Moral Dilemma #2

[Free Capitalist 0]

Er, careless phrasing on my part, of course all practical matters subsume being moral, but not all practical matters require you to actively think in moral terms. I know that cleaning the dust off the top of the computer is moral, but I'm not faced with that question every time I consider the action. The moral status of the action is kind of in the background, already assumed to be affirmative.

So, to draw a diagram of what I mean using trusty ASCII:

..........Practical actions............

...Moral actions...

|| | |

[Free Capitalist 0]

Ok sorry about that, being a little hasty because I'm in a rush:

the diagram, drawn properly:

<--------Practical actions----------->

..<--Moral actions-->

||-----------------------|----------------|

[ADS 0]

I do not want to speak for Alex, but I suspect that his argument may be that, in the context under discussion, the lie is required because the personal intrusion is a form of force, and the lie protects a value that would otherwise be stolen.

←

That's not my position; I thought I was clear on this point (but perhaps I wasn't). For the record, I do not think that there is any force involved when someone asks you a too-personal question. Instead, I'm saying that it is morally proper (and practical, too) to lie in some delimited, non-coercive circumstances -- protecting one's privacy being the example of this we're talking about here (whether this is the only example of a moral, non-force-related lie, I do not know).

[Stephen Speicher 0]

So my question to your point of view was, do you believe that the matter of morality is at stake here, that lying as such, when force is not involved, would be immoral? I ask for this essentialization because Alex seems to be assuming that lying can still be moral without force involved, and he's just trying to argue that it may accomplish some results that avoiding the question will not.

With all due respect, I think I have made it abundantly clear, repeatedly and in unequivocal terms, that lying is not honest and that it is only in the context of force that it may be proper to fake reality. And, again, I do not want to speak for Alex, but I understand him to frame the issue such that the personal intrusion is a form of force in that unless one lies one will unwantingly reveal a personal fact, which one would not reveal by choice. That is my understanding, but Alex is the only authority on what he thinks, so you should ask him.

[ADS 0]

And, again, I do not want to speak for Alex, but I understand him to frame the issue such that the personal intrusion is a form of force in that unless one lies one will unwantingly reveal a personal fact, which one would not reveal by choice.

←

I already clarified that I do not believe that any force is involved in this issue, but let me further add (for clarity's sake) that I'm not advocating lying every time one gets asked a too-personal question. There are many instances where all one need to say is, "That issue is too personal to discuss," and this works just fine for protecting one's privacy. Thus, I think lying in those cases would be immoral. Instead, I'm only saying that it is moral to lie when doing so is necessary to protecting one's privacy, and that such cases are both concievable and even actual from time to time.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

And, again, I do not want to speak for Alex, but I understand him to frame the issue such that the personal intrusion is a form of force in that unless one lies one will unwantingly reveal a personal fact, which one would not reveal by choice.

I already clarified that I do not believe that any force is involved in this issue, but let me further add (for clarity's sake) that I'm not advocating lying every time one gets asked a too-personal question. There are many instances where all one need to say is, "That issue is too personal to discuss," and this works just fine for protecting one's privacy. Thus, I think lying in those cases would be immoral. Instead, I'm only saying that it is moral to lie when doing so is necessary to protecting one's privacy, and that such cases are both concievable and even actual from time to time.

Which is why I (wisely) said I did not want to speak for Alex. Thanks for the clarification; I must have missed it among the flurry of posts. In that case, then, we remain in disagreement about what is both the moral and the practical issue (which makes sense to me since I know we both consider the former inseparable from the latter).

[Sarah Beth 0]

Ok sorry about that, being a little hasty because I'm in a rush:

the diagram, drawn properly:

<--------Practical actions----------->

..<--Moral actions-->

||-----------------------|----------------|

←

I'm interested in this because I've seen you mention it before and I think it might help me clarify what I mean by white lie in this instance (which I'm not ready to do yet) so I want to make sure I have the same understanding here. The way I understand there is a heirarchy like this:

<---------Proper---->

<-----------Practical---------------------------------->

|____Moral____________|_________Immoral___________|

Does this look right?

So the ideal action is moral, practical and proper, but some actions are practical but immoral, and some actions are moral but improper, proper being the highest form?

I am after this to see if a white lie would be practical but immoral, or moral but improper, or if it can be either considering the context.

I am tending to think any evasion is immoral, but it might be practical-which brings me to what I saw as the issue in this thread, is whether morality is sometimes to be judged below practicality in the heirarchy (obviously if force is initiated then that is the main case under discussion).

I just want to make sure I'm laying the foundation right in my thinking here.

[Sarah Beth 0]

So the ideal action is moral, practical and proper, but some actions are practical but immoral, and some actions are moral but improper, proper being the highest form?

I just want to make sure I'm laying the foundation right in my thinking here.

←

Also to specify my intended (or my understanding of the) definition of *proper* in this instance to mean *correct* by means of etiquette, trade agreement being the standard of social conduct and the understanding of a benevolent universe being the basis.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I am tending to think any evasion is immoral, but it might be practical ...

The moral is the practical; a proper morality serves the purpose of rational benefit to a human life. To consider the immoral as the practical is to sunder the nature of morality from the nature of that life.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

                                            <---------Proper---->

                <-----------Practical---------------------------------->

|____Moral____________|_________Immoral___________|

Does this look right?

←

I'd draw it like this:

<-----------------------------Moral -------------------------><----Immoral-------->

<------------Required -----------><------Optional ----->

<-------------------- Practical ----------------><-------------Impractical --------->

The immoral is always the impractical. If something is bad for you, you shouldn't do it. That which is moral and required for your well-being is practical for that reason.

Within the realm of optional values, however, one of the things that makes them optional is that they may enhance one's life but are not achievable (i.e., practical) in one's current context.

[Sarah Beth 0]

The moral is the practical; a proper morality serves the purpose of rational benefit to a human life. To consider the immoral as the practical is to sunder the nature of morality from the nature of that life.

←

So it is never practical to act immorally?

I was thinking more on this after I posted and wondered whether there is a grey area of possibly amoral acts between moral and immoral on the continuum, and that those may be practical? Is there such a thing as an amoral act really?

[Sarah Beth 0]

Within the realm of optional values, however, one of the things that makes them optional is that they may enhance one's life but are not achievable (i.e., practical) in one's current context.

←

Ok, I can see that, that makes sense, that is probably what I mean by amoral-the optional values that are sometimes impractical and improper.

Just because it's not practical doesn't make it immoral, but being immoral definitely makes it impractical.

[Inspector 0]

Good work on the graph, Betsy. Might I add where proper lies?

<-----------------------------Moral -------------------------><----Immoral-------->

<------------Required -----------><------Optional ----->

<-------------------- Practical ----------------><-------------Impractical --------->

<----Improper----><--------------Proper----------><---------Improper--------->

Proper is a question of politeness, so while the immoral is never polite, the morally required is sometimes impolite. It's not always practical to be polite, either.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

Have I been simplistic? I've always thought the graph looked like this:

<---Moral---><------------Immoral------------>

<-Practical-><----------Impractical---------->

[Free Capitalist 0]

Haha, the diagrams got way out of hand. My previous diagram was opposite of what it should have been, and Betsy's correction got it best (only 2 lines are required for this discussion) -

Level 2, less fundamental..............<--- Practical ---><-----Impractical------->

Level 1, more fundamental............<--------- Moral ---------><--- Immoral--->

What's moral and what's practical are not equivalent terms. Some things may be moral but that doesn't necessarily mean you should to do them, i.e. they're impractical.

Stephen, I see your point unequivocally now, and your answer to my question is precisely why I raised my point in the first place. You believe this discussion is an ethical question, i.e. are arguing on the first and most fundamental level. However I don't think Alex is approaching the discussion from this angle at all.

Not all questions of conduct are necessarily moral questions. The example I used before was the question of whether to clean the hypothetical dust off the top of my computer or not. I suppose we can ask ourselves whether it's moral, because there is a moral dimension to the question, but more likely than not we will assume that it's moral and really concern ourselves with whether it's practical or not. It is in that sense that I think Alex was approaching this discussion.

In your context, this appears to be exclusively a moral question. In his context it's not a moral question at all.

Unless I'm mistaken then, you guys are talking to each other on different levels of the same issue, which makes this argument a prima facie case of "talking past one another". I don't think Alex realized that there was disagreement with you on the moral status of the issue (but, of course, I don't presume to speak for either him or you).

[JMeganSnow 0]

Just because it's not practical doesn't make it immoral, but being immoral definitely makes it impractical.

←

If something is not practical, not practicable, how can it be moral? This is the essence of saying that something can be good in theory but not in practice. It completely disconnects reality from values.

What is the determinor of a moral idea? Whether or not it achieves its stated purpose. How can an idea which cannot, in reality, work fulfill this criteria?

[piz 0]

What is the determinor of a moral idea?  Whether or not it achieves its stated purpose.

←

I have to disagree that moral status determined by effectiveness. Pardon the extremity of this example, but by the "effectiveness" standard, the Nazis were quite moral to kill Jews, because that was their stated purpose and they did it very effectively.

[JMeganSnow 0]

I have to disagree that moral status determined by effectiveness. Pardon the extremity of this example, but by the "effectiveness" standard, the Nazis were quite moral to kill Jews, because that was their stated purpose and they did it very effectively.

←

This is dropping the context of what ELSE defines a moral idea, i.e. that its purpose is one which promotes man's life as defined by a rational view of that life and of existence. I was trying to draw the picture that an idea cannot do that (i.e. cannot promote man's life etc.) unless it is possible to bring it to realization in reality, hence it cannot be moral without ALSO being practicable.

[ADS 0]

Not all questions of conduct are necessarily moral questions. The example I used before was the question of whether to clean the hypothetical dust off the top of my computer or not. I suppose we can ask ourselves whether it's moral, because there is a moral dimension to the question, but more likely than not we will assume that it's moral and really concern ourselves with whether it's practical or not. It is in that sense that I think Alex was approaching this discussion.

←

Unfortunately, you have very much misunderstood my entire argument. I am not just assuming that lying would be moral, and then proceeding to deal with a purely practical question. On the contrary, the morality of lying under the circumstances specified is the exact claim that I have been arguing for and debating about. This thread is not a case of people talking past each other; this has been a genuine disagreement and debate about what is moral. (Of course, in trying to prove my case that lying in this context would be moral, I have made reference to practical considerations -- e.g., trying to protecting the value that is your privacy -- but this does not mean that I am merely assuming that lying would be moral.)

[Betsy Speicher 0]

If something is not practical, not practicable, how can it be moral?  This is the essence of saying that something can be good in theory but not in practice.  It completely disconnects reality from values. 

←

I half agree with you.

Some values are moral -- but optional -- like FC dusting off his computer. It may be a good thing to do and proper to do it, but if you don't have the time or something to dust with, it's OK not to do it too.

What is the determinor of a moral idea? Whether or not it achieves its stated purpose.

No, whether it supports your life and well-being.

How can an idea which cannot, in reality, work fulfill this criteria?

What will work, in any given context, depends very much on that context. It may not be practical to do some morally desirable thing right now, but might be very practical to do it tomorrow.

[JMeganSnow 0]

What will work, in any given context, depends very much on that context.  It may not be practical to do some morally desirable thing right now, but might be very practical to do it tomorrow.

←

I understand this point. However, speaking in terms of a broad abstraction, would you say that something could be moral or morally desirable if it is NEVER practical to do it or work towards it? (Such as some bizarre theoretical Utopia where men can exist without effort.)

I know that morality is contextual, as is everything else, and I was not trying to disregard the context. If it is not practical to do something right now (such as pick a fight with a police officer even when he's wrong) then I think you could also say that doing so would constitute a sacrificial act (it would accomplish nothing) and as such would be immoral.

Even small acts like dusting a computer can have moral status, albeit, like you said, a very minor and optional one. It may be that dusting the computer will prolong its useful life and prevent you from having to buy another one, but then again it could be obsolete in six months. Dusting the computer may also prevent a disgusted reaction when your girlfriend comes to visit.

It occurs to me that this realm of optional pertains to actions that may not actually have any beneficial effect, or, at best, a very minor one, but will not (except under extremely bizarre circumstances) have a detrimental one. Or, turn it around, the lack of this action may have a detrimental effect etc.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

Even small acts like dusting a computer can have moral status

←

Exactly. If you come to the rational conclusion that you don't have enough time to dust off your computer (because you have more important things to do), then it would be immoral for you to dust it off. If you come to the rational conclusion that dusting off your computer is the best thing to spend your time on, it would be immoral for you to defy your best interest and open a can of beer instead.

I stand by my diagram:

<---Moral---><------------Immoral------------>

<-Practical-><----------Impractical---------->

("Practical" here refers to practicality in the long run, with regard to your entire life. When thinking only in short term, the diagram might look completely different, possibly with the moral being "impractical" and the immoral being "practical"--but it is an ERROR to consider only the short term. Further, the "optional" choices, which arise when it would be a vaste of time to evaluate the alternatives, are not present on my diagram; since their practicality is not known, their morality cannot be judged.)

[JMeganSnow 0]

I think moral vs. practical is a false dichotomy. Didn't Francisco say, "What is practical depends on what it is one wishes to practice." ?

[piz 0]

This is dropping the context of what ELSE defines a moral idea, i.e. that its purpose is one which promotes man's life as defined by a rational view of that life and of existence.  I was trying to draw the picture that an idea cannot do that (i.e. cannot promote man's life etc.) unless it is possible to bring it to realization in reality, hence it cannot be moral without ALSO being practicable.

←

Sorry, but I don't see where it was established that that was the context, as opposed to determining whether or not an idea is morally sound at all.

[JMeganSnow 0]

Sorry, but I don't see where it was established that that was the context, as opposed to determining whether or not an idea is morally sound at all.

←

I wasn't thinking I needed to define it, as it's being used exhaustively in the course of this discussion.