Relationship between moral and practical

[Betsy Speicher 0]

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.

←

I wouldn't say that.

There are situations where some goal is moral but impractical and the rational thing to do is not to abandon the goal but to work on how to make it practical. Building a lightweight bridge is a rational goal, but it might be impractical because all known building materials are too heavy. Instead of giving up on the bridge, an option might be to invent Rearden Metal.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

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.

←

Now where on Zeus's vast green Earth did you get that from?? Far from removing the concern for practicality, we have declared that practicality, properly defined, is the very touchstone of morality--that an action that is practical with respect to your life as a rational man is moral, and that which is not, is immoral.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Far from removing the concern for practicality, we have declared that practicality, properly defined, is the very touchstone of morality--that an action that is practical with respect to your life as a rational man is moral, and that which is not, is immoral.

←

I would agree with you in principle, but morality is a matter of principles and practicality involves concrete applications in specific contexts.

The realms of morality and practicality are not coextensive. Morality is the "SHOULD I do this" and practicality is the "CAN I do this."

Something is immoral because one knowingly acts in defiance of reality and that's impractical. It is never possible to defy reality and get away with, but it is definitely possible to do something in the future that is impractical to do right now.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

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.

←

And that is why I think you're a great person, Betsy!

Not all people are like you, though: For some, the choices are still between the rational and the irrational; between the practical and the impractical; between their best interest and the "greater good" ; between life and death. I have never understood how anyone could hesitate between THOSE choices, but some people actually do. And it is those choices that the issues of morality vs. immorality and practicality vs. impracticality pertain to; and my point has been that both morality and practicality have exactly the same thing to say about which choice to make.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

I wouldn't say that. 

There are situations where some goal is moral but impractical and the rational thing to do is not to abandon the goal but to work on how to make it practical.  Building a lightweight bridge is a rational goal, but it might be impractical because all known building materials are too heavy.  Instead of giving up on the bridge, an option might be to invent Rearden Metal.

←

Morality is the "SHOULD I do this" and practicality is the "CAN I do this."

←

Ha, I think we might have been better off in this case if Mr. Laughlin had joined the discussion and asked us to define "practical." I have based my sense of the word on the following quote:

Didn't Francisco say, "What is practical depends on what it is one wishes to practice." ?

←

A man misguided by religion might think that getting rich and having sex with attractive women are "practical" (as these are the things he wants to practice), but at the same time "immoral" (because that's what he hears in church). Objectivism tells him that it is moral to make a fortune by being productive and honest and to physically express his love for the woman he adores the most, but immoral to obtain money by cheating or mooching or to sleep with every slut he finds--and the reason it is so is because he will only be satisfied if he lives according to his nature qua man, so what he actually wants to practice is the former sorts of things and not the latter.

So I've been looking at this from an entirely different angle; I have seen "practical" as an issue of what I WANT rather than what I CAN. By "The moral is the practical," I have understood, "Acting morally satisfies your needs," while you, I suppose, have thought of it as meaning, "Acting morally is the only viable course."

[Free Capitalist 0]

But CF, I already stated in the very first post of this thread that what is immoral cannot be practical, so I am not sure why you were so concerned about establishing that or defending it. No one disagreed with you, certainly not me!

As Betsy excellently points out, just because we can say that the all immoral is impractical does not mean we can say that all moral is practical. Her diagram really sums everything up:

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

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

[JMeganSnow 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.

←

They aren't so much trying to eliminate science as to say that you MUST have a philosophical grounding in order to HAVE science. I.e. that the one follows necessarily from the other and if you try to detach practicality from a founding in morality you are dealing with compartmentalization.

[Andrew Sternberg 0]

...

and my point has been that both morality and practicality have exactly the same thing to say about which choice to make.

←

Morality tells me to play badminton on Fridays?

As for the example given by Free Capitalist about whether to clean my dusty computer now or later:

Morality tells you to use reason to figure out which of these alternatives best serves your interests.

Acknowledging that you should figure it out is the exercise of morality, but the actual thinking done to figure it out is the exercise of practicality. But once you HAVE figured it out, the concept of practical/impractical no longer applies. Instead you are deciding whether or not to act on your knowlege, i.e. have integrity, i.e. back in the domain of morality.

So, if after applying reason to the question of "now or later" (a practical matter) , I find the answer to be "now", then of course it would be immoral to contradict your knowledge.

[Andrew Sternberg 0]

...

The realms of morality and practicality are not coextensive.    Morality is the "SHOULD I do this" and practicality is the "CAN I do this." 

...

←

Hmmm, I don't know if I agree with this.

The way I have been explaining it, It makes more sense to me to say that both morality and practicality are concerned with "SHOULD I do this?", but on different levels: the moral is the abstract principles; the practical is the applicaiton of those principles to the details of ones values and the immediate facts.

However, I would also say that BOTH morality and practicality are concerned with "CAN I do this?". The moral domain addresses this question durring the process of inducing the principles in the first place. The practical domain deals with this question durring the application of those moral principles to new situations.

[CoireFox 0]

I was under the impression that practicality simplly meant "practice-ability"--the practical simply being what actions a man can physically undertake. Is this the definition that is being used in this disscussion? And are we talking about long term "practice-ability" or immediate "practice-ability?" In the short term I am able to jump off of a bridge, but in the long term that may not be the most rational decision.

Acknowledging that you should figure it out is the exercise of morality, but the actual thinking done to figure it out is the exercise of practicality.

Is practicality a system to guide mans actions? If so, what are the principles of practicality?

I don't think one can say that practicality is somehow fundamentally different than morality.

Morality is the system to guide mans actions. Any principle used to make a choice is by definition a moral principle. If there are practical principles they are moral principles as well.

[CoireFox 0]

I don't think one can say that practicality is somehow fundamentally different than morality.

Should be grammatically correct and read: I don't think one can say that practicality is somehow fundamentally different from morality.

[Andrew Sternberg 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." ?

←

I think the context of this discussion, since we are all Objectivists, implies that "what one wishes to practice" is their life and the corresponding values that support it.

The loosest meaning of "practical" is "the means that are succesful in achieving a given end".

But we are restricting this meaning since we are arn't talking about any end, we are talking about one's life as the ultimate end. A slightly less restricted meaning when we talk about particular values being the end refered to by "practical" (keeping in mind that these are simultaneously lesser ends that contribute to the ultimate end).

When you choose life as the end, the nature of existence and the nature of man, gives rise to the Objectivist moral code as the means. But a study of the nature of existence and of man will not give you a list of particular values that you must choose to pursue: there are options.

It is a combination of these options, which morality can't choose, and the specific facts of one's fluxuating surroundings, which morality can't predict, that gives rise to the concept 'practical'.

[ADS 0]

I must admit that I'm not exactly sure what we're debating about here anymore, but let me add an additional perspective that helped me see how one can engage in an action that is at once moral and impractical.

I take it we all agree that there is a difference between errors of knowledge and breaches of morality. I.e., someone can be completely moral, and yet be honestly mistaken about many things. But once you get this far, you can construct all kinds of scenarios in which a moral individual can make impractical decisions, based on honestly mistaken information. E.g., a moral individual can choose a given carpenter to fix his porch, and then go through all kinds of hell to try to get him to finish the job. It was impractical for him to choose that carpenter; he should have chosen another one; yet this doesn't make him immoral.

This is not to say that the moral person can choose a course of action because he knows ahead of time that it's impractical, anymore than someone can be objective while consciously and knowingly making an error in reasoning. But just as one can indeed be objective and yet mistakenly get the wrong answer, so can someone be moral and yet mistakenly make a decision that is in fact impractical.

Objectivity is necessary for one to gain knowledge, but it is not sufficient. Similarly, virtue is necessary for one to be practical, but it is not sufficient, either.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Andrew, I think Betsy meant "should" for morality in the sense of, does the moral code allow or prohibit this behavior, and "can" for practicality in the metaphysical sense of, can I achieve this goal with the means available to me.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

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.

←

(giggle) Well, I believe that the only moral thing to do is your best. That narrows things pretty much down, but why would I mind that? Why would I weep for my second best option, and my third best &c., when I have chosen and implemented the best--the one I really want?

Why would such a policy make me repressed?

Why is a stiffness in one's loyalty to oneself a bad thing?

In such a reversal, it would be impossible any longer to identify one's worth by the strictness of one's moral rules.

←

You need to distinguish between a morose Bible-thumper and a dedicated egoist. I certainly don't measure my worth by my strictness; I measure it by my achievements. My policy might be demanding and unforgiving, but I prefer to call it ambitious--I don't adopt it because it is some categorical duty that must be followed or else; I adopt it because I reckon that if I have to choose, I might as well choose the best.

If practicality was granted a valid sphere of influence

←

I have never denied it a sphere of influence. Quite on the contrary, I have granted it ALL the influence in matters of morality vs. immorality, provided that it is measured by the standard of what is practical in the long term for man's life qua man.

Your approach seems to be that there are two influences on one's actions: First, morality comes and thrashes out the immoral, then practicality pipes up and discards that which is moral but impractical. I have not been seeking to silence the voice of practicality; I have been arguing that it ought to speak rationally and that morality ought to repeat what it says word by word.

that would mean it would actually be necessary to live successful lives in order to live up to a good moral standard.

←

Doesn't your diagram imply the exact opposite? That one can act impractically, and therefore damn oneself to failure, but still be considered moral?

[Capitalism Forever 0]

But CF, I already stated in the very first post of this thread that what is immoral cannot be practical, so I am not sure why you were so concerned about establishing that or defending it.

←

LOL, have you been paying attention? THAT hasn't been my concern AT ALL! What I have been saying is that what is impractical cannot be moral. So that the diagram doesn't look like this:

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

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

but like this:

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

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

[ADS 0]

What I have been saying is that what is impractical cannot be moral.

←

So an honest, moral investor, who loses thousands of dollars because be bought stock in the wrong company, made a practical decision of how to invest his money?

[Free Capitalist 0]

Doesn't your diagram imply the exact opposite? That one can act impractically, and therefore damn oneself to failure, but still be considered moral?

You bet it does!! I'm so glad that your point of view has been stated so succinctly. Now we've finally gotten to the essentials of the issue.

Betsy has mentioned many times, here and on the other forum how over the course of many years, she has met many Objectivists whom she could find no flaw with in terms of philosophy, but found completely unreliable, untrustworthy even with things like money, and generally unsuccessful in life. I hope she corrects me if I'm misinterpreting her words, but I think this is a wonderful example from experience.

CF seems to believe that as soon as we get the philosophy down perfectly, we'll all be successful individuals. I've seen this opinion many times, and, with all due respect to CF, I believe this position to be detrimental to a happy life.

This is why I raised this subject in the first place, though it might have originally seemed trivial and obvious.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Proper morality is just a start, not an end, to knowing how to live a successful life.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

someone can be completely moral, and yet be honestly mistaken about many things.  But once you get this far, you can construct all kinds of scenarios in which a moral individual can make impractical decisions, based on honestly mistaken information.

←

Now that is what I call a response! You know exactly what we are debating about, and you address that issue. Refreshing!

Now, when you consider the practicality of a prospective course of action, your evaluation of whether or not its practical does not reflect the mistake you might be making, so WHEN you make your choice, the moral and the practical will coincide on your graph. I agree that after you have carried out your chosen action and look back on your choice, the "practical" bar might not be where you first thought it was, so the practical-in-retrospect does not necessarily coincide with the moral-in-retrospect.

This is not to say that the moral person can choose a course of action because he knows ahead of time that it's impractical

←

Exactly.

[ADS 0]

Now that is what I call a response! You know exactly what we are debating about, and you address that issue. Refreshing!

←

Thanks! But I'm afraid I may have to eat my words, at least in a certain sense. Quoting from OPAR:

In the context of an ethical discussion, the assessment of a course of action as "practical" or "impractical" can take into account only matters open to a man's choice. The question is: in such matters, does he act according to the principles necessary to achieve values, or does he introduce a breach between his mind and reality? In the first case, he and the ethics he follows deserve the accolade "practical"; in the second case, he and it do not. In this sense we may say that, despite man's limitations, morality does ensure practicality.

Dr. Peikoff says quite explicitly that, in a sense -- and "in the context of an ethical discussion" -- "morality does ensure practicality." This makes sense to me; but I still want to say that, in the context we've been speaking in, one can certainly make impractical decisions and be moral. Perhaps we have a different context than Dr. Peikoff had in writing the above? Or is it just flat-out wrong to call any moral action -- however mistaken or ignorant it is -- impractical?

[Capitalism Forever 0]

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.

←

Doesn't your diagram imply the exact opposite? That one can act impractically, and therefore damn oneself to failure, but still be considered moral?

You bet it does!!

←

Will the real Free Capitalist please stand up? Which is it, DO you have to live a successful life in order to be considered moral, or DON'T you?

If you can be moral while acting impractically--which is the FC view--then the biggest loser in town might still qualify as moral. If morality and practicality coincide--which is the CF view--then he absolutely doesn't (unless he has made some terrible but completely honest mistake).

CF seems to believe that as soon as we get the philosophy down perfectly, we'll all be successful individuals.

←

Far from it! I have been saying that morality tells you to act practically, not that knowledge of morality makes you act practically.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

Dr. Peikoff says quite explicitly that, in a sense -- and "in the context of an ethical discussion" -- "morality does ensure practicality."

←

At the time of choosing, it ensures practicality-unless-you're-mistaken. Naturally, it cannot ensure practicality-in-retrospect, precisely because you might be mistaken.

[ADS 0]

In the context of an ethical discussion, the assessment of a course of action as "practical" or "impractical" can take into account only matters open to a man's choice. The question is: in such matters, does he act according to the principles necessary to achieve values, or does he introduce a breach between his mind and reality? In the first case, he and the ethics he follows deserve the accolade "practical"; in the second case, he and it do not. In this sense we may say that, despite man's limitations, morality does ensure practicality.

←

The more I think about it, I think we do have a different context than Dr. Peikoff had in that quote. For, Dr. Peikoff qualifies what he says in that quote by saying, "In the context of an ethical discussion..." But, prior, he had also said: "The concept of 'practical' is not restricted to the field of ethics...The 'practical' is that which reaches or fosters a desired result" (p. 326). It is in this sense of practical that I and others have been saying that a moral action can be impractical. Yet, at the same time, morality is a practical tool, and the moral qua moral is not impractical.

Anyway, that's my position as it stands right now.

[JMeganSnow 0]

So an honest, moral investor, who loses thousands of dollars because be bought stock in the wrong company, made a practical decision of how to invest his money?

←

Yes, because you cannot project the status of past events using knowledge that will not exist until the future. At the time, if the investor was moral and honest, he used all the knowledge available to him to make his decision, relying on his own carefullness and severity.

However, humans are falliable and the future cannot be predicted with perfect accuracy. So, while the action was both moral and practical, it may still not have the result one was looking for.