Degrees of Morality

[Coralius]

My lab partner at work posits that there are degrees of morality. Being the Devil's Advocate that I am, I'm disagreeing.

Care to help me out, or shoot me down? I'd love to see both sides of this argument presented.

Thanks in advance.

It may be true.

 

[Darat]

Not too sure what you mean by "degrees" - do you mean that somethings are more good or more bad then other things?

 

[Iacchus]

What, would you say on a scale of one to ten? Or, say from bad to worse?

 

[Coralius]

Not too sure what you mean by "degrees" - do you mean that somethings are more good or more bad then other things?

Lab Partner sez: More good or more bad.

By which I assume he means, I believe that some things are less moral (or more immoral) than others.

I am taking the position that morality is striclty yes / no, i.e. either something is moral or it is not moral, and that there are no shades of gray. However, I have conceeded that every situation is unique, and should have all factors taken into account, so maybe I'm shooting myself in the foot there.

Don't you just love finding someone who's willing to debate the finer points of logic and philosophy at 3:30 AM?

 

[Darat]

It will probably boil down to semantics.

For instance how I use the term it makes sense to say "more/less bad or good", because (for example) in some circumstances I would say it is more moral to save 50 people even if it means killing 1 person then allowing 51 people to die.

Yet some people would state that both are immoral if it means making a decision to kill even the one person, even though they may even agree that the immoral decision is the "right" decision.

 

[Coralius]

It will probably boil down to semantics.

For instance how I use the term it makes sense to say "more/less bad or good", because (for example) in some circumstances I would say it is more moral to save 50 people even if it means killing 1 person then allowing 51 people to die.

Yet some people would state that both are immoral if it means making a decision to kill even the one person, even though they may even agree that the immoral decision is the "right" decision.

Could you not rephrase that to say this:

It is moral to kill 1 person so that 50 might live, yet immoral to allow 51 to die.

 

[rjh01]

Flying a large aircraft into a skyscraper is a lot worse than dropping a piece of litter on the ground. Both are criminal acts

Or another example, committing adultery with someone who has AIDS is a lot worse than swearing to yourself. Both are legal.

So I guess there are degrees of morality.

 

[Darat]

Could you not rephrase that to say this:

It is moral to kill 1 person so that 50 might live, yet immoral to allow 51 to die.

You can but with your proposed "black and white" idea you would then have to say exactly what is being defined as a moral or an immoral action in the above example. (For instance in the example as you have constructed it a valid conclusion could be drawn that "killing is moral"!)

 

[Coralius]

Flying a large aircraft into a skyscraper is a lot worse than dropping a piece of litter on the ground. Both are criminal acts

Or another example, committing adultery with someone who has AIDS is a lot worse than swearing to yourself. Both are legal.

So I guess there are degrees of morality.

There's a difference between legal and moral.

You can but with your proposed "black and white" idea you would then have to say exactly what is being defined as a moral or an immoral action in the above example. (For instance in the example as you have constructed it a valid conclusion could be drawn that "killing is moral"!)

Can't an argument be made that it is moral to kill sometimes, i.e. when someone is trying to kill you or when you are at war. Or in the above example, for that matter.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Can't an argument be made that it is moral to kill sometimes, i.e. when someone is trying to kill you or when you are at war. Or in the above example, for that matter.

Well I think there is but I'm trying to challenge your original proposition that something is either immoral or moral.

So starting from that you need to find something in the example you gave that can be described as moral or immoral. I've pointed out it can't be the act of killing itself because then you end up with "killing is immoral" or "killing is moral". A suggestion is that you could say that you would define morality in the context of the outcome so if an outcome is better for the greater number of people then that is then a moral act. In other words killing itself is no longer moral or immoral but the outcome of killing can be classed as moral or immoral.

 

[Coralius]

Well I think there is but I'm trying to challenge your original proposition that something is either immoral or moral.

So starting from that you need to find something in the example you gave that can be described as moral or immoral. I've pointed out it can't be the act of killing itself because then you end up with "killing is immoral" or "killing is moral". A suggestion is that you could say that you would define morality in the context of the outcome so if an outcome is better for the greater number of people then that is then a moral act. In other words killing itself is no longer moral or immoral but the outcome of killing can be classed as moral or immoral.

So you would suggest, for the sake of argument, making actions themselves amoral, and determining morality by the outcome?

That's almost the definition of Utilitarianism, isn't it? Oh well, I've never read anything John Stuart Mill before. Guess I'll have to bone up.

 

[Darat]

So you would suggest, for the sake of argument, making actions themselves amoral, and determining morality by the outcome?

That's almost the definition of Utilitarianism, isn't it? Oh well, I've never read anything John Stuart Mill before. Guess I'll have to bone up.

Yes it is and it wasn't quite my intention to steer you down that route (although personally I do tend to take a utilitarian approach to moral issues) I was just trying to show that the concept of "something" being either immoral or moral and there being no degrees of morality requires a bit of effort to describe in a manner that is consistent and coherent.

 

[Fengirl]

That's almost the definition of Utilitarianism, isn't it? Oh well, I've never read anything John Stuart Mill before. Guess I'll have to bone up.

It sounds like the debate you are having is a classic Deontology vs Utilitarianism debate.

Your position (i.e that acts are either moral or they are not) would reflect a deontological morality, in that deontology focuses on rights and duties and posits the existence of absolute, immutable moral rules. (e.g Kant’s categorical imperative). Under a deontological moral system, to behave morally one simply acts in accordance with the agreed-upon rules. There are no shades of grey, no degrees. One either is, or is not acting morally. If “do not kill another human being” is a rule, then under a deontological moral system, killing another human being will always be an immoral act, regardless of whether it is in self-defence, or even if the sacrifice of that one life will save a thousand others.

The position your buddy is taking would fit more with a consequentialist or utilitarian moral system, which is based on the notion that the test of the morality of an act is the extent to which it leads to good or bad consequences. To the extent that various actions have a range of consequences from very, very good to very, very bad, utilitarianism would certainly allow for the existence of “degrees” of morality. Under a utilitarian moral code, the same act can be moral in some circumstances and immoral in others. Killing one innocent person in order to save the lives of a thousand can be argued to be a moral act.

You and your friend should be able to argue about the merits of each viewpoint until the end of time!

 

[rudar]

Christopher Stone (Earth and other ethics, ISBN 0-06-015731-3) suggests at least three ``moods'' to moral prescription:
1) it is permitted to do X
2) one ought to do X
3) one must do X
Further, he suggests each of these has at least three negations. For example, the negation of 3) could be any of:
a) one must avoid doing X
b) it is permitted to not do X
c) one must prevent X from being done

This allows a fair bit more flexibility that rigid moral codes allowing only
1) One must do X
2) One must prevent X

At the cost, admittedly, of denying the possibility that a simple and straightforward code can give simple answers to all questions, but at the great benefit of not reducing trivially to absurdity, which tends to be a common feature of rigid and binary all-encompassing moral theories.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I think there is a whole range of moral values. People value different things some value their race and some don't, some value their country and some don't, some value honesty and some don't, etc... The way they express these beliefs also varies. Some people try not to lie, some people will lie unabashedly about anything if they feel justified and some will only tell white lies. I don't think there is any point arguing that it doesn't exist like that so you must be taking the view that unless you are 100% committed to behave morally then you are not moral?

 

[Coralius]

Thanks, Fengirl and rudar.

Dogdoctor, I don't think I am trying to argue that someone is rigidly moral or immoral. So far, we've only gotten into judging actions, not people. I don't think that anyone can realistically say someone is completely moral or immoral. We are, after all, human, and thus fallible.

 

[gnome]

Coralius... I don't see how you could argue it.

Is say, littering, morally equivalent to homicide?

If I'm misunderstanding, could you explain in the context of my example? (or some other similar example that fits)

 

[Coralius]

Coralius... I don't see how you could argue it.

Is say, littering, morally equivalent to homicide?

If I'm misunderstanding, could you explain in the context of my example? (or some other similar example that fits)

Well, who says that littering is immoral? It's illegal, but is it immoral?

 

[Dogdoctor]

Well, who says that littering is immoral? It's illegal, but is it immoral?

I say it is immoral

 

[Coralius]

I say it is immoral

By what definition?