A Look at Morality
I have spent some time thinking about morality. I am just about finished a class on metaethics (the study of what morality is), and I am familiar with other areas of ethics as well. One problem that has jumped out at me is that everyone assumes that what they mean when they talk about morality is the same as what everyone else means. Since that is rarely true, some disagreements are hidden by verbal agreement. However, these thinker do tend to agree that certain statements are definitely moral ones. (Such as "lying is wrong", "we ought to keep our promises" and so on.) So how do we decide what morality is about?
First I think that it would be good to point out common features of moral thinking that are commonly agreed to be there. First, moral thinking tends to be prescriptive. Moral commands are not descriptions. They are imperatives. Morality tends to guide our actions. This action-guiding of morality is not just in exceptional circumstances but often. Morality is usually considered to override our wants and preferences. We are not allowed to steal simply because it would be fun or because we would like to have the new toys without buying them. Finally, morality is both rational and descriptive. We disagree about moral claims, reason about moral claims and these claims include descriptions - that is right or he is bad.
Once we have these basic features, we can look at the problem. Nearly every point above has been disputed by some philosopher. The majority (near majority?) of current work in metaethics assumes that there are no true moral descriptions. Also, some disagree over whether other non-moral areas have some of these properties. Examples include etiquette, art, self interest, law, etc. Others insist that these areas only have moral properties because they are based to some degree in moral thought. Finally, it is not as if there is any agreement on what sort of moral theory is right or what methods are the right ones to find the right theory.
It seems that we must start somewhere. I suggest that we start with a few guidelines. First, we should say that ordinary moral decisions and practices are usually rational. All other things being equal, if one theory says that people are less rational than another theory, the first theory is less likely to be true. Second, we should preserve as much common sense morality as possible. All other things being equal, a theory that preserves our common sense is better than one that does not. Third, we should explain why morality includes the things that it does and excludes others. Fourth, our theory should explain what morality is and why it has the properties that it does. Finally, our theory should explain why rival theories exist and why they believe what they do.
Given these sort of principles, I think that we must start with what absolutely everyone agrees with. This is the idea that ethics is not the same thing as etiquette, art, law or any other area. The proper question is why it is a different area. Once that question is answered, one is well on the way to answering what the domain of morality is.
First I think that it would be good to point out common features of moral thinking that are commonly agreed to be there. First, moral thinking tends to be prescriptive. Moral commands are not descriptions. They are imperatives. Morality tends to guide our actions. This action-guiding of morality is not just in exceptional circumstances but often. Morality is usually considered to override our wants and preferences. We are not allowed to steal simply because it would be fun or because we would like to have the new toys without buying them. Finally, morality is both rational and descriptive. We disagree about moral claims, reason about moral claims and these claims include descriptions - that is right or he is bad.
Once we have these basic features, we can look at the problem. Nearly every point above has been disputed by some philosopher. The majority (near majority?) of current work in metaethics assumes that there are no true moral descriptions. Also, some disagree over whether other non-moral areas have some of these properties. Examples include etiquette, art, self interest, law, etc. Others insist that these areas only have moral properties because they are based to some degree in moral thought. Finally, it is not as if there is any agreement on what sort of moral theory is right or what methods are the right ones to find the right theory.
It seems that we must start somewhere. I suggest that we start with a few guidelines. First, we should say that ordinary moral decisions and practices are usually rational. All other things being equal, if one theory says that people are less rational than another theory, the first theory is less likely to be true. Second, we should preserve as much common sense morality as possible. All other things being equal, a theory that preserves our common sense is better than one that does not. Third, we should explain why morality includes the things that it does and excludes others. Fourth, our theory should explain what morality is and why it has the properties that it does. Finally, our theory should explain why rival theories exist and why they believe what they do.
Given these sort of principles, I think that we must start with what absolutely everyone agrees with. This is the idea that ethics is not the same thing as etiquette, art, law or any other area. The proper question is why it is a different area. Once that question is answered, one is well on the way to answering what the domain of morality is.
Labels: epistemology, ethics
posted by Matthew at 11:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home