Defining the moral
February 6th 2007 20:15
What is a chair? Say you want to define it. Well, you might play a game like this:
- Assume there's a definition to be found. And assume it's reasonably clear. Words like "nice" might be too vague to be particularly meaningful.
- Start enumerating items. List things that count as chairs. List a bunch of things that don't. And list what's borderline.
- Form a hypothesis. What are the common denominators between all those items? And what distinguishes chair from non-chair?
- Test your hypothesis, see if it works for all the examples. And if there is borderline (maybe a crate that's being sat on), then you should be able to explain why there's borderline.
This is essentially the way dictionaries proceed, as I understand it.
The same game can be played with respect to grammar and usage in general.
And in the past, I've played versions of the game to write about consent, pregnancy, and homosexuals.
***
If "moral" is meaningful to start with, what is a moral claim, or a moral matter? And what separates the moral from the non-moral?
What are the common denominators?
Firstly, one might distinguish the factual ("My name is George Bush", "This table is blue", "John Stuart Mill is swimming") from the normative ("You ought go home", "You ought not listen to the IPCC panel"). And perhaps moral talk is always normative, is always about shoulds and should nots. "Murder is wrong" really means "People should not commit murder", or it is a disguised imperative for "Don't murder". And all language that we're prepared to call "moral" can be paraphrased in the same way.
But perhaps there is some quality of unboundedness at play here. The hammer is practical, and the murdering is not. The "should" of hammering fits into a certain context, certain parameters -- it's guided by purposes like wanting to build a house. Whereas the thou shalt not of murder isn't bounded by parameters -- there's no purpose that you serve -- it's simply right that you don't.
The practical becomes the moral when it touches the metaphysical.
Thirdly, in many-but-not-all moral systems, there seems to be universality -- in the sense that moral imperatives apply to everyone, and in every circumstance. There are no exceptions to "murder is wrong", though there might be mitigations.
***
So, this is what I used to think. Will tell you in the next post why I was wrong.
Is it a chair?
***
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia articles Chair and Ten Commandments. The image of the "Conga Modern Ottoman" came from this website.
| 137 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
Actually the last one looks like a poufe.
Definitions suck when language is vague.
Commandment only work if they are interpreted corectly.
Remember the 10 Rules on Animal Farm being perverted until the final Rule:
All Animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Which better moral absolutism or moral relativism?
Opposites that cannot live together?
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
That's funny to put the two together.
Yep, good post.
Look forward to the next.
Norm
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Dear Norm, when you're hammering the nail, the guy's already dead, so it's not really a moral question.
Dear Damo, could be a pouffe. Much ink will have to be spent working on the problem.
Commandments seem to have plenty of room for interpretation. Reminds me of a Simpsons episode. In the future, there are two different Bart cults. One claims, "Our founder the great Bart told us to love and cherish". The other claims, "No, no, the great Bart said to cherish and love." And then they go to war with each other.
Re, absolutism and relativism, depending on what you mean, I think the idea of imposing moral absolutes on people is abhorrent. On the other hand, I think societies need to agree on certain things in order to function. Perhaps the only (and unrealistic) resolution is to always give people the possibility of leaving a society if they disagree with its basic rules.
Comment by Damo
"...he said to me 'IF is the word in the middle of Life'" from Apocalypse Now. Even individual words can be interpreted beyond all reason.
I won't go too deep into moral absolutes and whether people accept them willingly or by force. However we do have a lot of morality and ethics already imposed upon us. Break the law on rape and see what happens. Do it outside of the society you are in and it is still considered adhorrent.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
And all of these allegedly have Darwinian explanations. For instance, reciprocity has been explained in terms of game theory -- it's better, over the long run, to "cooperate" rather than "defect".
As to whether rape is a universal... I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of the moral variables rather than the common denominators. It seems to be common, and sometimes the reproductory norm, among the non-human animal kingdom. It's been quietly permitted within marriage for thousands of years. And the twentieth century has apparently been full of societies where it's fine to rape your enemies.
Comment by Damo
The question of rape has little to with whether it is socially acceptable or not. The question is whether it is wrong or right regardless of social norms. It is a specific human question and relates to objective truths. Is it ever correct to rape another person?
If you take a view that their are some moral absolutes the rape is wrong, was always wrong and always will be wrong.
If you take the view that morality has no absolutes(relativism) then rape would be okay in some circumstances. Or was okay in the past, or may be okay in the future.
The concepts are opposites and cannot be negotiated to a mid point. Either one is correct or the other but never both.
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
When you guys have finished.....
A Chair is an important position occupied by someone desperate to have it at a University.
A Chair is something you sit on, silly, that isn't a stool, or a pouffe, or a ledge or the floor or the bed or a step or.........
Well, anyway, as I said, a Chair is something you sit on.
katyzzz
Comment by DuskDevi
Rugby World Cup 2007
The only thing I absorbed peripheral reading this post was...the definition of a chair is in direct relation to who sits on the bloody thing....and what is sat on.
Same could be said for murder...and morality.
Will be reading this again.
S-l-o-w-l-y.
Adrian....you have an intriguing mind.
Are you studying Physics?
DuskDevi
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Regarding absolutism vs relativism...
Don't want to go too deeply into it now
I think you're talking about the latter, and I was talking about the former.
Dear Katy,
Treating your comment seriously, I do think there are ambiguities in the word "chair". Why are things like stools and pouffes excluded from the definition (I'm not even sure they are). And could you give a rule to someone to work out what's a chair and what's not? Not everything you sit on counts, you've said; so what does -- do all chairs have to look alike, for instance? And could something be a chair that's not intended for sitting on?
Note that this doesn't at all mean the word is unuseable. Words like "long", "hot", "fast" are even more obviously vague, but that doesn't make them unuseable either.
Dear Dusk,
Don't know the first thing about physics!
Thanks for the comment -- I'm very grateful that you're reading, whether you do it fast or slow.
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
The 'thing' int he picture is a Shaggy Ottoman.
It is dead and so you cannot kill it.
It can be sat upon as a seat.
It can be used as a foot stool,
It can be thrown as a big fluffy ball.
It can be worn as a hat (by my 10 year old daughter)...*lol*
...and, as far as I know, our bright pink one, has no morals, only long shag pile.
Great Post!
L.i.l.l.a
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Pretty soon, I'm going to reveal that the apparent shaggy ottoman was in fact an actor dressed as a bear.
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
I did understand what you were saying and where you were coming from, I gave a short and pithy reply, giving yet another alternative, and I'm not too fond of long discussions, much ado about nothing. One could go on all day.
I do generally known precisely what you mean, given that precisely is, in itself, challengeable, so I avoid the long, arduous responses by my short pithy replies.
I recognise the value these things have for some people, it is not a discipline I feel drawn to, but I do have an overall interest in Philosophy, or you wouldn't see me here.
I do hope I've set the record straight.
There are many intelligent people in the world, not all of us are inclined to prove it, especially via a medium such as a blog. If others wish to, that's their choice, I do seem to see silly enough answers from time to time that go overlooked.
katyzzz
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
I don't think that sets the record straight, because I don't think the record was crooked in the first place. I wasn't at all suggesting that your comment should have been other than it was.