Relationship between moral and practical

[ADS 0]

So, while the action was both moral and practical, it may still not have the result one was looking for.

←

But that's all we mean by practical in this context. "The 'practical' is that which reaches or fosters a desired result" (OPAR, 326).

[Mercury 0]

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. 

←

[Emphases added.]

No, actually, this is not the sense in which I have been interpreting the position of "the moral can be impractical," a position with which I agree. All references to "practical" and "impractical" on this thread reside in the context of ethics.

I think Dr. Peikoff's identification of "practical" being used outside of ethics refers to situations involving inanimate objects, e.g., a cellphone is more practical for business than not having one. A laptop is more practical than a PC for frequent travel.

All human action resides in an ethical context.

A person may be moral and, thus, practical, but still not achieve material success. But, he will achieve spiritual success.

For a stronger example of the morally impractical, consider the case of a very bright petroleum engineer from an "oil-producing," Third-World nation. He comes to America to further himself, first earning a Master's degree, then a job with Exxon, a job backed by an H-1B (temporary work) visa.

Now, his native country is characterised by turmoil. When he left the country, it was a full-blown, military dictatorship; now, it's a democratic dictatorship which pretends to be embracing the free-market.

After years of employment, Exxon decides to post him to his home country (with high remuneration), even though American citizenship was his highest desire.

Rather than take other options open to him, such as engaging in a sham marriage in order to win a Green Card so as to be able to stay in America, he kept faith with his employers and returned to political and economic uncertainty, cultural backwardness, and institutionalized altruism. In other words, possible spiritual and physical death.

His reason? The marriage option would involve breaking the law in a lawful country, placing his future at risk. The marriage option would be moral, i.e., pro-life, enabling him to stay in America, in safety, freedom, and prosperity. Yet, it would be impractical, seeing that he had a vision of the sort of future he deserved and did not wish it jeopardized by an unlawful undertaking. Besides, he enjoyed petroleum engineering and would not be making a career sacrifice by his leaving America.

In this case, in his context, one may say that had he chosen otherwise and taken up the sham marriage, his choice would have been impractical even though moral.

[Mercury 0]

A simple example of the impractical but moral in a strictly American context would be a prominent millionaire's refusal to pay taxes in our present culture. He would be setting himself up for jail-time.

His refusal to pay undue taxes, provided he was paying enough taxes to cover his share of the national defense, road use, and law enforcement, would be moral but impractical.

[Guest danielshrugged]

Here's a question: if the moral is sometimes impractical (in the sense that we can be moral and yet fail to reach a desired end), why should we always be moral? Obviously, because the moral is our primary guide in living, and there is nothing else to replace it. So the moral does ENSURE the practical (in the sense that acting morally gives us our best chance at living--I think this is what Dr. Peikoff means by saying that the practical is that which either reaches or FOSTERS a desired result).

[Betsy Speicher 0]

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.

←

That is because practical success doesn't follow automatically from philosophical understanding nor even from consistently practicing Objectivist virtues.

When acting in the real world, we often don't have all the knowledge we need so we do the best we can with the knowledge we do have ... and fail. In a complex society where our success can be affected by the free will actions of people over whom we have no control, we can fail because of someone else's screw-up even though we did our best. A rational man doesn't set out to fail, but sometimes it does happen as a normal part of life.

In fact, a man who is courageous, takes risks, and is willing to make heroic efforts in pursuit of great values, will fail much more than a lazy person playing it safe. But he will succeed more too -- and that is what life is all about.

----

"IF you can meet with Triumph and Disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same ..." - Rudyard Kipling, "If"

[Betsy Speicher 0]

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.

←

Not always.

A rational man may choose to undertake a risky course of action with a low probability of success -- IF -- the value to be achieved is very great.* Practicality is not always an important consideration.

----

* This is especially true when seeking a romantic partner.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

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.

This is part of the reason I asked for a concrete relating action and value. If the "practical" is that action which enables you to achieve your goal, then to some extent action can be divorced from morality. You may work hard for a promotion in your business, but by sleeping with the boss is not a moral option. The action may achieve your goal, but it disconnects from a proper morality. I think something more must be specified for "practicality," and I doubt that it can be done unless there are long-range considerations.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

A simple example of the impractical but moral in a strictly American context would be a prominent millionaire's refusal to pay taxes in our present culture.  He would be setting himself up for jail-time.

←

When facing an aggressor, the right thing to do is to minimize the damage done by his aggression. In this case, that can be achieved by paying the taxes while advocating a voluntarily funded government. Knowingly choosing a course of action that, other things being equal, will lead to a greater damage than necessary, is to act against one's values and therefore immoral.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

A rational man may choose to undertake a risky course of action with a low probability of success -- IF -- the value to be achieved is very great.

←

But the greatness of that value makes the risk worth taking, and therefore it is a practical thing to do.

[Free Capitalist 0]

I think what Betsy's trying to say, and what I was trying to say earlier, is that there's entire sphere of human action on top of the moral sphere, which is the sphere of goals and means. And the practical quality of each person is what deals with that sphere, rather than their knowledge or their ethics, regardless of how well they know their philosophy. This is how someone can be a very knowledgeable person, but completely impractical and still not a success in life.

[Mercury 0]

When facing an aggressor, the right thing to do is to minimize the damage done by his aggression. In this case, that can be achieved by paying the taxes while advocating a voluntarily funded government. Knowingly choosing a course of action that, other things being equal, will lead to a greater damage than necessary, is to act against one's values and therefore immoral.

←

Then, by this standard, the Founders of the United States should have simply begged King George for freedom, in order to "minimize the damage [to be] done by" the aggressor.

After all, they weren't about to perish immediately from the tax hikes he instituted, so why conduct an entire Revolution?

[Mercury 0]

Perhaps I should clarify my position:

The moral is the practical: what is good for man, long-term, in principle, is good for man in action.

The immoral is the impractical: what is bad for man, long-term, in principle, is bad for man in action.

But, the impractical is not necessarily the immoral: what is bad for man in action may not be bad for him, long-term, in principle.

To concretize: the millionaire who refuses to pay his taxes could become a test case for the legal system, hence eventually securing a serious victory for his good. (Think Howard Roark.)

[Sarah Beth 0]

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

I see that as logical induction which is as good if not better than a quote from AR

(This is not my exact quote but close enough, I don't know how to quote from multiple posts)

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

I was pointing out that I had supported the claim by induction. I was suggesting exactly what you are saying.

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.

←

I am a little confused now by the idea of optional values.

I also think that we need to resolve what we mean by practical

I'd say practical is how we are best able to practice the moral given the concretes or context of a given situation.

What I am understanding at this point is that there are impractical choices in the realm of moral action, but once you have determined them as such, to take the impractical moral action would be immoral, so the morality of the act loses value in terms of the moral decisions in your life because it is impractical for you to pursue it. Tomorrow-as Betsy has brought up-it may be practical. Then it would not be immoral.

But how can morality be in flux like this?

I think because practicality would be sort of a gradient.

Actually I'm pretty confused right now. I think I see both sides as correct if that is possible, but maybe it's just my head spinning.

[Guest danielshrugged]

Actually I'm pretty confused right now. I think I see both sides as correct if that is possible

Me too, but that's because I don't see any disagreement.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Perhaps I should clarify my position:

The moral is the practical: what is good for man, long-term, in principle, is good for man in action.

The immoral is the impractical: what is bad for man, long-term, in principle, is bad for man in action.

But, the impractical is not necessarily the immoral: what is bad for man in action may not be bad for him, long-term, in principle.

←

Yes, I think that is clearer, and more precise. The explicit inclusion of "long-term" is necessary and, of itself, clarifying.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I am a little confused now by the idea of optional values.

I also think that we need to resolve what we mean by practical

I'd say practical is how we are best able to practice the moral given the concretes or context of a given situation.

←

I think that is a pretty good analysis. Morality, for Objectivism, consists of broad principles based on facts, rather than arbitrary rules covering behavior in every concrete situation. There is no Objectivist rule for what you should or shouldn't do on Sunday.

The practical includes ALL the possible ways to implement a rational moral principle in a concrete situation. It is impractical to eat poison, but reality offers us many nutritious and tasty foods to enjoy. On the broadest level, moral principles are absolute and black and white. In concrete situations, there are many "white" options and it is practical and proper to pursue ANY of them.

The only modification I would make on your statement that "practical is how we are best able to practice the moral" is to say practical is how we are able to practice the moral well. There is no need to obsess over picking "the best" option. Picking one of the good options is just fine.

What I am understanding at this point is that there are impractical choices in the realm of moral action, but once you have determined them as such, to take the impractical moral action would be immoral, so the morality of the act loses value in terms of the moral decisions in your life because it is impractical for you to pursue it.

Tomorrow-as Betsy has brought up-it may be practical. Then it would not be immoral.

But how can morality be in flux like this?

Moral principles don't change, but we change and our situation changes. It may be impractical for a student to buy a car he can't afford, but quote practical ten years later when he is an established professional.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Make that:

Moral principles don't change, but we change and our situation changes. It may be impractical for a student to buy a car he can't afford, but quite practical ten years later when he is an established professional.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

Then, by this standard, the Founders of the United States should have simply begged King George for freedom, in order to "minimize the damage [to be] done by" the aggressor.

After all, they weren't about to perish immediately from the tax hikes he instituted, so why conduct an entire Revolution?

←

I am all for confronting the aggressor if there is a reasonable chance of victory, or if the consequences of not confronting him are worse than death (as in "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!") After all, in such cases, this is the most practical thing to do.

The taxpayer in your earlier example could be better off paying the taxes so that he doesn't go to jail and can make even more money, which he can donate to organizations like the Ayn Rand Institute to help bring about the desired cultural and political changes. (If the looters make it necessary, guns can play a part in bringing about those changes as well!)

Both cases are about achieving a desired end--liberty--by the most practical means available. To knowingly choose an impractical means (one that isn't likely to work) would be immoral.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

what is bad for man in action may not be bad for him, long-term, in principle.

←

Do you mean by that that it could be good for him long-term, in principle? Or just neutral, neither good nor bad?

[Capitalism Forever 0]

(This is not my exact quote but close enough, I don't know how to quote from multiple posts)

←

Press the "QUOTE" button (to the left of "REPLY") on each post you want to quote from, then press "NEW POST" at the bottom of the page.

I also think that we need to resolve what we mean by practical

←

Being the simplist I am, I would say that the practical is "that which works." To elaborate a little, a practical course of action is one that, when carried out, will result in the kind of outcome you wish to achieve. When gradated (as in "less practical / more practical"): the greater the benefits of the action in relation to its costs, the more practical it is.

Capitalism, for example, is the most practical political system for rational men: It gives them what they want. (In the eyes of life-hating Islamists, on the other hand, capitalism is terribly impractical, as it gives them the exact opposite of what they want.) If you get your morality right, you will also find that capitalism is the ONLY moral political system. What the phrase "the moral is always the practical" tells us is that this is not a mere coincidence, but an absolute law of reality that applies not only to the choice of political systems, but to EVERY choice.

What I am understanding at this point is that there are impractical choices in the realm of moral action, but once you have determined them as such, to take the impractical moral action would be immoral

←

It's simpler than that. Until you have determined whether or not they are practical, you cannot say whether or not they are moral; they are not "moral" but "waiting to be evaluated." In fact, determining their morality and their practicality is the same process: The question you have to ask is, "Does this choice serve my rational, long term self-interest?"

Tomorrow-as Betsy has brought up-it may be practical. Then it would not be immoral.

←

Sure. Every choice is contextual.

But how can morality be in flux like this?

←

Because every choice is contextual.

(The principles of morality aren't in a flux, of course, only the specifics of how you apply them are.)

[Free Capitalist 0]

To everyone who is uncertain what the heck we're debating, keep in mind this exchange, because it expresses the very essentials of the two opposing views being argued here:

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!!

←

What we're arguing about is: based on the two quotes above, whose approach to ethics is more proper, his or mine. This is not merely an academic discussion at all, but one of those which directly influence our everyday actions, so it's crucial that the right answer be found here.

---

CF, let's bring it down to a concrete level. How do you explain Betsy's real life experience over many years, of meeting Objectivists who got the philosophy down properly, but were unsuccessful in life, and whom she even said she couldn't trust to be ever on time, or to be prudent with money. By your theory, if they got the ethics down they must have gotten everything they needed for a successful life down. And yet evidently they haven't, as real world experience clearly shows.

Oh and by the way,

You know exactly what we are debating about, and you address that issue. Refreshing!

←

Let's assume for the moment that this wasn't said. if you don't think I know what I'm debating about, or you don't think I address the issue, then what's the point of arguing with me at all? So, for the sake of civility and maturity, the operating assumption is that the text in the quotes was not said.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Press the "QUOTE" button (to the left of "REPLY") on each post you want to quote from, then press "NEW POST" at the bottom of the page.

←

No NEW POST button appears at the bottom of the page I am seeing. There is an ADD REPLY button. Is that what you mean? (There is also a NEW TOPIC button, but wouldn't that start a new thread?)

[Capitalism Forever 0]

There is no Objectivist rule for what you should or shouldn't do on Sunday.

←

But there is a principle for how to decide what to do on Sunday.

In concrete situations, there are many "white" options and it is practical and proper to pursue ANY of them. [...] There is no need to obsess over picking "the best" option.  Picking one of the good options is just fine.

←

Sure; when all the good options look just about equally good on the face of them, there is no point in ruminating about which one is a tiny little bit better than the rest. Investing a lot of time to gain a tiny little bit of an advantage is irrational (and therefore immoral and impractical). The rational (and therefore moral and practical) thing to do is to pick one at random.

But when you already know that one option is pretty good but the other is absolutely GREAT, then it is a vice to deliberately forgo the great for the just-good.

"Good heavens, Dominique, what are you talking about?"

"About your building. About the kind of building that Roark will design for you. It will be a great building, Joel."

"You mean, good?"

"I don't mean good. I mean great."

"It's not the same thing."

"No, Joel, no, it's not the same thing."

"I don't like this 'great' stuff."

"No. You don't. I didn't think you would. [...] It's very uncomfortable to be a hero, Joel, and you don't have the figure for it."

[Capitalism Forever 0]

No NEW POST button appears at the bottom of the page I am seeing. There is an ADD REPLY button. Is that what you mean?

←

Are you looking at the thread's main page, or at the page where you can enter a reply? The button I am talking about is on the thread page, in the row with the four buttons, "FST REPLY" "NEW POST" "OPTIONS" "NEW TOPIC." (The buttons may have different labels in different skins, though; on the OO Forum, for example, they are "FAST REPLY" "ADD REPLY" "OPTIONS" "NEW TOPIC.")

[Capitalism Forever 0]

To everyone who is uncertain what the heck we're debating, keep in mind this exchange, because it expresses the very essentials of the two opposing views being argued here:

←

But FC ... the two quotes you gave contain only ONE view, the view which your diagram expresses--that it is possible to be impractical but still qualify as moral. I asked whether you hadn't just contradicted your diagram--and you replied in the affirmative.