WHAT DOES___MORALITY___ACCOMPLISH?

by Terry 8 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  Notice that my carefully worded header places morality into a framework of practicality first of all.

  I could have asked the question many ways; but, in order to make a certain point I chose this way.

  Let us retrace (as briefly as possible) the discussion of THE GOOD by Aristotle.

  Aristotle asks: "What is the GOOD?"

  He gives examples or analogies of a GOOD physician, a GOOD general and a GOOD carpenter.

  What does each do that makes them good? Each accomplishes the goal of his profession.

  Respectively:

  Healing the sick, winning the battle, erecting a well-constructed house.

  HOWEVER...

  David Hume comes along and calls this a false analogy as far as MORALITY is concerned.

  Hume tells us that Aristotle has erred by pulling a switcheroo in substituting GOOD (as in: skillfull) with GOOD (as in: MORAL) and concludes we would never call a surgeon a MORAL man just because he healed a patient.

  THIS IS WHERE OUR DISCUSSION REALLY BEGINS.

  Morality can be (and must!) a practical matter.

  Living a GOOD life is a matter of actually doing something in the real world. We practice our goodness by doing things. We associate the result of our doing with who did the doing and we produce a person who is evaluated as GOOD.

  Are you still with me?

  If you intend no harm and yet actually DO harm your practical result is not what your intention is. You will not be pronounced GOOD.

  From this we can see it doesn't matter how we view our own MORALITY if our actions produce results that bring harm. After all, our intentions are in our mind and our actions have physical consequences in the real world.

  MORALITY, then, comes from doing actual things in the real world that consequently produce GOOD. We become GOOD by doing GOOD.

  This solves the ancient problem of derriving OUGHT from IS.

  How?

  If we follow the correct operational procedures that produce a healed patient, a won battle and a well-constructed house we are GOOD at what we do because the objective has been seen to be accomplished by our correct actions.

  Therefore, when we follow the correct operational procedures that produce consequences in our daily life with others the end result will be good results and we will be GOOD because we accomplished our objective in performing GOOD practice of GOOD operations.

  To conclude:

  RULES (such as OUGHT) can be derived from states of being (IS) because we set an objective goal of actually doing the things which produce good results.

  We tell the Truth, we do not steal, we do not kill, etc. because those actions produce negative results in the lives of others and the consequence is negative in our own life when we are held to account for the actions which produced those results.

  We are GOOD (moral) when our operational rules for success in life are followed to gain the benefit of the consequences of following those rules: GOOD RESULTS.

  THERE IS NO NEED OF A SUPERNATURAL RULE MAKER because doing GOOD follows naturally from identifying good results and reverse-engineering the operations that produce the best results as a practical matter.

  MORALITY IS PRACTICAL. It is not the result of God.

  Discussion?
• 

  Generic Man

  Hi Terry,

  Thanks for starting this interesting post, but unfortunately, your treatment of the issue is too simplistic. First of all, your criticism of Aristotle is, I think, unclear. Aristotle’s ethical theory is known as Virtue Ethics. For Aristotle, a person is good because behaves virtuously and has good intentions. Aristotle’s ethics can be described as teleological or purpose oriented. According to Aristotle, everything has a purpose, both animate and inanimate. An apple tree grows apples and in order to be virtuous, it must grow good fruit to fulfill its purpose. Likewise people have purposes too and must strive to fulfill that purpose.

  Unlike other theories, which characterize a person as good in terms of what actions he performs, Aristotle’s virtue ethics defines a good person in terms of how he strives to be good. For instance, Utilitarians like John Stewart Mill would define a good person as one who performs actions that cause the right consequences. Usually they tend to define right actions as pleasurable actions (hedonism). Not surprisingly Utilitarians are called consequentialists (but not all consequentialists are Utilitarians). Deontologists like Immanuel Kant on the other hand, claim that actions are right or wrong regardless of their consequences. According to Kant, a good person performs the right actions regardless of what the circumstances in which it is performed. Virtue ethics is unlike either of these alternatives in that they emphasize on good character instead of good actions.

  David Hume introduced the problem of how can be conclude with a statement about what we ought to do from premises which describe how the world is. Hume concluded that we cannot do this; we cannot reduce moral properties like good, bad, right or wrong to natural properties. Hume criticizes Aristotle for identifying virtuousness (a moral property) with skillfulness (a description of a person’s behavior). Hume would likewise have criticized hedonists for identifying the good with pleasurable sensations. Hume’s concluded that since we cannot solve the “is/ought problem,” then moral distinctions are not discovered by reason but created by sentiment. In other words, morality is not rational (or at least, not completely motivated by reason).

  Similarly, the 20 th century philosopher G.E. Moore agreed with Hume that moral properties are not reducible to natural properties, as indicated by his ‘open-ended argument.’ However , Moore did agree with Hume’s conclusion that morality is irrational. Instead, (By the way, ’s position is known has ethical non-naturalism).

  Now, that I’ve finished with explaining some of the most important ideas in ethics, which one of these positions are correct? I’m in no position to answer this with a conclusive position and I seriously doubt that you are either. Frankly, I find your own attempt to be unenlightening and naive. Don’t take this personally, but I don’t think you’ve taken the time to think about this ancient problem. I’m not sure what you mean when you say that “morality is a practical matter.” I don’t that any theist or any of the philosophers I’ve mentioned would insist that being moral is impractical. So I don’t see how your idea of “morality as a practical matter” is an alternative to theistic ideas of morality (including for instance, the Divine Command Theory which is not accepted by all theists). As for your concluding statement:

  THERE IS NO NEED OF A SUPERNATURAL RULE MAKER because doing GOOD follows naturally from identifying good results and reverse-engineering the operations that produce the best results as a practical matter.

  I have no reason to believe that you have proven your case. However, you do seem to agree with consequentialism since you emphasize on GOOD RESULTS, but you’re going to have to do a better job of giving arguments. What do you define as a good result and what kinds of actions produce good results?Once again, don’t take this as a personal assault, but as a fair criticism of your post.

  Sincerely,

  GenericMan
• 

  Terry

  Now, that I’ve finished with explaining some of the most important ideas in ethics, which one of these positions are correct? I’m in no position to answer this with a conclusive position and I seriously doubt that you are either. Frankly, I find your own attempt to be unenlightening and naive

  Have you described anything but doubt on your part?

  You doubt. That isn't an argument for or against. It is more of a description of your ability to tackle the problem.

  What you find (unenlightening or otherwise) is beside the point.

  T.
• 

  Generic Man

  "Similarly, the 20 th century philosopher G.E. Moore agreed with Hume that moral properties are not reducible to natural properties, as indicated by his ‘open-ended argument.’ However , Moore did agree with Hume’s conclusion that morality is irrational. Instead, (By the way, ’s position is known has ethical non-naturalism)."

  Damn, for some reason, parts of my message did not make it. A large part of the paragraph that was supposed to come after " Instead," and before "(By the way, ’s position is known has ethical non-naturalism)." And unfortunately, I do not have a copy of my original message. Anyway, if you want to know more about Moore, I'm sure you can find some article on him from a credible source. Or better yet, you read what Moore himself has to say in his Principia Ethica. It quite a good read. Sorry about the mistake.
• 

  Generic Man

  You write:

  "Have you described anything but doubt on your part?"

  "You doubt. That isn't an argument for or against. It is more of a description of your ability to tackle the problem."

  My point is that the problems regarding morality run deep and there has been no consensus among ethicists who have spent so much time trying to solve the problems. It's kind of silly to claim to have solved all of our ethical ills with a slogan like "morality is a practical matter." My doubts were never meant to be an argument. If I were to do that, I would have presented them in a formal manner to preserve the validity of the argument. Such an argument would have a truth-preserving structure with sound premises. All I'm saying is that if you were to provide a conclusive answer to the important questions about morality, it would be the result of years of study and a good understanding, because good philosophy takes time and patience. I've even chatted with professional philosophers at my college and they admit that the problems are still unsolved. So pardon me if I'm doubtful.

  When I say that your answer is unenlightening, I mean you haven't said anything interesting. All you've said is that morality is about good results and that somehow you've managed to prove that morality is not supernatural. In other words, I don't see any arguments in your post either. I'm not attacking you personally, but your post has no arguments to back up your conclusions and it's not even good rhetoric.
• 

  Confession

  I'm going to jump in here with my take on Terry's post. Everything both of you have written has been pretty interesting to me, but I think the original position he took is, basically...

  Many people have concluded that endeavoring to be moral persons simply results in the best outcome most of the time. Therefore, morality need not be something infused into humankind by an intelligent designer.

  I don't know whether this is true or not, but I don't think this premise requires a lot of explanation.
• 

  Golf

  I know some good golfers (players) but yet are immoral because they 'cheat' at the game.
  
  
  Golf
• 

  IT Support

  MORALITY, then, comes from doing actual things in the real world that consequently produce GOOD. We become GOOD by doing GOOD.

  As a matter of interest, how would this apply in a case where someone, in the course of an evil (not good?) action, produced unintended good?

  E.g. if a criminal is being chased through the streets by the polce and knocks over a blind person, but when the blind person gets up finds the blow to his head has made him see again? (Sorry I couldn't think of a better example on the spur of the moment!)
• 

  Terry

  If you intend no harm and yet actually DO harm your practical result is not what your intention is. You will not be pronounced GOOD.

  The reverse of this will be true as well.

  E.g. if a criminal is being chased through the streets by the polce and knocks over a blind person, but when the blind person gets up finds the blow to his head has made him see again? (Sorry I couldn't think of a better example on the spur of the moment!)