George Rebane
The ‘morality’ of capitalism, of empire, of wealth redistribution, and many other things are much on the minds of people these days. Yet, as with notions like race, prejudice, government subsidy, censorship, socialism, …, almost no one comes to the debate with a coherent, let alone operational, definition of the terms they glibly sprinkle into their arguments. Such ignorance has reached unheard heights that now call for books – e.g. philosopher Jamie Whyte’s Crimes Against Logic – Exposing the Bogus Arguments of Politicians, Priests, Journalists, and Other Serial Offenders (2005) - that have been published on the rising incomprehensibility of public babble.
To this semantic morass I now wish to add an understanding of the notion of morals and morality since it is often brought up in the comment threads of RR, usually as part of an indictment of fellow readers or their wayward beliefs. This contribution joins a growing list of other terms on RR (see ‘Critical Thinking and Numeracy’ category) I have defined, many at the request of readers. The intent of such definitions is to make my commentaries and comments more understandable, and hopefully invite others to appreciate the offered semantics.
Dartmouth philosopher Bernard Gert has offered a compact yet far-reaching definition that we will find useful - “Morality is an informal public system applying to all rational persons, governing behavior that affects others, and has the lessening of evil or harm as its goal.”
Technically, this definition falls into the normative side of morality which specifies sets of salutary behaviors and/or means of classifying such behaviors that are apparent to people subscribing to a known or broadly practiced rationale in their conduct of affairs. The other side is called ‘descriptive’ morality. Such descriptive moral codes prescribing salutary behaviors are those put forth by organizations, religions, and states – in short, they issue from a specific society of people. Descriptive morals can be arbitrary, and may or not subscribe to any system of reason.
In a more structured view we may situate morals or a moral code in the larger context by starting with the idea of Reality or ‘What Is’. Most philosophers and scientists will agree that we don’t know, and perhaps never will know Reality. Instead, we will construct a cosmology using various tools, such as religion, science, and/or philosophy, that form a belief system which organizes and informs us about ourselves and the world around us. Our cosmology is the proxy for our Reality.
Within a cosmology all sentient creatures have an (at least) implicit notion of life’s utility that may be very circumscribed in time and space (‘what’s the next best thing to do?’). Or if the creatures are also sapient (possess wisdom), they may have a broader idea of utility that could include notions like ‘attributes of a good life’, ‘life’s objective’, ‘aggregate welfare’, and/or even transcending this life. With this firmly in mind, we now arrive at morality.
Morality or a moral code is then the set of proper (group and individual) behaviors, the practice of which is believed to achieve the highest level of (i.e. maximize) life’s utility within the accepted cosmology, given the circumstances in which the person/people find themselves. The careful reader will see that Gert’s normative definition is properly subsumed within our structured view.
In more advanced societies, especially where multiple cultures live in close proximity, such informal moral codes are either ignored and/or in part formalized – i.e. in their descriptive sense translated into explicit laws, codes of ethics (for professions, businesses), and rules of etiquette (for sports, social occasions) that are intended to shape/dictate the behaviors of the society’s members.
And dear reader, with all this structure and definition in hand, some may now think that we are home free, and will know exactly how to act morally and/or judge moral behavior in others. Sadly, that is far from the truth. A careful reread of the above reveals that moral codes come in all flavors, more than you can count. Even the philosopher seeking refuge in reason, and proposing only the normative version(s) of morality, is still without a harbor because logical systems, in the context of which reason may be practiced, are also many (as I have described in ‘Why Reason Fails’).
So going back to the layered taxonomy presented above, we see that the people of Earth have and have always had many differing cosmologies within which to fit their perception of Reality. From any given cosmology we can fan out to support several expressions of the utility of life. And given a crisp definition of even a single formalized (or moreover algorized) utility, its maximization may be sought by cultures and societies through the practice of divergent moral codes – e.g. one that prescribes the ‘honor killing’ of your daughter, to one that prohibits only a single form of lying (there are at least three, see here), to one that promises transcendent merit for slaughtering people who hold different beliefs.
SUMMARY
We should now understand that the use of ‘moral’ or ‘morality’, unadorned by specifics, is hubris at best and imperious at worst. Whose morals are you talking about, and what are they that you claim are violated or improperly hewn to?
In my experience of monitoring public discourse, it is primarily the collectivist and his state that are the hands down worshippers of the moral dimension in argument and accusation. As a bookend to that claim, Karl Marx saw the beneficial fate of Man in an entirely moral context – in his fin de siècle, Communist Man behaves altruistically in the absence of government because of the high level of morals with which he has been socialized through collectivism brought to perfection. It is not coincidental that the USSR claimed social morality to be the high standard by which it judged the behavior of its own citizens and the conduct of other countries – the Soviet state was self-ascribed as the most moral of all the nations.
Nevertheless, within a cohesive society based on a common culture, shared morals are an extremely useful vehicle for conveying and shaping beneficial behaviors. Because such a code can be passed on by the collective, it thereby minimizes the requirement for a large and obtrusive state apparatus to monitor and enforce proper social actions.
Having come this far, we can still attempt to judge and/or estimate the morals of an individual or a given belief system from how she/it behaves. And perhaps this is useful as a means of synthesizing what the overarching utility of such apparent moral behavior may be. If we can approximate or know the applicable utility, then we may usefully expand the relevant moral code that seeks to maximize it, and therefore more reliably predict how an individual/group/country may behave in a given situation.
But to ask a question like ‘Is imperialism moral?’ is simply naïve, no matter how high falutin’ it may sound or the sincerety with which it is proferred.
[A good read on morals and morality may be found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.]
Technically, this definition falls into the normative side of morality which specifies sets of salutary behaviors and/or means of classifying such behaviors that are apparent to people subscribing to a known or broadly practiced rationale in their conduct of affairs. The other side is called ‘descriptive’ morality. Such descriptive moral codes prescribing salutary behaviors are those put forth by organizations, religions, and states – in short, they issue from a specific society of people. Descriptive morals can be arbitrary, and may or not subscribe to any system of reason.
In a more structured view we may situate morals or a moral code in the larger context by starting with the idea of Reality or ‘What Is’. Most philosophers and scientists will agree that we don’t know, and perhaps never will know Reality. Instead, we will construct a cosmology using various tools, such as religion, science, and/or philosophy, that form a belief system which organizes and informs us about ourselves and the world around us. Our cosmology is the proxy for our Reality.
Within a cosmology all sentient creatures have an (at least) implicit notion of life’s utility that may be very circumscribed in time and space (‘what’s the next best thing to do?’). Or if the creatures are also sapient (possess wisdom), they may have a broader idea of utility that could include notions like ‘attributes of a good life’, ‘life’s objective’, ‘aggregate welfare’, and/or even transcending this life. With this firmly in mind, we now arrive at morality.
Morality or a moral code is then the set of proper (group and individual) behaviors, the practice of which is believed to achieve the highest level of (i.e. maximize) life’s utility within the accepted cosmology, given the circumstances in which the person/people find themselves. The careful reader will see that Gert’s normative definition is properly subsumed within our structured view.
In more advanced societies, especially where multiple cultures live in close proximity, such informal moral codes are either ignored and/or in part formalized – i.e. in their descriptive sense translated into explicit laws, codes of ethics (for professions, businesses), and rules of etiquette (for sports, social occasions) that are intended to shape/dictate the behaviors of the society’s members.
And dear reader, with all this structure and definition in hand, some may now think that we are home free, and will know exactly how to act morally and/or judge moral behavior in others. Sadly, that is far from the truth. A careful reread of the above reveals that moral codes come in all flavors, more than you can count. Even the philosopher seeking refuge in reason, and proposing only the normative version(s) of morality, is still without a harbor because logical systems, in the context of which reason may be practiced, are also many (as I have described in ‘Why Reason Fails’).
So going back to the layered taxonomy presented above, we see that the people of Earth have and have always had many differing cosmologies within which to fit their perception of Reality. From any given cosmology we can fan out to support several expressions of the utility of life. And given a crisp definition of even a single formalized (or moreover algorized) utility, its maximization may be sought by cultures and societies through the practice of divergent moral codes – e.g. one that prescribes the ‘honor killing’ of your daughter, to one that prohibits only a single form of lying (there are at least three, see here), to one that promises transcendent merit for slaughtering people who hold different beliefs.
SUMMARY
We should now understand that the use of ‘moral’ or ‘morality’, unadorned by specifics, is hubris at best and imperious at worst. Whose morals are you talking about, and what are they that you claim are violated or improperly hewn to?
In my experience of monitoring public discourse, it is primarily the collectivist and his state that are the hands down worshippers of the moral dimension in argument and accusation. As a bookend to that claim, Karl Marx saw the beneficial fate of Man in an entirely moral context – in his fin de siècle, Communist Man behaves altruistically in the absence of government because of the high level of morals with which he has been socialized through collectivism brought to perfection. It is not coincidental that the USSR claimed social morality to be the high standard by which it judged the behavior of its own citizens and the conduct of other countries – the Soviet state was self-ascribed as the most moral of all the nations.
Nevertheless, within a cohesive society based on a common culture, shared morals are an extremely useful vehicle for conveying and shaping beneficial behaviors. Because such a code can be passed on by the collective, it thereby minimizes the requirement for a large and obtrusive state apparatus to monitor and enforce proper social actions.
Having come this far, we can still attempt to judge and/or estimate the morals of an individual or a given belief system from how she/it behaves. And perhaps this is useful as a means of synthesizing what the overarching utility of such apparent moral behavior may be. If we can approximate or know the applicable utility, then we may usefully expand the relevant moral code that seeks to maximize it, and therefore more reliably predict how an individual/group/country may behave in a given situation.
But to ask a question like ‘Is imperialism moral?’ is simply naïve, no matter how high falutin’ it may sound or the sincerety with which it is proferred.
[A good read on morals and morality may be found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.]
In all seriousness from me, this is a topic I have been pondering within my heart for at least a decade now. I see the rise of relative truth (there are no absolutes) as the biggest threat to civilized society. Just the statement "there are no absolutes" is in itself an absolute statement and thus the foundation upon which that belief is built is on faulty footing. Anyone who has tried to do business in Russia knows that their so called capitalism does not work because capitalism is rooted in moral principles of fair play and the Russians will pluck your feathers if you are naive enough to believe capitalism without morality works. Just not in business, but all aspects of society are under siege. It is a given that every country on earth has a right to protect its borders and set immigration policy....but wait, what is this "I am a citizen of North America and have the right to live and travel freely in any North American country" speak I hear. When some say all religions are the same I shake my head. The bottom line is when life touches you in a real way and you lose a child or the like, then all the neatly packaged philosophy goes out the window and one is left searching for absolute truths, not some garbage about moral relativism.
Posted by: bill tozer | 19 October 2011 at 11:26 AM
"If we can approximate or know the applicable utility, then we may usefully expand the relevant moral code that seeks to maximize it, and therefore more reliably predict how an individual/group/country may behave in a given situation."
The point is to demoralize the population making it imposable to predict an outcome or direction. Of course that in itself is boringly predictable. Mutant / arbitrary law enforcement will get you there too; also predictable.
Posted by: D. King | 19 October 2011 at 11:53 AM
Well said Bill.
"The bottom line is when life touches you in a real way and you lose a child or the like, then all the neatly packaged philosophy goes out the window and one is left searching for absolute truths, not some garbage about moral relativism."
The dead junkie was someone's kid.
http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1566/200607/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1566-292989.jpg
Posted by: D. King | 19 October 2011 at 12:17 PM
All good and valid points gentlemen. Unless and until we hitch ourselves to a communicable and shared credo, we are all loose cannons to each other in the social fabric we inhabit. And the better when that credo requires us to reliably reach out our hands to each other more than half way.
Posted by: George Rebane | 19 October 2011 at 12:57 PM
George,
I once attended the Sierra Business Council Leadership Training Program. The class was made up of about 70 percent liberals and 30 percent conservatives, or business people. The program was one weekend over 9 months, with a professional discussion leader. It was an illuminating experience, as it was clear to me that we were talking past each other. The same words ment one thing to the liberals, and somthing very differnent to the more consevative business people.
If we can craft a dictionary of agreed upon terms at RR, so that we are all talking about the same subject in terms we all understand, will be a true contributation to understanding the real issues that we face in this nation. I am not holding my breath, it may be an impossible task.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 19 October 2011 at 05:51 PM