Looking at Morality: Discovering the Boundaries
I suggested that the best way to discover the exact domain of moral statements is to distinguish them from law, etiquette, art, skills and other disciplines. So now the question is which disciplines to compare morality with? The best strategy is probably to look at each of the allegedly common characteristics of morality and ask which other areas of discourse also have these common characteristics. Working from these areas of discourse,
One of the first areas I noticed was the prescriptive. Morality gives us commands. So do the areas of law and etiquette. As far as I can think of, no other domain of discourse gives us commands. A second area I noticed was that of action-guiding. Morality guides our behavior. Law and etiquette also guide our behavior. A third area is that of rationality and descriptiveness. These are very large areas to look at, as they contain science, some law and etiquette, ordinary beliefs and practices, etc. So by looking at the general characteristics of these domains of discourse one finds that three areas share them: morality, law and etiquette.
The next thing to do is to ask what these domains all have in common apart from what has already been mentioned. One of the things one notices is certain kinds of language such as "should", "ought", "good", "bad" and other evaluative and normative terms. Another thing that one notices is that failure to abide by the rules has consequences ranging from bodily harm to societal disapproval. One also notices that breaking the rules is usually comes with some negative feelings such as guilt or regret, and one is apt to try and hide one's behavior or justify it to others. As far as I know, these are the common areas between these three areas of discourse.
Not all of our behavior is found to fall under an area of discourse. Looking generally, do any other practices show these features? I think that the answer is yes. Normative language is used in skills (such as construction, art and technological innovation). It is also used in discourses and arguments (ie. that is a bad argument, you ought to use this inference rather than that one, etc). These areas also have consequences ranging from bodily harm to societal disapproval from breaking their norms. Consider what happens when you build a bad bridge (but assume that you are not morally at fault), or what happens when you advance a bad argument. These situations can even cause the same kind of emotions and reactions as moral or legal situations can.
These four areas: three domains of discourse and two general areas are the only ones in which these general features occur. Rational oughts such as an ought to believe or practical one can both be treated as as discourse oughts. Self-interest can be treated as an issue of practical rationality either actually or hypothetically. I am not aware of any other examples.
One of the first areas I noticed was the prescriptive. Morality gives us commands. So do the areas of law and etiquette. As far as I can think of, no other domain of discourse gives us commands. A second area I noticed was that of action-guiding. Morality guides our behavior. Law and etiquette also guide our behavior. A third area is that of rationality and descriptiveness. These are very large areas to look at, as they contain science, some law and etiquette, ordinary beliefs and practices, etc. So by looking at the general characteristics of these domains of discourse one finds that three areas share them: morality, law and etiquette.
The next thing to do is to ask what these domains all have in common apart from what has already been mentioned. One of the things one notices is certain kinds of language such as "should", "ought", "good", "bad" and other evaluative and normative terms. Another thing that one notices is that failure to abide by the rules has consequences ranging from bodily harm to societal disapproval. One also notices that breaking the rules is usually comes with some negative feelings such as guilt or regret, and one is apt to try and hide one's behavior or justify it to others. As far as I know, these are the common areas between these three areas of discourse.
Not all of our behavior is found to fall under an area of discourse. Looking generally, do any other practices show these features? I think that the answer is yes. Normative language is used in skills (such as construction, art and technological innovation). It is also used in discourses and arguments (ie. that is a bad argument, you ought to use this inference rather than that one, etc). These areas also have consequences ranging from bodily harm to societal disapproval from breaking their norms. Consider what happens when you build a bad bridge (but assume that you are not morally at fault), or what happens when you advance a bad argument. These situations can even cause the same kind of emotions and reactions as moral or legal situations can.
These four areas: three domains of discourse and two general areas are the only ones in which these general features occur. Rational oughts such as an ought to believe or practical one can both be treated as as discourse oughts. Self-interest can be treated as an issue of practical rationality either actually or hypothetically. I am not aware of any other examples.
Labels: epistemology, ethics
posted by Matthew at 7:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home