Relationship between moral and practical

[Free Capitalist 0]

Splitting the discussion from the Moral Dilemma #2 thread...

I was the first one to raise the issue, writing,

If the top of my computer is dusty, the question may appear to be, whether I should clean the dust off or not. Of course it's moral, but it may not be practical to clean it right now, if there's a pile of things on top of it to be sorted; or it may be practical now because it will allow me a chance to get to sorting those things. Etc. The issue of morality lies at the foundation, and once that's resolved there are other things built on top of it, which we may or may not do according to other considerations.

←

To which Betsy added,

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.

←

CapitalismForever replied,

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.)

←

and JMeganSnow added,

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." ?

←

This is an important issue that needs to be addressed.

Moral vs Practical is a false dichotomy, in a specific context. The Moral deals with what is proper action to a life of human being, and the Practical deals with what the proper means are in achieving an end. One of the big dilemmas in ethics has always been the question of whether one should follow practical precepts, expediency and such, at the cost of moral concerns, or whether one should follow moral concerns and let one's life suffer from lack of practical action to achieve one's goals. One of AR's great contributions to Ethics was the recognition that it is a false dichotomy, and that if the diagram relating the two is properly drawn, the "Practical" area will always be subsumed by the "Moral" area. What is moral, if morality is properly defined, can never conflict with the practical concerns of living one's life; morality, in short, is pro-life, and never hinders life qua man (though it may, I suppose interfere with life qua living entity, because sometimes we will choose to die in order to follow some moral precept). In any case, this is the context in which it was said that there's no conflict between Moral and Practical.

However, this does not mean that the two concepts are equivalent, and that we should never ask ourselves what is practical to do without being worried whether it is moral or not. All sphere of human action is moral, except for a subset of actions which violate man's nature, and are therefore immoral. Thus the sphere of moral action, i.e. the sum total of all the actions we can perform that will not violate our nature, is enormous. From this very beginning it becomes evident that this entire sum total of all proper actions cannot be practical at the same time. The question of Practical deals with the goal (end) that we set before ourselves, and the means we employ to pursue it. Our goals often conflict (I want the dust off my computer, but I'm late for an appointment - to clean or to go?), and so do our means (in respect to cleaning, should I clean now, and sort the pile of books on my computer that obstruct my goal of cleanliness, or should I clean later when my new bookshelf arrives and I'll be able to shelve the books properly?). Both of the goals are moral - to go to an appointment or stay and clean, and both of the means necessary to achieve one of the goals are moral - to clean now and sort less well, or clean later and sort better. Despite the fact that all of these goals involved are moral, and all of the means involved are moral, they are not all practical at the same time. At one point I may choose to go to the appointment because I don't want the person to think I'm irresponsible. At another point I may choose to skip the appointment because I've been fed up with the dust on the computer, and that's more important to me at that particular time. This last point is crucial - the hierarchy of values is always changing and shifting, and the relative importance of values to one another is ever in flux. Yesteday it was more important to me to go, and today it is more important for me to stay and clean. Morality remains fixed, but the practical concerns within the moral sphere keep changing. So yesterday it was moral for me to go to the appointment, and today it is moral for me not to go to the appointment but clean.

The point is, then, that Morality alone cannot tell us everything we need to know about how to live, and this is why the issue of Practical exists at all. It is a capacity to choose between conflicting goals and conflicting means to achieve those goals. Therefore, even though it's true that the entire sphere of Practical action fits within the sphere of Moral action, that does not mean that we shouldn't concern ourselves with choosing the proper means, once their morality has been established. Even within the sphere of Moral action there are conflicts, choices, decisions. Not all of moral actions can be done at the same time, and the quality of practicality is the one which chooses between them.

Now, it's true that all human action has morality at its most fundamental level. But that does not mean that every act is necessarily a moral dilemma, something that we should think about in moral terms. We do many things that we don't even question the moral status of, and instead assume the affirmative and proceed to employ our practical faculty to choose what to do at any one time. I don't question myself whether it's moral for me to be typing on this keyboard right now. Ok it's late and I am getting sleepy, but I don't question myself whether it is moral for me to yawn. I could ask those things, because each thing I do is necessarily guided by some moral principle (whether right or wrong), but I don't have to. I'm only going to explicitly consider the morality of the big things in life, the big issues, and assume that everyday minutae activities are just fine, and proceed to only consider the questions of expediency. (It's not just me, but everyone does this too, in exactly the same way, even people who disagree with my argument.)

It is in this context that I originally considered whether it would be practical for me to clean the hypothetical dust off my computer, without concerning myself with whether it is moral. And it is in this context that I think that Betsy's diagram is true, and very important.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

Assume that reason tells you it's impractical to dust off your computer. If you did it nonetheless, wouldn't that make you irrational, and therefore immoral?

[Free Capitalist 0]

Why would I do it if it was impractical? Practical concerns what I want to do. But if the long range practical concerns dictated that I did something, and I didn't do it because I was lazy or didn't have enough will power, then yeah that would be a breach of morality.

[Andrew Sternberg 0]

FC,

You say that the moral if fixed, but the practical is in flux. What is your justification for saying that the practical is in flux? Why doesn't the reason for this flux apply equally to what is moral?

The moral is that which is benefical to your life, but that which is beneficial changes according to the changes in ones surroundings.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

Why would I do it if it was impractical?

←

YOU wouldn't do it, but irrational people might, for example because they believe that God commands them to do it. And that is exactly my point: that you have to be irrational in order to do something that is impractical (in the long term, with respect to your entire life).

[Sarah Beth 0]

YOU wouldn't do it, but irrational people might, for example because they believe that God commands them to do it. And that is exactly my point: that you have to be irrational in order to do something that is impractical (in the long term, with respect to your entire life).

←

Yes but wouldn't that just be the way to decide between two equally moral choices? Or is your position that the moment it becomes impractical it becomes immoral by the fact that you could not rationally do the impractical thing?

[Capitalism Forever 0]

Or is your position that the moment it becomes impractical it becomes immoral by the fact that you could not rationally do the impractical thing?

←

Exactly.

[Sarah Beth 0]

Exactly.

←

Ok, that makes sense to me, and I would say at this point I agree with you.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

Ok, that makes sense to me, and I would say at this point I agree with you.

←

Great!

Now I'm curious to hear Free Capitalist's response.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Andrew,

You say that the moral if fixed, but the practical is in flux. What is your justification for saying that the practical is in flux? Why doesn't the reason for this flux apply equally to what is moral?

Because morality sets up the broad, fixed framework of rules and principles. And what is practical is in a flux, but it always is within the moral, as per Betsy's diagram.

CapitalismForever,

Nothing that is immoral is practical. And conversely, nothing that is practical is immoral. That's about all there's to say in terms of absolute statements. The sphere of moral actions is greater than the sphere of practical actions at any one time, because the latter conflict with one another, by definition. I'm not sure where you disagree with me here.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

Nothing that is immoral is practical. And conversely, nothing that is practical is immoral.

←

With that, I certainly agree. But what I am saying in addition to that is: Nothing that is impractical is moral; and conversely, nothing that is moral is impractical.

So what we are talking about is the possibility of actions that are moral but impractical. My position is that they do not exist, as their impracticality automatically makes them immoral.

(With "practicality" always referring to what a rational man wants to practice--i.e. his long-term, rational self-interest.)

[Free Capitalist 0]

Nothing that is impractical is moral; and conversely, nothing that is moral is impractical.

Yes I know you believe this, but you have to justify it. I certainly don't think Ayn Rand said anything to the effect. And I have continually made examples of cases in which your rule must fail. Practical deals with conflicting alternatives, but since all of Practical resides within Moral, we don't just rely on Ethics alone to guide our action. In your scenario we could.

So, I guess I'm asking for support for your claim, or a quote from AR.

[Sarah Beth 0]

Yes I know you believe this, but you have to justify it. I certainly don't think Ayn Rand said anything to the effect. And I have continually made examples of cases in which your rule must fail. Practical deals with conflicting alternatives, but since all of Practical resides within Moral, we don't just rely on Ethics alone to guide our action. In your scenario we could.

So, I guess I'm asking for support for your claim, or a quote from AR.

←

Since I think I understand at this point, and want to test it, I'd like to attempt to answer, not for CF, but in light of him:

I understand you FC to say that moral actions include impracticalities. I agreed with you there. The difference is that a moral yet impractical action, becomes immoral, BECAUSE it is impractical.

i.e. it is not immoral per se, on it's own. But once you have judged it impractical, you must likewise determine that pursuit of it would be immoral, because only the irrational would take an action it had already deemed to be impractical, regardless of the fact that in a practical context the same action would be moral. To pursue the irrational aka the impractical is in essence immoral.

??? Yes?

I don't think this comes direct from AR, but from logical induction, which is just as good if not better.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Let's be concrete.

It's both moral to clean the computer, and not to clean it, as per my example above. Just because it is not impractical for me to clean it now, because I'm late for somewhere else, does not make the action immoral. Nor could it ever, because that'd contradict the original statement.

[Sarah Beth 0]

Let's be concrete.

It's both moral to clean the computer, and not to clean it, as per my example above. Just because it is not impractical for me to clean it now, because I'm late for somewhere else, does not make the action immoral. Nor could it ever, because that'd contradict the original statement.

←

If I understand correctly, conceretes are not seperate from their abstractions, and that is the essence of false dichotomy.

Once you determine that cleaning your computer (the concrete) is impractical at this moment- should you do it anyway and avoid the thing you determined to be more practical, that would be immoral. Should you evade the context in which you judged each act-that would be immoral. Unless you reevaluated-in which case this discussion is arbitrary because you merely determined the other action practical=moral and hence not cleaning your computer becomes immoral.

Context. Right?

The cult of moral grayness?

[Sarah Beth 0]

If I understand correctly, conceretes are not seperate from their abstractions, and that is the essence of false dichotomy.

Once you determine that cleaning your computer (the concrete) is impractical at this moment- should you do it anyway and avoid the thing you determined to be more practical, that would be immoral. Should you evade the context in which you judged each act-that would be immoral. Unless you reevaluated-in which case this discussion is arbitrary because you merely determined the other action practical=moral and hence not cleaning your computer becomes immoral.

Context. Right?

The cult of moral grayness?

←

Crap- it's time for me to stop posting. The spelling monster is out of control.

[Andrew Sternberg 0]

FC,

I think I understand this issue now, but lets find out:

The distinction between the moral and the practical seems equivilant to the distinction between the philosophic and the scientific:

Morality is the philosophyof how man should act to achieve his values.

Practicality is the scienceof how man should act to achieve his values.

Science depends on philosophy, practicality depends on morality. But just because science depends on philosophy and practicality on morality, this does NOT mean that the domain of science and practicality do not exist or that they are equvilant with philosophy and morality.

The moral IS the practical, but ONLY insofar as it is a key ingredient. The other ingredients are composed of the specific context and values of the acting individual.

Right?

[Mercury 0]

FC,

I think I understand this issue now, but lets find out:

The distinction between the moral and the practical seems equivilant to the distinction between the philosophic and the scientific:

Morality is the philosophyof how man should act to achieve his values.

Practicality is the scienceof how man should act to achieve his values.

Science depends on philosophy, practicality depends on morality.  But just because science depends on philosophy and practicality on morality, this does NOT mean that the domain of science and practicality do not exist or that they are equvilant with philosophy and morality.

The moral IS the practical, but ONLY insofar as it is a key ingredient.  The other ingredients are composed of the specific context and values of the acting individual.

Right?

←

This is a very insightful post. I am very impressed with it and daresay that it may be the window to a greater understanding of Ayn Rand's ethics.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Morality is the philosophyof how man should act to achieve his values.

Practicality is the scienceof how man should act to achieve his values.

I am not sure just how you are using "practicality" here. Could you please take a particular instance -- a value and an action -- and connect that to the moral and practical as you mention them above.

Science depends on philosophy, practicality depends on morality.  But just because science depends on philosophy and practicality on morality, this does NOT mean that the domain of science and practicality do not exist or that they are equvilant with philosophy and morality

What do you mean "equivalent" here? (Assuming we both spelled it the same. )

[Free Capitalist 0]

Andrew, you actually said it better than I did. Kudos!

The problem with CapitalismForever and Dominique's suggestion is that it essentially removes the concern for practicality and attempts to derive all rules for everyday life from moral rules. That is akin to eliminating science and trying to get by with philosophy, or trying to discredit induction and believing deduction is all we need.

[Guest danielshrugged]

I don't think this comes direct from AR, but from logical induction, which is just as good if not better.

←

I should hope so! Ayn Rand quotes aren't the standard or proof, after all.

As for the topic under discussion, I doubt whether there is really any substantial disagreement. Moralty, both sides seem to agree, is a set of broad principles to guide our actions. Morality alone can tell one to seek some legitimate career, but it alone cannot tell one to pursue a career as a philosophy professor. In choosing a career, one has to consult his own context, including his financial needs, emotions, interests, etc.

Here's the question: granted that morality alone does not determine our every choice, does morality offer some guidance even in choosing among the optional? Yes, it does. If one knows morally that he ought to purue a career, the next step is not to pull out a list of careers and point to one of them randomly. Although the choice is optional, such a method of choosing a career would be immoral under any ordinary context. Nor is it much better to let one's emotions decide. It is certainly proper to consult one's emotions, but one has to ask whether they are accurate reflections of the nature of the career and whether one has a good reason for feeling a particular way. Suppose Peter is inclined to become a doctor. He needs to ask himself why. Suppose he introspects and discovers that he fears upsetting his parents by defying their wishes. I think morality has something to say to Peter.

I don't think either of the two proposed diagrams capture all of this. I do think, though, that the moral is always practical, since morality offers us guidance even in choosing among optional values.

[Andrew Sternberg 0]

What do you mean "equivalent" here? (Assuming we both spelled it the same.  )

←

I stand by my diagram:

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

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

By "equivalent" I mean the above. In terms of categorical syllogisms: All x is y and all y is x. That when speaking of the moral and practical, they do NOT share exist in this relationship.

I am not sure just how you are using "practicality" here. Could you please take a particular instance -- a value and an action -- and connect that to the moral and practical as you mention them above.

I am using practicality to mean action that is successful in achieving your goal. If you have a particular end in mind, the practical is the means to achieve it.

Morality tells you that when purusing your values, you should use reason and its derivitive virtues (integrity, honesty, justice, etc.). But all of this moral advice is in the form of principles. One must still observe the particular facts of any particular situation; evaluate those facts in relation to your particular value hierarchy; and then choose the particular actions that will achieve your values.

I value my physical health. I satisfy this value by occasional physical exercise in the form of badminton played every Friday.

Morality tells me to value my life as a mind and a body; i.e. maintain psychological and physical health. But morality does not tell me which particular physical activity I should engage in to maintain my physical health. My particular values point towards Badminton since it is very fast paced and requires a lot of quick strategy decisions. Morality does not tell me which particular day of the week is ideal for playing badminton. I play on Friday because it was the day that was least conflicting with the scheduals of all the other individuals that I play with.

These details, of which sport to play and which day to play it on, fall under the practical, whereas morality only tells me to use reason to figure all of these details out.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Daniel, you said,

granted that morality alone does not determine our every choice

If you've gone that far, you've agreed with me. I never denied that morality can be applied to achieve practical results, that'd be absurd. But what I was trying to do was to justify making room in the decision making process for concerns other than ethical. If morality alone doesn't determine our every choice, what is that other faculty that does? It's the practical faculty, our capacity to get things done.

The interesting thing is that all of what I'm claiming is obvious via a simple process of introspection. We do hundreds of things per day, and for how many of them do we question their moral status, or think about them in moral terms? But still I received disagreements, and too often I see people (not anyone on this forum) going around and pontificating, essentially. Morality to them consists of a very narrow set of action, surrounded by a sea of all kinds of immoral actions, and they live very stiff and repressed lives.

My whole point here has been to explain that the proper thing to do is to turn things around on them, that it is the immoral that is a narrow set of what we can do, and the moral which is the large sea of action. In such a reversal, it would be impossible any longer to identify one's worth by the strictness of one's moral rules. If practicality was granted a valid sphere of influence, that would mean it would actually be necessary to live successful lives in order to live up to a good moral standard. And that's what I'm trying to defend, ultimately.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

I understand you FC to say that moral actions include impracticalities. I agreed with you there. The difference is that a moral yet impractical action, becomes immoral, BECAUSE it is impractical.

i.e. it is not immoral per se, on it's own. But once you have judged it impractical, you must likewise determine that pursuit of it would be immoral, because only the irrational would take an action it had already deemed to be impractical, regardless of the fact that in a practical context the same action would be moral. To pursue the irrational aka the impractical is in essence immoral.

??? Yes?

←

Yes!!!

(With the caveat that I don't understand the "regardless of the fact that in a practical context the same action would be moral" clause--but if you take that away, the rest is quite exactly what my opinion is.)

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Assume that reason tells you it's impractical to dust off your computer. If you did it nonetheless, wouldn't that make you irrational, and therefore immoral?

←

Raising this as an example seems to imply that this is an example of typical moral choices. Looking at my own moral decisions, that is not the case.

Over the years I have learned, discovered, and practiced rational values and virtues to the point that I practice most virtues as a matter of habit and the irrational does not interest me at all. Still I am constantly making moral choices in every waking minute and my mind is constantly working consciously answering questions like "What do I want and why?" and "What do I want most?" and "What is the most important thing for me to do right now?"

My real life choices aren't between the rational and the irrational (that I rejected long ago) nor between the practical and the impractical when so much is practically achievable. In a world overflowing with wonderful values I might pursue and only 24 hours in a day and a limited lifespan, I have to make choices constantly among the moral and the practical. The challenge is in maintaining my personal hierarchy of rational values as I grow and change and as the world I live in changes.