How essential is it really to spell out ahead of time what is good and what is not for the sake of conducting our own affairs? I've never been tempted to do this. When it is so easy to recognize what is good and what isn't, why codify? From my point of view it just seems obsessive.
The situation is analogous to the correct use of English. It is possible to be an expert speaker without any formal training, provided you have developed an ear for it in the company of people who are themselves competent speakers. Acquiring a formal knowledge of the rules of grammar has value. It just isn't necessary for correct usage. Likewise it is possible to act consistently with an intuitively held moral sense without attempting to exhaustively specify the 'rules'.
Is the attempt to adhere to an explicitly stated set of rules or principals an essential aspect of "morality" by definition? If so, what then do we call someone who recognizes moral value situationally but never bothers to objectify it in a formal sense? It seems a stretch to call us amoral since we do recognize moral worth. We just don't define it abstractly in the absence of a particular circumstance.
Now I consider codes for conduct in a legal sense to be a completely different matter. It is essential to spell out in advance actions which a society will not allow and which must be disincentivized. Specificity is desirable and perhaps even necessary where cooperative actions must be taken.
The situation is analogous to the correct use of English. It is possible to be an expert speaker without any formal training, provided you have developed an ear for it in the company of people who are themselves competent speakers. Acquiring a formal knowledge of the rules of grammar has value. It just isn't necessary for correct usage. Likewise it is possible to act consistently with an intuitively held moral sense without attempting to exhaustively specify the 'rules'.
Is the attempt to adhere to an explicitly stated set of rules or principals an essential aspect of "morality" by definition? If so, what then do we call someone who recognizes moral value situationally but never bothers to objectify it in a formal sense? It seems a stretch to call us amoral since we do recognize moral worth. We just don't define it abstractly in the absence of a particular circumstance.
Now I consider codes for conduct in a legal sense to be a completely different matter. It is essential to spell out in advance actions which a society will not allow and which must be disincentivized. Specificity is desirable and perhaps even necessary where cooperative actions must be taken.
