"Drawing the line" among a list of choices

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

[...] Not being indiscriminate means drawing the line somewhere. I myself draw the line as high as possible; the other posters in this thread have been suggesting it should be lower.

I have heard the wording "drawing the line" many times. I do not understand what it means. In particular, there is something implied in the wording that rings an alarm bell but I cannot fully trace the alarm to its source to see whether it is valid or not.

I often disagree with CF in particular areas, but he is both articulate and persistent -- important characteristics for a profitable discussion! So, I would like to use CF's comment above (and earlier ones in that thread) as a talking point for exploring the meaning of "drawing the line," when "drawing the line" is appropriate to making ethical decisions, and what the alternatives, if any, might be.

My questions to CF are:

- What do you mean by "drawing the line"?

- Does that wording mean you see a continuum of choices, a sort of sliding-scale of cost-benefit analysis?

(I have placed this in the Ethics forum because the topic usually arises in discussions about what to do, especially in society, but the subject of course has roots in epistemology.)

[Paul's Here 0]

---------(and earlier ones in that thread) ----------

Which thread? Link, please.

[Maarten 0]

Previous Thread

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Which thread? Link, please.

The little arrow at the top of the quotation box shown in post 1 should take you back to the topic-thread.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I have heard the wording "drawing the line" many times. I do not understand what it means. [...]

I often disagree with CF in particular areas, but he is both articulate and persistent -- important characteristics for a profitable discussion! So, I would like to use CF's comment above (and earlier ones in when "drawing the line" is appropriate to making ethical decisions, and what the alternatives, if any, might be.

Generally "drawing the line" means defining something. It means distinguishing between what is included in a concept and what is not.

In an ethical context, the relevant concept is acceptable behavior. In this context, parents often "set limits" for their children so the kids know whether what they are doing is OK or "out of bounds" or "beyond the pale" of what is acceptable.

[Matt 0]

I think of drawing a line as to something I am willing to compromise on, such as a price.

I would never compromise on a priciple, so there is no drawing a line there.

When judging people, you have to be concerned with both.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

What do you mean by "drawing the line"?

Betsy's answer above is a precise description of my use of the phrase.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Thank you for the responses. I am getting closer to articulating what has sometimes bothered me when I hear the words "draw the line."

PROPER USES

One proper use of "draw the line," as Betsy has suggested, is in the process of defining an idea by delimiting its referents. I would suggest the phrase is appropriate when looking at borderline cases and deciding to include or exclude one. As a mnemonic, I recall that the Latin verb definio means "I mark a boundary," coming from de ("concerning") and finis ("end, boundary, limit" -- as of a piece of property).

Another proper use of "draw the line," again as Betsy has suggested, is, using my words, in indicating rules (not principles) of behavior, especially for children and perhaps for adults who don't have the capacity -- or the time, at a particular moment -- to wrestle with applying principles in a given context. Perhaps an example for children would be drawing the line at a certain amount of a particular food that is merely okay to eat but should not be eaten in quantities so large that it kills appetite for other, more nutritious foods. So the parent draws the line at half a cup of orange juice before dinner, for a toddler. As another example, for school zones, legislators draw the line for speeding at a certain speed. Legislators do not leave to drivers the decision of how far to apply a principle of safety in driving around children.

IMPROPER USES

Matt's perceptive comments have helped me get closer to identifying the issue I have seen come up especially in talking with moral tolerationists. There is a difference between (1) being guided by a principle in deciding whether to do something, and (2) once having recognized the principle involved, deciding how much of it to do. Matt gives the example of a price. I hold, as I think Matt does, that deciding what price to pay should follow the principled decision about whether to do a thing.

Put negatively, it is a mistake to assess a particular action in a "costs-benefit" analysis instead of applying principles. (In a cost-benefit analysis, one tries to find the break point and then slide as much as possible into the "benefits" side of the scale.)

The example I have in mind is one I heard from moral tolerationists on the issue of whether an Objectivist should formally speak to an organization of libertarians. The issue, they said, is a matter of "cost-benefit analysis," that is, weighing the gains and losses that would come from such an action. An inference I drew from an article Peter Schwartz wrote for The Intellectual Activist is that the issue is a matter of principle: Sanctioning your philosophical enemies is morally wrong.

I have also talked to some individuals who use the wording "draw the line" and other such phrases with an implication that there is some sliding-scale of propriety "out there" in reality. I suspect this view to be a combination of Platonism and Pragmatism, a belief that there is an ideal standard outside one's mind, in another dimension, but which appears in this world of corruption as a matter of degree of reality -- and one must adjust one's actions accordingly. That is as far as I have been able to characterize this condition.

I have encountered another version of this sliding-scale morality. It is the belief that virtues and vices exist on a continuum rather than in a (proper) dichotomy. Terms symptomatic of this moral moderationist theory are: "too much," "too little," "proportionate," "disproportionate," "balance," "the mean between extremes," and the term "moderation" itself. An imaginary example would be: "Speaking to a very small organization of Libertarians would be okay, but not if the organization were too large. Then it would be wrong." The words that raise a caution flag -- and call for philosophical detection -- are "too large."

Again, thanks for the responses. They have helped me make progress in articulating the problems and therefore identifying possible solutions when such terms come up in discussion.

[Rose Lake 0]

Thanks BL. The entire post was filled with excellent identiications. For instance, the part about applying cost-benefit analysis instead of principle. Even before I read the next paragraph I was saying, yes, yes, yes, I have seen this! And the example was perfect.

Seems I've been getting my batteries charged today, thanks to this post, and to the thread on the Objectivist Standard.

[oldsalt 0]

I, too, thank you for your post, Burgess. As usual, you've managed to help me to understand my own thinking about something important. You provide excellent training!