moral propositions into something akin to mental white noise. But it could just be me.

-- Brede

Post 5

Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 3:00pm

Thanks everyone.

Ed, you're right on when you use words like reactionary and proactive. And thanks!

Brede, I'm not sure I understood your post #1. I agree event-based ethics would need some method for making choices. But I don't think that really makes it consistent. Reacting to any particular situation based on that method is far different from anticipating future situations, planning for them, or steering towards or away from them. An altruist, for instance, could help other people whenever the opportunity presented itself. But they could also try to look beyond the present choices, and create situations where they are able to sacrifice for the sake of others. Both share the same ethical principle, but one only applies it at any particular moment while the other projects it into the future.

Notice that the long-range altruist might make different decisions. He may find himself choosing not to make a sacrifice in the present, in order to make a larger one in the future. Imagine someone needs a pen, and you happen to have one. Altruism could say that you have to give it to that person, since he needs it. Now imagine someone wanting to write a check to donate his life savings to a charity. But before he can, someone asks if they can have his pen. If he were simply focused on taking each event and optimizing it with respect to his ethical standard, he would sacrifice his pen. If he use his ethical standard as more of a goal, he would be able to recognize that overall, the greater "moral" act comes by not optimizing the first event.

Ted, your suggested argument is clear and simple, but I don't think people would associate it with their beliefs in ethics. Certainly they could imagine happiness not being based on an event, but that doesn't immediately translate into morality. For instance, for many, morality is a set of rules they have to follow. The rules only apply to certain events. So it makes sense, from that framework, to only think about events. Only when you see morality as some long range target does it make sense to see past the moment.

Post 6

Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 3:47pm

Joe:

Great article. With consistency-driven morality you have identified something which has eluded me for some time. I knew that to be moral is to have a good life but I always second-guessed myself, asking, "Should I be moral now" or "Do I have to me moral all the time?"

Thanks to your article I understand that morality applies to the big and the small things in life. It reminds me of a David Kelley article I read some time back talking about the morality in going through the motions of your daily chores. Consistency-driven morality highlights the morality of not shirking from anything you wish to affect.

In sum, be proud of your insight here. I will use it to consistently seek out the moral thing to do and act. (And yes, moral = practical.)

Tyson

PS: Have you contacted N. Branden to co-author a book on this subject. :) I really think it's that powerful a principle.

(Edited by Tyson Russell on 10/13, 3:49pm)

Post 7

Monday, October 15, 2007 - 10:53pm