Moral rules vs moral sense

[genkaus]

So you say, Genk, but there is always the possibility that I'm just stumbling around and the sum total of my actions can be described as "moral" guided only by my (illusion) of intuition, or nothing at all... Personally, I couldn't tell you definitively either way.

If they were, in fact, guided by "nothing at all", then there wouldn't be any definitive underlying principle to them. Is there?

This might also just be some strange quirk limited to me and in no way indicative of how others go about the whole bit, couldn't it? But, to be more specific, nothing about this seems easy or intuitive Genk...I don't think about it at all,

I'm beginning to see that that is more true than you realize. Consider what you just said. That is the definition of intuitive judgment - one made without conscious thought or reasoning.

except after the fact, and then only rarely, and most of the time I'm incapable of making a determination of "right" or "wrong" even in the case of my own actions.

That may be because you may not be fully aware of which principles you have internalized. Do you encounter the same problem when using language as well - often wonder after writing down a sentence whether it is grammatically correct or not and not be able to come up with the answer?

[Whateverist]

That is where you are wrong - especially if one is "burdened" by knowledge of another language.

Not a problem for me really. I am only talking about people brought up in their own language.

..it wouldn't matter if any of those practitioners had any formal, analytic understanding of their expertise so long as they were expert practitioners.

That is a contradiction right there - how would they be experts if they never had any formal training?

I'm not sure if you're missing my point or avoiding it. My claim is that people can be expert speakers of their native language without having formally learned the parts of speech and the rules for their use. Your retort seems to be "how can they be experts if they never had any formal training." (What am I missing?)

What you fail to understand is that the fact that "gooder" is wrong, is, in itself, a part of formal knowledge. So any correction on that point is automatically training you in formal English.

Again you are missing or avoiding my point. My claim is that someone can 'hear' that gooder is wrong usage without being able to tell you what rule of correct usage it violates. If you stop and think about it, you will realize that people must have evolved and used languages for many, many generations before anyone would ever have thought to analyze the rules for usage. When they did, they really just recorded the usage that already existed. There was no logic or structure that was deliberately built into language use. What logic there is was discovered, not designed. So of course, correct usage can continue without formal, analytic understanding of the structure and logic of the language, except in an intuitive sense.

A more interesting question for me is what role a formal, analytic understanding should play in our actual use of language or moral choice once we have matured into expert practitioners ourselves. Surely thinking incessantly about the formal structure of what you are saying would be a great distraction in communicating what you have to say. In the end one would like to benefit from expert usage for the sake of effective communication, not for the sake of show casing the manner of speech. Perhaps the situation is parallel for morality. In the end I want to conduct myself in a way that is respectful of everyone, but myself included. I wouldn't wish for a world in which everyone was continually engrossed by the possible ramifications of every action. I would wish for them -and so too myself- some degree of spontaneity and playfulness. So perhaps it is best if moral thinking too becomes transparent in the end.

That statement is like saying "what role does high-school biology play once you have become a doctor?". The reason an expert in any field has to undergo formal training is to internalize the knowledge that training imparts. The reason why show-casing the manner of speech is considered the mark of an expert is because it shows the capacity of the expert to communicate the idea in many different forms. And once he has that capacity, he has the option of choosing the most effective form, according to the situation, without having to strain himself.

The point of internalizing all that knowledge is to be able to use it almost intuitively. The same goes for morality. Once you have internalized the basic concepts, you can judge an action to be right or wrong almost intuitively. Remember, it isn't actual intuition, since the knowledge is not automatic, but learned. It seems intuitive simply because of the ease by which you can access and process it.
[/quote]

[genkaus]

I'm not sure if you're missing my point or avoiding it. My claim is that people can be expert speakers of their native language without having formally learned the parts of speech and the rules for their use. Your retort seems to be "how can they be experts if they never had any formal training." (What am I missing?)

You are missing the fact that being an expert would require specific and explicit knowledge of parts of speech and rules of the use, so that any mistake may be pointed out immediately. And how do you think they'd acquire that knowledge without learning it?

Again you are missing or avoiding my point. My claim is that someone can 'hear' that gooder is wrong usage without being able to tell you what rule of correct usage it violates.

Actually, you can't 'hear' that the usage is wrong. You can 'hear' that people use a different word in its place and you can 'hear' that several different words may convey the same meaning. Unless it is pointed put to you, you cannot 'hear' that the word you are using is in fact wrong.

If you stop and think about it, you will realize that people must have evolved and used languages for many, many generations before anyone would ever have thought to analyze the rules for usage. When they did, they really just recorded the usage that already existed. There was no logic or structure that was deliberately built into language use. What logic there is was discovered, not designed. So of course, correct usage can continue without formal, analytic understanding of the structure and logic of the language, except in an intuitive sense.

What makes you think that any usage before the said codifications and discovery of the said rules and logic could be considered "correct". It might very well be the case that people then used language without any consideration for a for structure or grammar, leading to the need of codification. Either way, we'll never know which was the case.

A more interesting question for me is what role a formal, analytic understanding should play in our actual use of language or moral choice once we have matured into expert practitioners ourselves. Surely thinking incessantly about the formal structure of what you are saying would be a great distraction in communicating what you have to say. In the end one would like to benefit from expert usage for the sake of effective communication, not for the sake of show casing the manner of speech. Perhaps the situation is parallel for morality. In the end I want to conduct myself in a way that is respectful of everyone, but myself included. I wouldn't wish for a world in which everyone was continually engrossed by the possible ramifications of every action. I would wish for them -and so too myself- some degree of spontaneity and playfulness. So perhaps it is best if moral thinking too becomes transparent in the end.

That statement is like saying "what role does high-school biology play once you have become a doctor?". The reason an expert in any field has to undergo formal training is to internalize the knowledge that training imparts. The reason why show-casing the manner of speech is considered the mark of an expert is because it shows the capacity of the expert to communicate the idea in many different forms. And once he has that capacity, he has the option of choosing the most effective form, according to the situation, without having to strain himself.

The point of internalizing all that knowledge is to be able to use it almost intuitively. The same goes for morality. Once you have internalized the basic concepts, you can judge an action to be right or wrong almost intuitively. Remember, it isn't actual intuition, since the knowledge is not automatic, but learned. It seems intuitive simply because of the ease by which you can access and process it.

I think you may have missed an argument here.

[The Grand Nudger]

If they were, in fact, guided by "nothing at all", then there wouldn't be any definitive underlying principle to them. Is there?

I'd like to think so, but none that I could identify. It may be that I'm just not presented with much that requires consideration from the angle of morality of late. That's something I hadn't thought of. I dig holes in the ground, I fill them back in again, know what I mean? lol. There are a couple of principles I could confidently say that I hold, but I don't actually find myself with an opportunity to utilize them often. They're all reactions to some pretty extreme situations.

I'm beginning to see that that is more true than you realize. Consider what you just said. That is the definition of intuitive judgment - one made without conscious thought or reasoning.

That would be the case, if I was subconsciously making little moral value judgements, which you're assuming I am, I'm just telling you that I'm not aware of it (and I wouldn't be, obviously), and that there are other possibilities (besides what you assume to be happening). One of them being the handy little bit above, which is starting to seem to me to be the likely culprit in my not being able to identify much in the way of deliberations about morality.

That may be because you may not be fully aware of which principles you have internalized. Do you encounter the same problem when using language as well - often wonder after writing down a sentence whether it is grammatically correct or not and not be able to come up with the answer?

LOL< my mother was an english teacher. I don't wonder so much as I know that I'm often in the wrong, grammatically speaking. Some of it I actually realize and intentionally utilize just because I like the way it sounds, or the looks of it. That being said, my english teacher mother probably wasn't a very good teacher, because she stressed style and effectiveness over grammar and proper use. Here's the thing, I am aware of a great many different ideas of what constitutes morality. I think that probably has more to do with why I can't make the definitive "right or wrong" declaration. I am always forced to conclude "that was right or wrong to them, right or wrong to me, right or wrong for the situation". Like I've already mentioned, this is all after the fact. When I'm actually doing something I get pretty engrossed in the doing of it, not the thinking about it. I try to get that in before I get my hands dirty, because I zone out.

[Whateverist]

I'm not sure if you're missing my point or avoiding it. My claim is that people can be expert speakers of their native language without having formally learned the parts of speech and the rules for their use. Your retort seems to be "how can they be experts if they never had any formal training." (What am I missing?)

You are missing the fact that being an expert would require specific and explicit knowledge of parts of speech and rules of the use, so that any mistake may be pointed out immediately. And how do you think they'd acquire that knowledge without learning it?

Maybe I see the hitch. Of course they have the knowledge. What I'm denying is that they would have to consciously hold that knowledge in a systematic, generalized form. From wikipedia I find: "Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without inference or the use of reason." So yes they have the working knowledge but not the formal knowledge. In other words, they can use the knowledge but they need not be able to list what it is they know. It is kind of like finding your way some where by car. Some people can get where they are going by "following their nose" but they could never draw you a map or tell you the names of half the streets.

As for whether there was any right or wrong usage before someone worked out the logic and structure inherent in the language already in use .. I don't think it takes much speculation to realize that of course users of the language had that before it was codified. How else did they teach their kids? I really don't think my position is controversial. I didn't study anthropology or linguistics in college but from general reading I have little doubt research is on my side. Do I need to look for it or did this attempt to clarify do the trick?

[genkaus]

Maybe I see the hitch. Of course they have the knowledge. What I'm denying is that they would have to consciously hold that knowledge in a systematic, generalized form. From wikipedia I find: "Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without inference or the use of reason." So yes they have the working knowledge but not the formal knowledge. In other words, they can use the knowledge but they need not be able to list what it is they know. It is kind of like finding your way some where by car. Some people can get where they are going by "following their nose" but they could never draw you a map or tell you the names of half the streets.

Can someone become an expert simply by having what you call "working knowledge"? An expert in the field must not only know how the language usually works, he should also know a myriad of other ways it could work and what would not work. It would be impossible for someone to know it intuitively simply by exposure, because no person can be exposed to the entire body of language in his lifetime.

As for whether there was any right or wrong usage before someone worked out the logic and structure inherent in the language already in use .. I don't think it takes much speculation to realize that of course users of the language had that before it was codified. How else did they teach their kids? I really don't think my position is controversial. I didn't study anthropology or linguistics in college but from general reading I have little doubt research is on my side. Do I need to look for it or did this attempt to clarify do the trick?

Who's to say that their kids were taught? As you have been arguing, at that level, whatever language was picked was a result of experience. In all probability, communication was not very effective then and it started getting effective once they started establishing rules regarding it.

[Whateverist]

Who's to say that their kids were taught? As you have been arguing, at that level, whatever language was picked was a result of experience. In all probability, communication was not very effective then and it started getting effective once they started establishing rules regarding it.

Looks like we're just going to have to disagree about this, leastwise I disagree with you. I think the great amount of stock you place in logic and reason just suits your disposition. Nothing wrong with that. I'm closer to Rhythm morally, it isn't anything I want to dwell on much. I think you're more of a Kantian, deliberate goodness for goodness' sake. I find the notion of doing anything because it is thought to be good to be a little off-putting. I guess that's a minor proof that there are other minds, because yours' works differently than mine.

[Angrboda]

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.

I don't know what I'm jumping into here but I just want to point out that this is not how language acquisition in children occurs. I realize it's just an analogy, but because your model of language acquisition is wrong, any point depending upon it is by implication wrong.

[Hovik]

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.

I don't know what I'm jumping into here but I just want to point out that this is not how language acquisition in children occurs. I realize it's just an analogy, but because your model of language acquisition is wrong, any point depending upon it is by implication wrong.

Exactly this. Children learn language passively, not actively. Correcting them does absolutely nothing to advance their language acquisition.

[genkaus]

Looks like we're just going to have to disagree about this, leastwise I disagree with you. I think the great amount of stock you place in logic and reason just suits your disposition. Nothing wrong with that. I'm closer to Rhythm morally, it isn't anything I want to dwell on much. I think you're more of a Kantian, deliberate goodness for goodness' sake. I find the notion of doing anything because it is thought to be good to be a little off-putting. I guess that's a minor proof that there are other minds, because yours' works differently than mine.

Nope, most definitely not a Kantian, since I don't believe in goodness for goodness' sake.

---

I don't know what I'm jumping into here but I just want to point out that this is not how language acquisition in children occurs. I realize it's just an analogy, but because your model of language acquisition is wrong, any point depending upon it is by implication wrong.

We are not talking about language acquisition, per se, we are talking about proficiency in the field. So do you have any arguments the role of formal education in language acquisition of that level?

---

Exactly this. Children learn language passively, not actively. Correcting them does absolutely nothing to advance their language acquisition.

Are you being sarcastic here?