Moral rules vs moral sense

[Whateverist]

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.

[frankiej]

From what I gather, it is that thang about knowing that killing is wrong, you don't need it written down for you. Yet plenty of people seem to argue otherwise, especially the 'tards who say that atheists can justify rape and murder because we have no objective morality or moral codes.

[Angrboda]

You're missing an additional distinction. Some ethics is based on prohibited actions, but there is also the values approach to ethics, and the tradition of virtue, wherein being ethical consists in cultivating your own virtue, out of which good and ennobling conduct will flow. (This is the path of the Taoist.)

Moreover, ethics is not for those who behave, but those who misbehave, and how will we be conscious of where we fall without respect to some standard? Moreover, if moral reasoning gets better with practice (possible), there may be reason to practice.

I have a new quote somewhere which I can't find, so I'll paraphrase. We learn about ourselves in learning to tolerate others. I would add that we learn about ourselves by studying others, and that includes ethics.

“We don’t see things the way they are. We see things the way we are.”
— Anais Nin

[genkaus]

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.

[Tempus]

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.

I disagree that it's easy to recognise good. By carefully examining one's moral philosophy inconsistencies can be spotted and addressed. Some people have an intuitive feeling that homosexuality is wrong. By doing philosophy you can examine this sentiment and determine what assumptions it's rest upon, whether it's consistent with other beliefs, and ultimately whether it's justified (actually, these things might be more to do with epistemology, but it informs moral philosophy anyway). The pay off of such introspection, in my opinion, is enormous. And while you can do this without formal training or any research... both save you a shit load of time - there's no use reinventing the wheel. Additionally, you'll often encounter things you'd have not considered otherwise.

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'.

Funny, I've just spent today researching proper use of English grammar. Again, if you are consciously learning and have access to other resources (and use them), and if you understand why you use one word and not another you're going to be a better English speaker for it. Same with philosophy. Personally, I want to know what I'm doing and why I'm doing it. I want to understand the world and the people in it. I want to know how I could be wrong and how I could be happy. For this, I need philosophy.

I feel like I didn't answer your question. I understood it, but I couldn't keep myself on track...

---

Bah, beaten by everyone!

[Whateverist]

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.

What I meant was it is possible to be an expert speaker of English without formal knowledge of the parts of speech and how they are supposed to function. I don't think it is a matter of whether you study the subject on your own or in a formal setting. I'm saying you needn't acquire the formal analytical knowledge of the parts of speech in order to speak it expertly. Those who grow up where speech patterns are atypical will become expert speakers of some aberrant dialect even if they never seek to analyze the dialect formally.

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.

This is a good point and one I failed to address. Yes, both in acquiring a moral sense and in becoming an expert speaker of a language, there is a period of acquisition when the mature practitioners around you help you acquire their expertise. However it wouldn't matter if any of those practitioners had any formal, analytic understanding of their expertise so long as they were expert practitioners.

In early childhood one isn't too worried about fine tuning: "kicking isn't nice", "don't bite Billy", and so on. Inevitably this gets generalized into something like the Golden Rule. Likewise we correct poor language use but most of us would not need to consider what is wrong with "gooder" in order to make the correction; so not knowing how to classify formally what is wrong with it is no hindrance to providing the guidance needed to raise another expert speaker.

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.

Interesting to learn more of your personal history. I've got to get going to work but more later.

[genkaus]

What I meant was it is possible to be an expert speaker of English without formal knowledge of the parts of speech and how they are supposed to function. I don't think it is a matter of whether you study the subject on your own or in a formal setting. I'm saying you needn't acquire the formal analytical knowledge of the parts of speech in order to speak it expertly. Those who grow up where speech patterns are atypical will become expert speakers of some aberrant dialect even if they never seek to analyze the dialect formally.

That is where you are wrong - especially if one is "burdened" by knowledge of another language. Every language has its own intricate structure and rules of usage. Without any formal training in it, you'd be left to figure out that structure and those rules on your own. Further, those rules are fluid and not universally applicable. To expect someone to figure it all out by himself and be able to use them is a versatile manner is unreasonable. If you want a practical demonstration, watch the Star War movies and try to do the Yoda-speak and figure out how many times you get it right.

This is a good point and one I failed to address. Yes, both in acquiring a moral sense and in becoming an expert speaker of a language, there is a period of acquisition when the mature practitioners around you help you acquire their expertise. However 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?

In early childhood one isn't too worried about fine tuning: "kicking isn't nice", "don't bite Billy", and so on. Inevitably this gets generalized into something like the Golden Rule. Likewise we correct poor language use but most of us would not need to consider what is wrong with "gooder" in order to make the correction; so not knowing how to classify formally what is wrong with it is no hindrance to providing the guidance needed to raise another expert speaker.

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.

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not entirely sure. Whatever sort of moral process I have running it seems to be going on in the background. I don't often find myself wondering whether or not something I'm about to do is "good" or "bad" or "right" or "wrong". Most of that is done in retrospect...lol. Thankfully I have a pattern (if we're judging by what those around me think of me) of doing the "right" thing, at least enough to keep my loved ones near me and my happy ass out of jail.

So I have that going for me, which is nice.

[genkaus]

I'm not entirely sure. Whatever sort of moral process I have running it seems to be going on in the background. I don't often find myself wondering whether or not something I'm about to do is "good" or "bad" or "right" or "wrong". Most of that is done in retrospect...lol. Thankfully I have a pattern (if we're judging by what those around me think of me) of doing the "right" thing, at least enough to keep my loved ones near me and my happy ass out of jail.

So I have that going for me, which is nice.

A good example of internalizing the moral concepts.

[The Grand Nudger]

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. 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, 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. I could probably make a damned good guess as to whether or not someone who holds a specific set of assumptions would call my actions right or wrong, but for my own part, most of the time, I draw a blank.