Relationship between moral and practical

[Capitalism Forever 0]

A vice??

This strikes me as holding "The Moral" as some kind of Platonic ideal and as "a scarecrow standing in a barren field, waving a stick to chase away your pleasures."

←

That is a strange way to respond to a post where I advocate the MAXIMIZATION of your pleasures!

A closer (but still incorrect) analogy would be: a scarecrow in every field EXCEPT the one with the juiciest fruits. Incorrect, because I do not put a scarecrow into any fields at all; I say that the lesser quality of the fruits in a field is reason enough to avoid it and go for the best fruits. I don't think the Joel Suttons of this world will "burn in hell," but I do think they're getting what they ask for here in Earth: not the best.

A former close associate of Ayn Rand (who later disavowed just about everything Ayn Rand ever stood for)  accused Miss Rand of being a traitor to her professed ideals because she would waste hours with her stamp collection when she should have been writing books, making public appearances, and promoting Objectivism.  Does what Ayn Rand did strike you as a "vice?"  If not, why not?

←

Because she was not mankind's slave. She had written her novels because it benefited her life; she had promoted her philosophy because she had judged it was the best thing she could do for herself at that time. When she pursued her hobby, she obviously found that it was the greatest value for her life at that time. I am sure she did not think something like, "A ski trip would be a greater value for me now than stamp collecting, so I'll collect stamps."

What is this wanting to "qualify as a moral person" and "they do not get to call themselves moral?"  This makes it sound as if qualifying as moral is the goal, and the values we seek and the actions we take are the means to that goal. Isn't that backwards?

←

It is. "Qualifying" is not my goal. But judging people is one of my goals, and if a person chooses a lesser value over a greater one, I'll judge him accordingly.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

if the people Betsy mentioned do not violate moral rules

←

Perhaps they don't violate them, but they do not follow them either.

If you choose to think, you are moral.

If you choose to evade, you are immoral.

If you choose neither, you are neither.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

But judging people is one of my goals, and if a person chooses a lesser value over a greater one, I'll judge him accordingly.

←

That is a rather difficult, and often impossible, thing to judge since what is a greater or lesser value depends on the full context of a man's life and his own personal hierarchy of values. In fact, the reason most people screw up their lives is because they don't know what is really a greater or lesser value in the context of their own lives.

My standard of judging people is: Based on what I have seen them say and do and what I know about human psychology, is dealing with them likely to be good or bad for me?

Justice is an extremely selfish virtue.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

That is a rather difficult, and often impossible, thing to judge

←

That's true, of course. I took the liberty of judging our hypothetical person because the hypothesis itself stipulated that he was knowingly choosing a lesser value.

[Andrew Sternberg 0]

...

Quite on the contrary, I have been saying that "being moral" includes doing the "additional thinking."

...

←

I have said previously along these lines: that moral advice includes "be rational" which, when applied to fluctuating context, becomes "be practical"

but what I don't understand is why you don't want to use "practicality" to capture this concept.

←

Where did I say anything to this effect?

...

Not explicitly, but it was something that I infered. It will take me some time to justify this by dissecting your quotes. I will attempt this later, since I I don't have time to do this during my lunch break.

In the statement "The moral is the practical," "the moral" and "the practical" refer to actions. "A moral action is always practical and a practical action is always moral." To clarify even further: "A morally good action always practically good, and a practically good action is always morally good." It is not about "understanding moral principles" vs. "using one's 'practical faculty'" ; it is about "morally good" vs. "practically good" (where the "vs." actually resolves to an "="). It is not about delineating spheres of thought; it's about telling in what combinations any one action can have the attributes "morally good" and "practically good" and their respective opposites.

I have been arguing that the table of possible combinations looks like this:

MORALLY GOOD and PRACTICALLY GOOD: CAN BE

MORALLY GOOD and PRACTICALLY BAD_: CANNOT BE

MORALLY BAD_ and PRACTICALLY GOOD: CANNOT BE

MORALLY BAD_ and PRACTICALLY BAD_: CAN BE

and not like this:

MORALLY GOOD and PRACTICALLY GOOD: CAN BE

MORALLY GOOD and PRACTICALLY BAD_: CAN BE

MORALLY BAD_ and PRACTICALLY GOOD: CANNOT BE

MORALLY BAD_ and PRACTICALLY BAD_: CAN BE

←

I think I still have an issue with the first table and adhere to the second. Before I go into why, I need you to clarify something for me.

Can you define "moral" for me. I can't tell the difference between the way you are using it and the concept "good".

It seems as though your definition for moral would be: that which benefits man's life. And this would explain why something "practically bad", i.e. an action that doesn't achieve the given value, would not be classified as "morally good"--since it doesn't actually benefit their life. (I am pretty sure that 'moral' and 'good' aren't synonomous, but I'm not certain. Any thoughts?).

I view morality as ADVICE, which would allow room for an honestly mistaken application of that advice. I would classify such a case as "Morally good, but practically bad"

[Free Capitalist 0]

If you choose to think, you are moral.

If you choose to evade, you are immoral.

If you choose neither, you are neither.

CF, I don't think you understand. The Objectivist Ethics says that every man can be morally evaluated, because every choice he makes is guided by some moral principle or other, even if it is itself a rejection of moral principles. I did not refer you to VoS and OPAR out of callousness, but because I truly think you have a serious misunderstanding of at least this aspect of Objectivist Ethics.

In a regular, non-emergency and non-force, situation there can be no "neither" in moral evaluation.

Now, if this is an established principle, as it ought to be, then you cannot avoid evaluating those experts on Objectivism who can lecture both of us on the philosophy and yet are completely impractical and unsuccessful in life. You have to evaluate them as either moral or immoral. What will it be?

[Capitalism Forever 0]

Can you define "moral" for me.  I can't tell the difference between the way you are using it and the concept "good".

←

Ethics is a set of guidelines for man's life. An action that follows these guidelines is a moral action. A person who acts morally is a moral person.

It seems as though your definition for moral would be: that which benefits man's life.

←

No, the good is that which benefits man's life. "Good" is an attribute of objects; "moral" is an attribute of actions and of people. ("Good" is also used as a synonym of "moral," though, but that's another meaning of the word. "Moral" cannot be used as a synonym of the first meaning of "good"--i.e., a lettuce can be good(1), but it cannot be moral / good(2).)

why something "practically bad", i.e. an action that doesn't achieve the given value, would not be classified as "morally good"--since it doesn't actually benefit their life.

←

Ethics tells us to act to gain values that benefit our life; if we act to gain anti-values, we don't act in accordance with ethics, therefore we are being immoral.

I view morality as ADVICE, which would allow room for an honestly mistaken application of that advice.

←

Certainly.

I would classify such a case as "Morally good, but practically bad"

←

In hindsight, yes, the action was morally good because the honest mistake made it appear practical, although it turned out to be impractical in the end.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

you cannot avoid evaluating those experts on Objectivism who can lecture both of us on the philosophy and yet are completely impractical and unsuccessful in life.

←

I did evaluate them. My evaluation is that they are neither especially moral nor especially immoral.

[Andrew Sternberg 0]

CF,

I am quite satisfied with your answers concerning "good" and "moral". But there is one last thing that needs to be resolved. You end with:

In hindsight, yes, the action was morally good because the honest mistake made it appear practical, although it turned out to be impractical in the end.

←

Correct me if I am wrong, but you have previously taken the position that if something is impractical, then it is NOT moral:

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

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

←

MORALLY GOOD and PRACTICALLY GOOD: CAN BE

MORALLY GOOD and PRACTICALLY BAD_: CANNOT BE

MORALLY BAD_ and PRACTICALLY GOOD: CANNOT BE

MORALLY BAD_ and PRACTICALLY BAD_: CAN BE

←

(Bold Mine)

But according to what you say above (the first of your quotes in this post), the action was both moral and impractical (It was impractical, but the actor didn’t know it because of their honest error). But for you to be consistent you would have to claim that: since it turned out to be impractical, this makes the original action immoral. But since an honest error is responsible for the person engaging in an impractical action, it is an honest error that makes them immoral.

I don’t think it is your intention, but you are implicitly asserting an omniscient standard for morality since, as I have shown, you don’t allow for honest errors.

[Andrew Sternberg 0]

In hindsight, yes, the action was morally good because the honest mistake made it appear practical, although it turned out to be impractical in the end.

←

I would also like to add that the above statement itself supports my claim that you are implicitly asserting an omniscient standard for morality.

You say, "in hindsight", but man doesn't act by hindsight, he acts by foresight.

When you are judging the morality of an action, whether of your own or another's, whether before or after the action has taken place, it is only proper basis by which to judge it is the facts that the actor had while considering the action, prior to the action.

Related question on which I will have to do further thinking: "Is practicality a concept of 'foresight', 'hindsight', or both?

Does the question "practicality" mean "WILL it work" (foresight) or "DID it work"(hindsight).

[Capitalism Forever 0]

But according to what you say above (the first of your quotes in this post), the action was both moral and impractical (It was impractical, but the actor didn’t know it because of their honest error).

←

Perhaps the simplest way to clarify my position is to incorporate the dictinction into my table:

Before the Action:

MORALLY GOOD and FORESEEN TO BE PRACTICALLY GOOD: CAN BE

MORALLY GOOD and FORESEEN TO BE PRACTICALLY BAD_: CANNOT BE

MORALLY BAD_ and FORESEEN TO BE PRACTICALLY GOOD: CANNOT BE

MORALLY BAD_ and FORESEEN TO BE PRACTICALLY BAD_: CAN BE

After the Action:

MORALLY GOOD and TURNED OUT TO BE PRACTICALLY GOOD: CAN BE

MORALLY GOOD and TURNED OUT TO BE PRACTICALLY BAD_: CAN BE

MORALLY BAD_ and TURNED OUT TO BE PRACTICALLY GOOD: CAN BE

MORALLY BAD_ and TURNED OUT TO BE PRACTICALLY BAD_: CAN BE

[JMeganSnow 0]

MORALLY BAD_ and TURNED OUT TO BE PRACTICALLY GOOD: CAN BE

←

I think this one doesn't work. The absolute test of a syllogism's functionality (IIRC) is whether you can have false premises and a true conclusion. Since the abstract guides of morality function in much the same way, if you can act contrary to your morality and have a positive result (a positive long-range result, taking into account ALL the results and not just the immediate ones) then something is wrong with your morality.

So, this option presupposes an impractical morality, which, in the context of this discussion (and Objectivism) I believe was discarded.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

I think this one doesn't work.

←

It happens when an immoral person is "honestly" mistaken and ends up benefiting himself instead of harming himself. The action is foreseen to be practically bad but turns out to be practically good.

Like in the joke where a masochist meets a sadist and wistfully says "Beat me up!" but the sadist decides to "hurt" him by refusing to beat him.

Or like when Ellsworth Toohey makes a speech at the strikers' rally and Gail Wynand raises his salary.

[JMeganSnow 0]

It happens when an immoral person is "honestly" mistaken and ends up benefiting himself instead of harming himself. The action is foreseen to be practically bad but turns out to be practically good.

Like in the joke where a masochist meets a sadist and wistfully says "Beat me up!" but the sadist decides to "hurt" him by refusing to beat him.

Or like when Ellsworth Toohey makes a speech at the strikers' rally and Gail Wynand raises his salary.

←

Meah. I'm sorry, but the whole idea is such a tangled rationalization that it's really weird. Like I said, (and in your examples) it presupposes a mistaken morality, which is not what we're discussing here, as, with a mistaken morality what is good for you is usually immoral and vice versa. With a valid morality (Objectivism) you don't get situations like you illustrated above.

[Andrew Sternberg 0]

Practicality is the art of avoiding honest errors in applying application of moral principles to action.

How is this for a definition?

[Capitalism Forever 0]

Meah.  I'm sorry, but the whole idea is such a tangled rationalization that it's really weird.  Like I said, (and in your examples) it presupposes a mistaken morality, which is not what we're discussing here, as, with a mistaken morality what is good for you is usually immoral and vice versa.  With a valid morality (Objectivism) you don't get situations like you illustrated above.

←

So how would you evaluate the actions in my examples? Are they moral or immoral? Why?

[Sarah Beth 0]

So, this option presupposes an impractical morality, which, in the context of this discussion (and Objectivism) I believe was discarded.

←

It happens when an immoral person is "honestly" mistaken and ends up benefiting himself instead of harming himself. The action is foreseen to be practically bad but turns out to be practically good.

Like in the joke where a masochist meets a sadist and wistfully says "Beat me up!" but the sadist decides to "hurt" him by refusing to beat him.

Or like when Ellsworth Toohey makes a speech at the strikers' rally and Gail Wynand raises his salary.

←

Aren't you guys in agreement here that it is in reference to an immoral morality (isn't that a contradiction??)

[Sarah Beth 0]

Practicality is the art of avoiding honest errors in applying  application of moral principles to action.

How is this for a definition?

←

As I understand it I'd say you're spot on

[Sarah Beth 0]

Perhaps the simplest way to clarify my position is to incorporate the dictinction into my table:

Before the Action:

MORALLY GOOD and FORESEEN TO BE PRACTICALLY GOOD: CAN BE

MORALLY GOOD and FORESEEN TO BE PRACTICALLY BAD_: CANNOT BE

MORALLY BAD_ and FORESEEN TO BE PRACTICALLY GOOD: CANNOT BE

MORALLY BAD_ and FORESEEN TO BE PRACTICALLY BAD_: CAN BE

After the Action:

MORALLY GOOD and TURNED OUT TO BE PRACTICALLY GOOD: CAN BE

MORALLY GOOD and TURNED OUT TO BE PRACTICALLY BAD_: CAN BE

MORALLY BAD_ and TURNED OUT TO BE PRACTICALLY GOOD: CAN BE

MORALLY BAD_ and TURNED OUT TO BE PRACTICALLY BAD_: CAN BE

←

I understand what and why you are going to such detail to explain, but I think we are losing sight here. Morality is not to be judged in hindsight-EXCEPT for how it can be used to influence the next decision i.e. foresight.

Intention sets context. Hindsight is 20x20 and is the perogitive of the actor to recognize or to not. This lands in the realm of mistakes-which JMeagan knows is exactly the apex of my interest right now, but CF I really feel initially your argument was much stronger and now you are allowing too many variables.

Hindsight is of no relevance except to the actor who might reflect/introspect and learn. I feel it's being taken out of context here merely b/c CF was illustrating to Andrew why a mistake might be possible and a person could judge themselves moral perhaps/not condemn themselves (i.e. it's still moral but it TURNED OUT to be impractical)-I'm getting out of my league here though, you guys will have to clarify.

Do you understand what I mean though?

[JMeganSnow 0]

Aren't you guys in agreement here that it is in reference to an immoral morality (isn't that a contradiction??)

←

Yes, that was why I was saying it's an invalid example for this context.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Practicality is the art of avoiding honest errors in applying  application of moral principles to action.

How is this for a definition?

←

Why should "avoiding honest errors" be a defining element for the concept of practicality? Is "avoiding honest errors" really an essential to be singled out? Should we define "logic" as "the art of avoiding honest errors in making non-contradictory identifications?"

[Sarah Beth 0]

Why should "avoiding honest errors" be a defining element for the concept of practicality? Is "avoiding honest errors" really an essential to be singled out? Should we define "logic" as "the art of avoiding honest errors in making non-contradictory identifications?"

←

Do you mean as opposed to "avoiding error"? To imply that honest or not an error is an error? Because I think that's what the discrepancy between Andrew and CF was- is whether there is room for honest error-in judgement.

I'm curious as to the answer, I'm confused myself.

[Sarah Beth 0]

This is one of my great confusions, because I am a black and white thinker myself, but I still-though JMeagan and Inspector and I have had a thread similar-do not understand how mistakes figure in. I would consider a mistake to be the discretion of the individuals involved-not a matter of moral latitutde, where mistakes can somehow rectify an immoral action or nullify a moral action-except in an individual's own application to himself.

Perhaps someone can clarify? Isn't all that matters intent? But no, that doesn't seem right either still...

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Why should "avoiding honest errors" be a defining element for the concept of practicality? Is "avoiding honest errors" really an essential to be singled out? Should we define "logic" as "the art of avoiding honest errors in making non-contradictory identifications?"

Do you mean as opposed to "avoiding error"?

No. I am questioning why the inclusion of error at all? The possibility of error may be inherent in a multitude of processes that we perform, but that does not mean that we include that possibility as a defining element in the definition of the process.

To imply that honest or not an error is an error? Because I think that's what the discrepancy between Andrew and CF was- is whether there is room for honest error-in judgement.

Whatever the "discrepancy between Andrew and CF," such is irrelevant to my point.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

Morality is not to be judged in hindsight

←

Yes, that's exactly why my "after" table has a "CAN BE" everywhere. How the action turned out to be has no relevance to judging its morality; the only thing relevant is how the actor expected it to be.