News:

Departing the Vacuousness

Main Menu

Thoughts on morality and "should" statements

Started by AlP, June 27, 2009, 07:31:18 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

AlP

Moral statements more often than not are normative. They tend to have the form "you should X" or "you must X". For example "you must not murder" or "you should not be unfaithful to your wife". They can also be expressed in other ways like "it is wrong to have an abortion" but what follows still applies...

These "should" statements used to leave me scratching my head thinking "but I can do X, why shouldn't I?" because these "should" statements do not at first glance have any logical force.

I questioned whether they are claims at all. How can they be said to have truth value? "You cannot murder" has truth value and is false. "You did not murder" has truth value and is true (for me). "You will not murder" has truth value but is presently unknowable. Does "You should not murder" have truth value?

I think that on its own, a "should" statement does not have truth value. But something interesting happens if it is paired with a predicate indicating what you want. For example (want-predicate in italics):

Premise: Murderers are often punished by imprisonment.
Conclusion: You must not murder, if you do not want to be imprisoned.

Another one:

Premise: It is possible that an adulterous affair make your wife unhappy.
Conclusion: If you do not want to make your wife unhappy, you should not cheat on her.

These are inductive arguments. The conclusions still don't have truth value but they do have likelihood and you can try and figure out what that likelihood is. At least now they fall within the realm of critical thinking.

So I'll leave you with a "should" statement of my own =). If you want to think critically, you should not accept a "should" statement unaccompanied by an "if" that relates it to what you want.

I think there's a justification of moral relativism in here if anyone's interested =).
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Sophus

As an Ethical Nihilist these have long been my thoughts on this issue as well; What anybody should and shouldn't to depends solely upon what they want, or in the case of morality, perhaps what they don't want. Prioritizing.

There are plenty of people with immoral desires who do not act on them because they have prioritized other desires above them. When I say immoral I mean those who believe in "Right and Wrong" as absolutes for whatever reason as appose to the amoral person, like myself, who doesn't. Socrates, I think, was the first to claim that morality requires thought. Ayn Rand came to the same conclusion in her Objectivism philosophy. Ultimately I would agree, only I would phrase it, discovering what your priorities (or more important desires) in life demands that you think and weigh the options.

So, yes, I agree. Good Post!
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

JillSwift

Moral choices: It's all an ongoing cost-benefit analysis.  :)
[size=50]Teleology]

Dragon_Of_Heavon

Though I agree on the over all stance, isn't it more or less a matter of being exact rather than leaving open the question of why? As AIP stated when a person puts forth something like "You should not kill" it makes most people ask the question of why shouldn't I. The point I would like to ask is isn't it an important question for a person to ask themselves. If using the example utilized above "You must not murder if you don't want to go to prison" then this will bring one of three actions: I don't want to go to prison so I wont kill them, I don't care if I go to prison so ill kill them, or if I kill them I may not get caught so 50/50. My question I suppose is whether or not it is best to leave open for the person to do as JillSwift and Sophus explained and create their own reasoning for not doing the action.
When the last bastion of religion falls the religious will look up at the sky and ask their God why? And then they will collapse wailing and grinding their teeth. The atheist will look at his feet and say "I think that I can build something better here!"

AlP

Quote from: "Dragon_Of_Heavon"Though I agree on the over all stance, isn't it more or less a matter of being exact rather than leaving open the question of why? As AIP stated when a person puts forth something like "You should not kill" it makes most people ask the question of why shouldn't I. The point I would like to ask is isn't it an important question for a person to ask themselves. If using the example utilized above "You must not murder if you don't want to go to prison" then this will bring one of three actions: I don't want to go to prison so I wont kill them, I don't care if I go to prison so ill kill them, or if I kill them I may not get caught so 50/50. My question I suppose is whether or not it is best to leave open for the person to do as JillSwift and Sophus explained and create their own reasoning for not doing the action.

That's a good point. My argument was that "you should not kill" on its own does not have truth value or logical force. To escape that you can argue that the reason "if you don't want to go to prison" is so obvious that it does not need to be stated and therefore the statement does have truth value and logical force. You can also argue that you are trying to achieve rhetorical force rather than logical force. As you point out, that might actually be more effective. Rhetorical force and outright fallacy is often more effective if your audience is not trained in critical thinking. How many TV commercials have logical force? A lot of them don't even have sentences.

If I was concerned that someone dear to me was considering murdering I might well prioritize effectiveness over intellectual honesty. My motivation for posting this was more to make people think about how they think about normative statements in relation to themselves. It might challenge preconceptions about morality.
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Dragon_Of_Heavon

Oh ok sorry, my mind naturally jumps to the most effective first rather than the intellectually sound. I suppose that is where your training in critical thinking should take you. Since that is the reason behind the post then I agree. However is the reason that society does not use such critical reasoning behind its morality because it is untrue or because it is less effective. As you said I would guess the latter. However that is more or less because most people in society are as unconcerned about the truth as they are about the amount of air they breath in a day. However if you want the absolute truth about why it is wrong to do an action that is in some way harmful, the end all be all reason lies primarily in that it is harmful. Why it is harmful varies with the action but the harm caused it seems is inevitably the reason to not do an action is it not?
When the last bastion of religion falls the religious will look up at the sky and ask their God why? And then they will collapse wailing and grinding their teeth. The atheist will look at his feet and say "I think that I can build something better here!"

AlP

Quote from: "Dragon_Of_Heavon"Oh ok sorry, my mind naturally jumps to the most effective first rather than the intellectually sound. I suppose that is where your training in critical thinking should take you. Since that is the reason behind the post then I agree. However is the reason that society does not use such critical reasoning behind its morality because it is untrue or because it is less effective. As you said I would guess the latter. However that is more or less because most people in society are as unconcerned about the truth as they are about the amount of air they breath in a day.
Agreed I think.

Quote from: "Dragon_Of_Heavon"However if you want the absolute truth about why it is wrong to do an action that is in some way harmful, the end all be all reason lies primarily in that it is harmful. Why it is harmful varies with the action but the harm caused it seems is inevitably the reason to not do an action is it not?
If someone is consciously thinking about whether they should or shouldn't do something, they need to figure out a reason. Whether or not it is harmful might lead to a reason for sure: "you should not drive recklessly, lest you endanger yourself and other motorists". It doesn't end there though. Why not endanger myself and others? Because I want not to be harmed and, partly on account of legal ramifications but mostly because I feel empathy, I want not to harm others. I understand that you were talking specifically about morality but normative statements generally seem to me to be more related to wants rather than to harm. Here's an example of a positive normative statement: "you should watch The Life of Brian, if you want to laugh your ass off". Even within the domain or morality it isn't always about harm: "you should respect your elders, if ...". I couldn't think of a good "if" but I think its clear that it wouldn't involve harm unless the elders were abusive or something.

Anyway, thanks. Good points!
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Sophus

By the way, am I wrong, or is this basically Master Morality vs Slave Morality?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_morality
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

AlP

Quote from: "Sophus"By the way, am I wrong, or is this basically Master Morality vs Slave Morality?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_morality

That's not what I intended. I meant something more general. Though if you wanted you could express Nietzsche's idea this way. For example:

Master morality:
I should do X, if I want to be powerful, to be responsible for change.

Slave morality:
You should do X, if you want stability, to resist the change.

By the way, for anyone not familiar, Nietzsche's idea was not that people are one or the other but somewhere on a spectrum between the two at different times. It's an interesting idea I think.

Edit:
I just realized that a better example of Nietzsche's slave morality might be to put a "should" in terms or what you are rather than what you want:
You should do X, if you are a lawyer.
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Sophus

I dunno... my understanding (or perhaps lack there of) was that master morality dealt with weighing desired/unwanted consequences and slave morality created the concept of good and evil, the afterlife for "justice", and condemning wealth, etc, etc.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

AlP

I don't actually have Beyond Good and Evil, just some selections from it. It's probably online somewhere though. I'll read it and see if there's some context I'm missing.

I'll say though that what I have read of Nietzsche is not an end point for me. Master / Slave morality seems to me to be a gross oversimplification. Read Heidegger and Sartre =).
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Sophus

Quote from: "AlP"I don't actually have Beyond Good and Evil, just some selections from it. It's probably online somewhere though. I'll read it and see if there's some context I'm missing.

I'll say though that what I have read of Nietzsche is not an end point for me. Master / Slave morality seems to me to be a gross oversimplification. Read Heidegger and Sartre =).

Thanks! Will do...
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

jbeukema

Quote from: "AlP"Moral statements more often than not are normative. They tend to have the form "you should X" or "you must X". For example "you must not murder" or "you should not be unfaithful to your wife". They can also be expressed in other ways like "it is wrong to have an abortion" but what follows still applies...

These "should" statements used to leave me scratching my head thinking "but I can do X, why shouldn't I?" because these "should" statements do not at first glance have any logical force.

I questioned whether they are claims at all. How can they be said to have truth value? "You cannot murder" has truth value and is false. "You did not murder" has truth value and is true (for me). "You will not murder" has truth value but is presently unknowable. Does "You should not murder" have truth value?

I think that on its own, a "should" statement does not have truth value. But something interesting happens if it is paired with a predicate indicating what you want. For example (want-predicate in italics):

Premise: Murderers are often punished by imprisonment.
Conclusion: You must not murder, if you do not want to be imprisoned.

Another one:

Premise: It is possible that an adulterous affair make your wife unhappy.
Conclusion: If you do not want to make your wife unhappy, you should not cheat on her.

These are inductive arguments. The conclusions still don't have truth value but they do have likelihood and you can try and figure out what that likelihood is. At least now they fall within the realm of critical thinking.

So I'll leave you with a "should" statement of my own =). If you want to think critically, you should not accept a "should" statement unaccompanied by an "if" that relates it to what you want.

I think there's a justification of moral relativism in here if anyone's interested =).

http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/mft/index.php
http://www.jyi.org/news/nb.php?id=22

AlP

Yeah I'm getting this now I started reading a book on psychology. I doesn't matter that a should statement has no truth value. What one should and should not do are just the rules of society. They need not be logical. All the more reason to take whatever nature has given me and build my own rules on top =).
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus