Sunday, September 30, 2007

The think and the do continued...

The following paragraph was a comment on last weeks post that I thought brought up some good questions worth consideration. If you have not read the Sep 19th post, I recomend you read it first as it will give better context to this thread.

here's a thought: can the rules of logic be applied to morality? do ethical claims not only express a value but are they also propositions? if ethical claims are in fact propositions (and as such either true or false) then why is it the case that ethical claims about what one ought to do in a given situation are not always obviously true in the same way that 2+2=4 is true? further, if ethical claims do in fact convey factual information, then how do we go about discovering these facts? where are they? or, do ethical claims simply express a certain emotion, disposition, attitude towards a given action? finally, is it possible to realize an ethical truth and not be motivated to abide by it?



Now that is indeed an interesting query. Morality (and I’ll use morality and ethical truth interchangeably.) is in many ways both indefinable and indefensible, but at the same time, unabandonable. (I don’t think that is a word but we’ll go with it.) We clearly do not live in an amoral world, nor would anyone want to; yet at the same time it would be hard to find two people that view morality as having the same weight, or by definition being the same thing. So 2+2 may only be 2 1/2 to some because 2 doesn't hold the value that some claim. Or perhaps there is agreement that it is 4, but that it's 1+3 that truly =4.

Because of the somewhat subjective nature of morals, it seams that morals, (in the logical or social since as apposed to the religious. Religious morals are by definition better expressed as rules, though these are not necessarily excluded.) Are not so much a map, but rather like gas station directions. (Sometimes they’re right.) Ask three people how to get to the closest Starbucks and you may get three different answers. In fact you’ll likely get three different opinions as to which Starbucks is the closest. I think at some point you have to make a somewhat educated guess as to whom is right, or rather, whom is more right. (I use the term “right” loosely here as it has not yet been defined in this thread.) On a side note, I would also like to propose that it is very important to ask others for directions in life. We ask others opinions on what movies to see, what restaurants are good, and where is a good place to camp. It seems that the “important” questions of life that truly do affect us should necessarily be asked.

Perhaps ethical truth is best described as ethical idea. If someone travels a certain road, and falls into a pit, will I too fall into the pit if I travel the same road? Not necessarily, but it seems reasonable that the person would warn others of the hazard, and that future travelers would take precautions to avoid the same folly. So to answer the question, “Do ethical claims simply express a certain emotion, disposition, attitude towards a given action?” Yes. I think…..

As to the final question, “Is it possible to realize an ethical truth and not be motivated to abide by it?” That truly is the question of ultimate importance, because if the answer is yes, which I believe it is, then the question “why” must be answered. Why do people, (myself included) disregard either there own perception of ethical truth, or the warnings of others? I attribute this to human nature, which is another subject all together, but one worth exploring and of great interest to me.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ethics and truth truly are redundant; truth is the cornerstone from which ethics are laid (and therefore morality). My question however, probes the basis from which you define truth. Are you a "moral" person because those in close proximity (neighborhood, city, state, country) agree in majority that you are? Or are morality, truth, and ethics based on that which is unchanging? If morals "Are not so much a map, but rather like gas station directions" than the truth on which these morals are founded is in question.

Relative truth is no truth at all...

Unknown said...

Hey Dude, this is sofa! Love the blog! Gotta agree with Fy... you should think about being a prof or something!

Sandra Lemenaite said...

you haven't posted in a while : )

steve said...

I don't know that ethics and truth are redundant. Truth is by definition, "true" and therefore aside from being proven false is not debatable. Ethics however, I believe are sometimes subjective. Life is far to complicated to equate truth with ethics. Truth should never be bent, however ethics, sometimes must be broken. That sounds terrible at first and no doubt sets off your moral alarm, but think about it for a moment. Indeed your knee-jerk reaction should be a rejection of this idea, but careful consideration may reveal the “truth” of this notion.

bethany said...

I love the idea that 2+2=4...but so does 1+3...

This is a perfect example of how I'm starting to see life...you know, opening my mind enough to realize that there are a world of possible "right" answers but that at the end of the day, only you know for yourself which one is right for you...

Great thoughts! Post more often! :)

-b.