RoR: Forum

Joe,

When discussing whether you should do something or not ... There should never be a reference to whether or not the choice is "moral" or "immoral".

Okay, but what about at the end, or at the conclusion, of the discussion? I see your point about how a discussion (or even just an internalized mental deliberation) should not start out by claiming that some act, or some action plan, is moral or immoral -- as that would be begging the question. You have to know why you should do something, before you could discover why it is moral. But one could accidentally lapse into moral neutrality or moral agnosticism by taking your words above (ie., "should never be a reference") too literally.

For instance, it might be concluded -- from either discussion, or merely from internal deliberation -- that you should act productively at work on a given day, in order to feel accomplished, provide for your family, etc. (in order to obtain values that fit into your value hierarchy). Knowing that the act fits the hierarchy well, can you not then say that the choice is moral, as opposed to being immoral?

Ed

Post 1

Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - 5:47am

Ambiguity in meaning is a political tactic. It is a variant of a long applied formula:

1] Defer authority to some other domain.
2] Keep that domain purposefully ill-defined and/or unreachable(as in, the ultimate authority on morality).
3] Speak vaguely but also absolutely and authoritatively on its behalf in the present domain of debate.

Borrowed authority, from an ill-defined term or domain; political leg-lifting.

"We're discussing the details of Y...and I am speaking on behalf of the authority of X, safely out of the room. Now, back to Y...excuse me while I beat you over the head with X. Where's X? X is X, that is an absolute safely outside of our reach, which I hope you won't notice in the present context, I am speaking for. Now, let's not discuss X, we're discussing Y, and I am only beating you over the head with X..."

Y can be anything.

X is always something vague and ill defined and unreachable for examination or comment: God, "S"ociety, the Common Good, Morality, The Social Contract, the Thunder God Living Under The Volcano, The Perfect State of Non-Bias From Which To Make Our Initial Position...

The application of that ProForma for centuries has defined political carny hucksterism among peers trying to lift their legs and climb over the backs of other peers.

regards,
Fred

PS: I think all that reinforces Joe's point; unhelpful terms with unclear meanings are, I think, sometimes deliberately presented with unclear meanings. The perps only want to borrow the authority, and the less examined the actual meaning, the better for their intent, which is, simply, to beat their peers over the head with their borrowed authority in another context.

Me: "Think about it; when it comes to God/Society, etc., isn't every context 'another context?"

OMIR Huckabee: "But my son, God/Society is everywhere and everything..."

Me: "Really? Then why does God/Society need -you- to speak for it in this context? Is God/Society shy around just me?"

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 9/10, 11:23am)

Post 2

Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - 8:33pm

Reminds me of an interaction with a potentially-dirty car dealer. He told me that there was someone in the back room, someone that he has to answer to. It was imperative that I do not go into the back room and look for the man, presumably his boss, but instead that I should assume that whatever the car salesman tells me comes from the authority of the man in the back room.

Think about the strategy of "good cop/bad cop".

He made me an offer, presumably one that the man in the back room would agree with. I made a counter-offer, and he left the room in order to 'consult the Oracle', so to speak. It's comical to think about, in retrospect.* Another one you get from dastardly people is that they will use phrases such as "they say that" or "we think that" without ever defining who the they or the we actually are. It is an attempt to escape from the moral responsibility of living with the public/social results of your own decisions.

Ed

*Man on first date with woman: I can talk to dead people, you know.

Woman: Really?! Oh, please tell me ... what is my Mom saying?

Man: She is telling you to kiss me.

Woman: But it's our first date!

Man: Hold on ... [pretends to be listening to dead people] ... yep, she says it's okay for you to go ahead and do it this time. She says that I'm real special and that I can be trusted.

:-)

Post 3

Monday, November 4, 2013 - 10:34pm

Ed,

It is possible to say "I should perform this action because it is moral". That could be used as a shorthand for "I have concluded that the consequences of this action is preferable to my alternatives", or something like that. But the danger is that usually morality is viewed as a separate standard, and so stating it as the reason why you should choose something changes it from a conclusion that the consequences are good to a conclusion that it fits a predefined notion of what is proper.

You suggest one might lapse into moral neutrality or moral agnosticism if you avoid using the terms moral or immoral. I don't believe that would be the case. If someone said instead that this action is in my genuine self-interest, it would be less vague and still resistant to the anything-goes mentality.

Morality is usually viewed as having two parts. It tells you what to do, but it also tells you that you are a good person for doing it. The purpose of most moral systems is that feeling of being good. Altruism is absurd and damaging, but those who practice it do it to feel good about themselves. Morality is usually an end in itself.

By not using the term, you don't lose information about what you should do. You only lose that strange sense that you're a good person. Some have and will argue that that feeling is important I'm skeptical. It's important to be honest with your appraisal of yourself, your life, and even your relationships. But morality is a special kind of evaluation that tries to measure how "moral" you are.

For religious folks, it makes sense. It's potentially their way into an afterlife. For Objectivists, it only seems to act as a kind of excuse. I may be living an unhappy life, but I am morally superior to others. I may be a jerk, but I'm moral. I may not accomplish as much as you, but I know I'm "better". Better by what standard? By the standard of effectively living a happy life? No. Better by the standard of acting consistent with a set of rules or requirements? Okay? But what was the point?

Certainly there is plenty of Objectivist literature that supports the idea that moral self-evaluation is important, but to me it seems like a mistake.

Of course, if you use "moral" as a kind of short-cut to mean something entirely different, you can make those ideas seem somewhat reasonable. You could do that with almost anything.

Post 4

Tuesday, November 5, 2013 - 5:48pm