(June 13, 2012 at 8:56 am)whateverist Wrote: 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 only thing I agree with here is that the situation is analogous to correct use of English.
First of all, there is a difference between formal knowledge and formal training. For example, studying the rules and standards on your own is the same as acquiring formal knowledge, but it is not formal training.
Secondly, without there being such a body of formal standards, any aberration would be impossible to identify. Try to converse with a child to see how many times they use the language incorrectly and you promptly correct them. For example, using "gooder" instead of "better". Every time you correct them, you are imparting a piece of formal knowledge and that is not possible without such knowledge being codified.
Presumably, because you live in a country with high rate of literacy, its importance is not as noticeable. But converse with anyone illiterate and you'll find out just how big the language barrier can be. To give a real life example, the most common language in my country is Hindi. However, the regional language for my family is Marathi. I've lived in areas where it is a prominent language as a child and I live in one such area currently. However, I've never had any formal training in that language and the absence of it comes across quite clearly to both my mother and my grandmother - both of whom have had that training.
If you need an example specifically for usage of English, I suggest you watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhninL_G3...re=related
The same principles apply to morality. Imagine for a moment that you were raised without any introduction to formally accepted moral principles. No one ever told you that lying or stealing or cheating were bad things. Everyone else simply acted according to those principles, without explicitly stating why. Suppose that you were punished accordingly when you did get caught, but there was no retribution when you didn't. What would your intuition lead you to do in that case? Would you stop lying, cheating and stealing altogether or would you try to lie, cheat and steal in such ways that you do not get caught?
Given the fact that people still lie, cheat and steal even with formal knowledge of immorality of that action, I'd say it is the latter (it may also have to do with the fact that the current standards of morality aren't completely justified). If there is any doubt in your mind about the necessity of formal knowledge and its codification and you regard moral intuitions as sufficient, try it out in a kindergarten class. Try and lead by moral example and see if all kids follow the lead.
