Secondly, they were not acting ethically. They were seeking lowest common denominator justification for their actions, with there still being uncertainty as to whether compliance had really been achieved.
Third, this legal justification for action ignored ethics. Legal compliance is not the same as having moral justification for a cause of action.
Some might think that trawling for a second wife in a Quaker Meeting House is not wholly nor quite moral. But, you know….
Having done the snarl, the real point. Morals are, like tastes, pretty individual. Therefore what you insist is the moral course of action is not what everyone else does. Say, tax. Relieving fools of the temptation to piss societal resources up the wall can be seen as a moral act after all….
Relieving fools of the temptation to piss societal resources up the wall can be seen as a moral act after all….
That’s an epic sentence.
Because you can interpret it either way.
*Chefs kiss*
Relieving fools of the temptation to piss societal resources up the wall can be seen as a moral act after all….
The argument, then, is that behaviour can simultaneously be both illegal and moral and that’s a dangerous contention.
There is a scale between minor pecadillo and serious crime which can’t accurately be defined although it is possible to recognise that the state has the ability either through punitive taxes or ludicrous legislation to shift attitudes so that yesterday’s notion of a crime becomes an acceptable modus vivendi today.
The state can also promote multiculturalism giving legitimacy of sorts to communities where the grooming and exploitation of vulnerable children from other communities are not thought immoral. Society cannot function with such divergences.
Ah, morals.
Moral codes, and the ethical codes based on them, are generally, in reality, little more than formalised statements of what the moralist believes ought to be. But as David Hume so astutely pointed out, there is no logical connection between what ought and what is.
This is demonstrated by the fat that there is actually only one “what is”, as Dr. Johnson observed, but any number of “what oughts”, nearly all of which are in conflict and competition and most of which made up in the fly and in a continual state of flux.
Just look at the major organised religions, all of which contend. Sharia chops off hands for theft; Hindusim states that the lower castes are lower for reasons of spiritual development; Christianity does neither but unfortunately is the oral source of socialism and progressivism.
All are about meaning. None address observable physical reality. So I find I have little time for morals and moralisers. By and large they can fuck off.
Of course there are professional ethical codes of practice but these usually concern making sure people are competent and trustworthy, which is a demonstrable social good. I’m all for that.
Norman points out that Mudslimes cut off hands for theft. Interesting that they want Sharia Law in the UK. Perhaps they think they’ll get more benefits if they don’t have hands.
I’m quite in favour of some Sharia Law, because then Mudslimes convicted of crimes could be given a choice: (A) publicly renounce your religion (aka suicide) or (B) accept the Sharia punishment if it is more draconian than UK law, such as being unable to physically accept handouts.
Norman
The fundamental and universal content of morality is a set of rules that promote human flourishing, given what human nature is. The rules of help your family, help your group, return favours, be brave, defer to superiors, divide resources fairly, and respect others’ property were found in a survey of 60 cultures from all around the world. Without the concept of a universal morality derived from human nature, there are no rational and principled arguments against tyranny, totaltarianism, socialism, etc. At best, moral nihilists and relativists can argue that tyranny etc do not work, which is disputable.
And ‘ought’ can be derived from ‘is’. Any goal-directed behaviour – including moral goals – involves the move from is to ought. “In order for agent A to achieve moral goal B, A reasonably ought to do C” exhibits no category error and may be factually verified or refuted.
Sorry, Theo, you don’t outrank David Hume.
As far as basic morality is concerned it can be defined as anything which promotes human thriving, which all of the points you cite do. It’s not surprising they’re found worldwide although they can essentially be boiled down to 1) be honest and trustworthy, and 2) do as you would be done by.
“be honest and trustworthy”: yet that remarkable mob, the classical Greeks, were notorious for lying.
Norman
Initially, you claimed: “Moral codes… are generally, in reality, little more than formalised statements of what the moralist believes ought to be.” Which is moral subjectivism or relativism.
But now you claim: “…basic morality…can be defined as anything which promotes human thriving…” aka human flourishing. Which is moral naturalism or objectivism — NOT moral subjectivism or relativism — because what promotes “human thriving” can only be defined by reference to an objective assessment of what constitutes human nature.
So you are confusedly contradicting yourself.
As for “you don’t outrank David Hume”, indeed I don’t, because Hume was touched with genius. However, that is the argument from authority, which is a standard logical fallacy. And Hume’s argument on is/ought has been extensively criticised and is widely regarded as fallacious and superficial. Even the dominant moral theory of our day, viz. utilitarianism, proceeds from what is (x = the greatest happiness of the greatest number) to we ought to do x.
Which is perhaps why the classical Greeks, busy arguing among themselves, got taken out by the Romans.
The advantage of being honest and trustworthy is straightforward: it reduces the transaction costs of both economic and social transactions. Honest and trustworthy behaviour is self-restraining and self-policing: it doesn’t need costly external monitoring and legal arbitration so the cost of running society goes down, everyone can spend more of their time generating wealth, and society becomes richer in consequence.
Thomas Sowell is very clear about this, and gives examples of self-policing societies such as Jewish Hatton Garden gem dealers, few of whom ever bother with contracts because should they welch on a deal the word would get around and they’d destroy their own business. The diversity’s Hawala functions on the same basis. I operate in a similar way with my client base. It’s a great example of an incentive structure which promotes good behaviour.
Theo, humanity has been around for 50,000 years and civilisation for probably 10,000 of them. You’d think by now that we’d have had enough time to figure out what works, and indeed we have, because if we hadn’t, some other hominid would have out-evolved us.
So if we’ve already figured out what works there’s no need to get Rodin-like furrowed brows postulating moral utopias because what works is already there to see. It already is, so there’s no need to try to connect it to what ought. It’s realistically achievable because it’s already been achieved, within the context and limitations of human behaviour.
The major problems of our time are entirely the result of ‘innovative’ thinkers trying to construct utopias that cannot coexist with human behaviour.
“…moral justification for a cause of action…”
Course of action, surely?
Which is perhaps why the classical Greeks, busy arguing among themselves, got taken out by the Romans.
Oh dear, that’s not only a non sequitur but also feeble. The Greeks were absorbed into the Roman Empire (a) because they were fractious city states and (b) because Rome offered protection against the ancestral enemy, Persia. And educated Romans hugely valued Greek philosophy and ethics – v. Cicero for details.
Being trustworthy and honest is both prudent and moral, because both principles are founded in human nature. So to behave morally is also in our interests. That is, the division between altruism and egoism is not sharp, because behaving altruistically is in our interests. However, morality cannot be based purely on prudence (ie self-interest) because then altruism, self-sacrifice, saints and heroes become inexplicable. (I once saw a very brave stranger rescue a baby from a burning car seconds before it exploded. His admirable behaviour was clearly not in his prudential interests.)
So far, then, you have advanced three incompatible theories of morality:
1. Subjectivism/relativism
2. Objectivism/naturalism
3. Rational egoism/prudentialism.
As for the rest of your second post, I do not disagree. But Adam Smith – who was primarily a moral philosopher- made the same points c.250 years ago…
“The argument, then, is that behaviour can simultaneously be both illegal and moral and that’s a dangerous contention.”
What? The law is often outdated, and whatever the moral grounds of it no longer apply. Or it exists to serve a special interest group. Or is the tyranny of the majority. Or just stupid.
Like we used to have dog quarantine. And we forbade you going out for a pint on a Sunday afternoon. And you still can’t go and shop in Aldi at 5pm on Sunday. And fucking your wife in the arse if she consented was illegal until the early 90s. As was 3 blokes over 21 having a threesome. You can do all manner of filthy things with a girl on her 16th birthday, but if you take a photo of her tits the day before her 18th birthday, even if you never show it to anyone, you’re a sex offender. You can’t produce foie gras or farm mink in the UK, but it is legal to import, sell and possess both. If you sell a piece of art that you bought, that is your property, and the artist is still alive, you have to give them 4% of the money received. Copyright protection for works beyond the timescale that existed at the time they were created.
The only way to think about the law is what you find morally acceptable and beyond that, the reward of breaking it and the risk of punishment.
Norman
So if we’ve already figured out what works there’s no need to get Rodin-like furrowed brows postulating moral utopias because what works is already there to see.
You started speculating about the nature of morality and quoting Hume – not me! – which is inconsistent of you, given you believe that “we’ve already figured out what works” morally. Moreover, when I pointed out the incoherences and inconsistencies in your speculations, you then sneered at and denounced all such speculation – which is inconsistent of you because you started the discussion with some confused, er, speculations.
And, for the record, I am not “postulating moral utopias” but merely clarifying concepts of the nature of morality, so that the errors of moral subjectivism, relativism and nihilism can be avoided, along with their consequences of tyranny, totalitarianism, nanny statism etc.
Theo, I’m an empiricist. I’m not talking about “having figured out what works morally”.
Thomas Sowell, an extremely wise man, points out that if you want to understand what something does, look for what happens when it’s absent. Look at other species. Looking at their behaviour, they appear to be untroubled by morals, philosophy, or political economics. Their behaviour has evolved to give them the best chances of thriving, both as individuals and as species.
Actually so has ours, but if we look at different cultures throughout history we find that they have evolved different social priorities, customs and traditions. The successful ones keep going. Just as for other species we can compare these social behaviours to see which offer both the individual and the species the best chances of thriving, and as you pointed out, studies have revealed what they are.
This is great. We know what works. Let’s do it.
Nasty word morals. Often used to impose one person’s wishes on others. Often by doing what Theo has. Linking morals to optimal behaviour. I often tell people who are trying to sell a good or service to remember what they’re selling. Which with anything is primarily confidence. Because it doesn’t matter how good & advantageous what you’re offering is, they ain’t going to buy it if they don’t have confidence in you or what you’re selling. And then one can unpack confidence into a set of behaviours. Be reliable & timely. Don’t lie or mislead. Are these moral or just optimal behaviour to achieve what you want? They’re optimal behaviour if you want to sell something. Maybe not in other situations.
There’s something one learns dealing with with Muslims. They have very loose relationship with the truth. Islam claims to be a strict moral system. It has survived & prospered. So telling the truth can’t be a moral imperative in Islam & they must have some way of compensating for this.
I do know another thing from experience. The more vociferous people are about promoting their morals the less they personally abide by them.. As they said, the more he spoke of his honour the faster they counted the spoons. Today I suppose that would be “The more he promoted the Tory Party the less people were inclined to vote for it.”
“If you sell a piece of art that you bought, that is your property, and the artist is still alive, you have to give them 4% of the money received. ”
Actually in practice its usually the purchaser who pays ARR, and it lasts for 70 years after an artists death. Auction houses will usually have in their terms and conditions that the buyer has to pay ARR, based on the hammer price. And it only applies to a) items over £1000 in value and b) items sold through a professional service (art dealer or auction house for example) . A private sale would not attract ARR. Nor do you pay 4% on the whole sale proceeds, there’s a sliding scale and a cap – the maximum payment possible is £12,500.
I know this because I bought a piece of sculpture last year and had to pay ARR on it, and the artist died over 50 years ago.
BiS
There’s something one learns dealing with with Muslims. They have very loose relationship with the truth.
Taqqiya is the Islamic doctrine that a devout Muslim is not committing a sin if he lies to an infidel in the interests of Islam. Many Muslims interpret this doctrine, er, generously…
Norman
I’m not talking about “having figured out what works morally”.
And:
We know what works. Let’s do it.
How do you explain contradicting yourself? You seem clueless andi pervious to reason…