Genre

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Can Moral Statements Be True? Part Two [essay]

*

**

***

As I wrote Part One of this thought piece, it began to dawn on me that what I was doing was looking for moral standards to guide my own behavior.

I tried several approaches to answering this question: Can moral statements be true (or false, for that matter)? I concluded that one cannot corroborate or contradict statements like these:






  • Profiting from the suffering of others is wrong
  • Telling the truth is right
  • Treating others fairly is moral
  • Failing to abide by agreements you have voluntarily made is immoral
  • Kindness to others is good
  • Greed is bad
  • You should not take credit for the accomplishments of others
  • You should take responsibility for your own actions


and so on, and so forth.

Facts are not enough alone to prove whether or not such moral statements are true or false.



6

Now here's another approach: What if all the world's religions, at all times throughout human history, agreed that a certain behavior is good and its opposite is bad? If all religious traditions were in favor of this good behavior and opposed to its opposite, wouldn't such enduring and extensive accord be a sufficient basis for saying this behavior is good in fact and its opposite bad?

Well...No. That would be like saying, All believers in an almighty and all-knowing deity have agreed about that God's moral standards, so therefore moral statements deriving from these standards are "true." But - for one thing -  we know there are people who do not believe in any supernatural being. Can we truly say that atheists - by definition - are immoral?

One would think we cannot. The most one could credibly claim is that all atheists are spiritually deficient, not morally flawed; that is, their beliefs may be lacking, by definition, but their behavior might still be moral, which is a social and behavioral concept rather than an intellectual or spiritual one.

It is correct that some people (including even, we have to note, some believers) behave as if they did not hold themselves to any moral standard, implying that for them, no morality exists at all. If atheists were logically consistent, would they all be amoral in this way?

In other words, is this a true statement: "It is immoral (or amoral) not to worship God"?

I don't see how we can reasonably hold this position. One could, for instance, rigorously follow a "moral code" just because he or she thinks that's the right thing to do, even though nothing in the world around us and nothing supernatural makes its moral statements true.

Claiming that a statement deriving from a moral standard accepted by all religions is true, would not be unlike saying that in this state or that state, a certain behavior is legal. Being legal, though, as we know, is not the same thing as being moral. The mere fact that a majority of all the world's people, throughout all history, may have thought it moral or immoral to do a particular thing is no guarantee that this claim is not mistaken: truth is not determined by a vote, even if the vote is unanimous. (Wide agreement would make a moral principle important, but not "true.")

7

Maybe it's worth pointing out that there are facts that are relevant to moral statements. People living in a society where individuals routinely act unselfishly might be shown to be less inclined toward political upheaval than others, for example, or to feel more loyal to their employers, or even to live longer. Any of those matters of fact, if they should exist, would show us that unselfishness was beneficial to society in certain measurable ways. But they would not make the statement "Selfishness is bad" true, only useful.

Some say - as another example - that it is immoral to bring into the world an infant when it is virtually certain that the mother cannot provide for the child's well-being. In such an instance, the facts demonstrating this high probability are relevant to the moral question of artificial birth control. But they don't prove that "Birth control is good" is a true (or a false) statement - not good or bad, only rational.

Although facts are or may be relevant to moral issues, that is, they are not determinative in themselves of "moral truth."

8

So, then: expressions about right and wrong can be neither corroborated nor contradicted by facts, and there is no independent or absolute moral standard that can be used to prove the truth or falsity of a moral claim.

When we say -

  • Torture is wrong, or
  • Having sex with someone else's spouse is immoral, or
  • Treating people badly just because they are different from you is wrong, or
  • Showing respect for other people even when they disagree with you is good, or
  • Justice is better than revenge -

when we make such claims, we are saying that we like or don't like the matters identified; we admire justice and showing respect even for those who disagree with us, and we deplore revenge and adultery. Statements about what a person's moral judgements are may be true or false, but it would not be "true or false" to say that seeking revenge - for example - is immoral, only that the individual thinks so.

But that seems disappointing, doesn't it? We don't feel it is enough to say, "I admire unselfishness and I despise greed," or "I would not harm others if I could avoid it and I will always tell the truth." (Why should someone else care what our moral principles are anyway, anymore than our preferences in pop music or classical literature?)

Saying merely, "I believe all people should be treated fairly" or "I despise those who exploit the ill fortune of others" - seems to reduce important moral statements to the level of "I like broccoli" and "Opera bores me." I can make the claim, "It is immoral to want for myself something I deny to someone else," but in doing so I am only expressing an opinion, rather than accurately describing the world ... and this seems less momentous.

It just seems these days that expressing an opinion is less significant than explaining what is or is not factual. What I think, we seem to feel, is less compelling than what I know. My personal values are considered less consequential than my understanding of people and things outside myself. 

Moral values cannot be proven either true nor false, which makes them seem trivial.

9

Now, to recall the sage observation of that preacher in my sixth grade class, is there any kind of "truth" we can credibly claim for moral statements?   Dr. Smith - I assume - was speaking of the Bible's truth as being sometimes and in some ways that kind of truth one finds in myths, which to many of us do seem to accurately describe human nature and human hopes and dreams, truths - that is - which correspond to such a comprehensive reality that to limit their reference to mere matters of easily observable facts would be to miss their point and misunderstand them.

Because of the complexity and comprehensiveness of their reference, statements of this kind of "truth" may not be subject to corroboration or contradiction but may still be considered true or false.  Might we find a truth or falsity of a similar kind in moral statements?

And if so, would morality seem more important to us? Well, since we in our times don't respect mythology very much - even sometimes using the term "myth" to mean "lies" - this approach seems interesting (since moral claims, like myths, refer comprehensively to all people at all times) but not the compelling solution we are looking for.


10

We can make true (or false) claims about moral statements, like these -

  • Treating others fairly is beneficial to all society, or
  • If everyone sought to profit from the suffering of others, many would be harmed, or
  • Pursuit of riches is not deeply satisfying long-term, or
  • Torture does not reliably produce accurate testimony, or
  • It is unwise to think you are more important than others.
These are complex and comprehensive statements - about wisdom, happiness, what benefits society, and such - and it is conceivable that enough experience or observation or historical research would prove or tend to prove their truth or falsity.

But is it right to be efficient, humble, happy, or socially beneficial?  How could we know, for sure? 

11


Let's get back to moral statements, not statements about the efficiency or practical value of certain behaviors but moral statements like these:


  • Punishing an individual for the wrong-doing of his or her ancestors is wrong, or
  • Honoring the individual who behaves morally even in trying circumstances is good, or
  • It is bad for a society to deny equal opportunity to every one of its members, or
  • It is right for political leaders to work together to promote the general welfare,
and so on -

Rather than seeking to show how these and other similar moral values are based on divine authority, or widespread agreement, or on reality itself, why can't a person just be satisfied by convincing himself or herself that X is right and Y is wrong, or that A is good and B is bad, or one should do this and should not do that? 

It is true there will be differences of opinion about such statements; so for us to live productively and amicably together, we need to find ways we can use to show why or why not to accept the value of guiding our behavior by one or by groups of such moral statements. 

In other words, the greater good for all will be achieved more readily the higher the degree to which all of us are willing to guide our behavior on the basis of the principle that Treating others as we would want them to treat us is good, and Behaving selfishly is bad, and It is immoral to profit from the suffering of others, and It is moral to take responsibility for one's own actions (and so on).  The more we can approach agreement on what is moral and what is not - not on the basis of claimed divine authority, not on a claim that one value is true and another is false, and not primarily on the basis of practical utility - but simply because we think it is right. The sooner we reach that point, the better for us all.

What can be brought to a discussion about whether or not is it right to seek to deny to someone else what you wish to have yourself (for example)?  How could we explain why we think greed is immoral and lying is bad? And so on.  What's relevant?


12


The relevant facts about the moral guide - when it is possible to learn them - are worth knowing, although they will not prove the validity or invalidity of the moral statement.  For instance, whether we consider capital punishment morally tolerable or morally repugnant, we should be interested to learn whether having execution as a possible judicial sentence does or does not tend to deter murderers from their heinous crimes. 

Maybe we would learn conclusively that capital punishment does work as a deterrent.   Maybe we would learn than it does not serve as a deterrent.  But, either way, such a fact would be worth considering in forming our moral judgement.

Another thing to be brought to the discussion about a moral issue - I'm tempted to think the most important thing - is the question of consistency with our other moral principles. 

Complex moral questions often involve prioritizing what's at stake in a certain situation.  Maintaining public safety, for example, is a good thing, even though it's good for practical rather than essentially moral reasons; but is it a high enough value to justify killing someone, as in capital punishment, when respecting others' right to live is an elemental moral value?  Is the virtue of punishing someone in proportion to her or his crime high enough to justify execution?  Regardless of what we eventually decide, these are issues that should be weighed for consistency in our value system.  Finally, let's say we know for sure it is good and moral to treat others as we would want to be treated ourselves, so can I honestly say that if I had betrayed my country, I would want to be executed for my treason?  If my morality were logically consistent, I would.

13

We can't know what's right and wrong from studying only the relevant facts.  We can't know for sure from learning the moral codes that have traditionally been accepted by others.  We might know the probable practical benefits and drawbacks from various feelings and behaviors from our own experience, our own observation, and our own reasoning.  But even all of these together (and other steps others may propose) will not guarantee that X is right and Y is wrong.  We have to decide that for ourselves, understanding that we would want others to make their own decisions.

And unlike my freshman classmate, we should always be aware that our moral decisions are not trivial (or "arbitrary"), despite their coming essentially from within, like our taste in pop music.

We cannot consider moral statements true, or false.  But we make moral choices all the time, daily and long-term.  Why, then, don't I adopt a strategy?  Why don"t I behave as though I knew the moral truths I need in order to live responsibly?

So, here's what I'm going to do.  From this point on, I will -

  • Set a higher standard for myself than I would judge others by
  • Treat others as I want others to treat me
  • Judge my actions and those of others on moral values consistent with my other moral values
  • Seek peace and prosperity, equal opportunity, liberty and justice for all
  • Respect others' opinions even when I disagree with them
  • Avoid any attempt to impose on others my values or my world view
  • Not deny to others things I want for myself
  • Tell the truth (except in those few instances when to do so would be contrary to other essential values)
  • Work against any attempt to profit from the suffering of others
  • Take responsibility for my actions
  • Do what I say I will do, or explain why
  • Not treat those different from me as though, by being different, they were inferior
  • Support political leaders who believe they should work together with others to serve the general social good, and
  • Add to this list, never considering it complete or finished.



***

**

*

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Can Moral Statements Be True? Part One [essay]

*

**

***

What does it tell us about our culture that facts we can know by experience and experimentation mean more to us than morality?  I'm afraid we care more about being correct than about being right...

1

I remember in sixth grade in Texas, when Mrs. Davis and the other sixth grade teacher invited a well-known Baptist, hellfire-and-brimstone preacher to talk with both the two classes in that grade sitting all together in one room. (It was a little crowded.)  This was during the 1953-54 year, if I'm counting correctly.

Frankly, I don't remember what Dr. Blake Smith said to us in his formal presentation, though it must have included references to the Bible. But I remember his follow-up question-and-answer period very well.

We all thought of a certain Richard as the smartest kid we knew.  So it wasn't surprising when, being invited to ask questions, without hesitation Richard raised his hand. 

He asked Dr. Smith, "How do I know the Bible is true?"

Even at that time that seemed an odd, but enormous question.  From our perspective today, it seems like it would have been a dangerous one too, or at least a volatile issue.

But this fiery Baptist preacher gave an excellent answer:

"It depends," he said, "on what you mean by 'true'."  And he went on to say some things about various meanings of "truth," which I found pretty interesting to think about. 


I could be kidding myself from this almost-60 year distance, but I think Dr. Smith did say that all statements in the Bible might not have been "true" the way a statement like "In the summer Texas is hot" is true. But the statements in the Bible were true, he said, in one or more other ways.

In this piece, I'm definitely not interested in the Bible but in what it means to say X or Y is right or wrong (or good or bad).  Can such a statement be true?  That would seem to be an important question.

2

And, by the way, here's another relevant memory:

...In my college freshman literature class (in the Midwest) was a guy who always wore rumpled camouflage pants - with all those pockets on the legs - with a dark-colored tee shirt and a heavy, old green jacket.  He had long, straggly hair and usually hadn't recently shaved. 

We often  had the opportunity to discuss the deep moral issues great literature raises.  Our instructor was well known for two things: he was hard to please, and - a Classics professor by training - he taught by the Socratic method, asking leading questions as a way to help us reach what he considered the correct conclusions.  He did that brilliantly.

Dr. Hornsby also made sure everyone in class participated, calling on specific individuals to answer his questions, whether a hand was raised or not.  (By the way, after I spoke on occasion, he looked me over sadly and said, "Mr. 'Derrick,' that will not do," shaking his head.)

All of us in the class got used to the fact that when called upon, this scraggly-haired guy (who reminded us regularly that he was an atheist and a Marxist) started every answer he gave to the instructor's questions the same way.  He invariably said: "Well, you know, you have to make an arbitrary value judgement..."

He was evidently in the process of internalizing the notion that no moral statement is based on fact.  Morality has to be invented by the individual from whole cloth.  Then, she or he will be really and personally responsible for living up to the standards thus arbitrarily created. 

I later learned to recognize this as an "Existential" position.  It is plausible, we should acknowledge, even though this fellow himself may have been a primarily comic figure.

3

So, the question is:  Can a moral statement be true?  When we say, for instance, "Profiting from the suffering of others is immoral," is our statement true-or-false... or something else?

Or was my classmate in 1960 correct to say that this kind of statement - like "One person should not seek to impose her or his values on others" - is based solely on the will of the individual who chooses to base her or his behavior on it?

4

It seems clear that none of the following moral statements can be proven false or true by scientific investigation:


  • Profiting from the suffering of others is immoral
  • One person should not seek to impose his or her values on others
  • Treating others as you would want others to treat you is good
  • Failing to abide by agreements you have made voluntarily is bad
  • Providing for your family is the right thing to do
  • Stealing someone else's property is wrong
...and so on, and so forth.

In other words, factual evidence does not exist to prove whether some action or intention or policy is moral or immoral, good or bad, right or wrong.  We can discover whether or not an action is or is not legal, but can we prove by investigation whether the law in question is or is not moral?  Until 1865, for example, slavery was legal in some of the United States, but most of us would say it was never moral, right?

We can also discover from evidence whether an action is efficient or inefficient, practical or impractical, hard or easy, satisfying or unfulfilling, even wise or unwise... but not whether it is right or wrong.

So, if by "true" we mean a statement can be proven or disproven by study of the facts, then moral statements - about what we should or should not do, or what is good or bad - cannot be "true."

 5

I suppose that if we had a "true" moral standard to which one action or another could be reliably compared, then maybe we might come up with moral statements that are themselves true.

Here are several other moral statements:
  • To kill is forbidden
  • To commit adultery is prohibited
  • Taking for yourself another persons' property is taboo
  • Lying about another person's actions is proscribed
These forbidden actions are stated, of course, in the well-known Judeao-Christian "Ten Commandments."  They are said to have come directly from an almighty God.  If such divine laws are sure to be "true," then a moral statement derived from them - such as, "To frame someone else for a crime you committed yourself is immoral" - would also be "true," wouldn't it?  If the moral standard were true, the laws or rules derived from it would also be true...

But, well, then, we have to admit that there are other people who believe in a different almighty God (or Gods), whose so-called true standards (or commandments) might be different from these.  If a statement is true, it cannot be contradicted by another "true statement," can it?  No.  So such moral standards themselves are no "truer" than the kind of everyday moral statements we started with, like these -



  • Failing to abide by agreements you have made voluntarily is immoral
  • Treating others fairly is moral
  • Telling the truth is right
  • Profiting from the suffering of others is wrong
  • Kindness to others is good
  • Greed is bad
  • You should not take credit for the accomplishments of others
  • You should take responsibility for your own actions

...and so on, and so forth.

6 (to be continued)

We'll continue this thought process in Part Two...

***

**

*

Thursday, April 5, 2012

Either/Or Thinkers [essay]

**
***
"One and One Makes Nothing: Dualism Equals Nihilism"

Some personal reflections:

1
When a guy walks down the narrow hall looking for a public restroom and sees two doors facing one another in a small alcove, one of which is marked "Women," he goes through the other door. He doesn't look to see if that door is marked "Men." It's the only remaining option.

(I presume it would be comparable for a woman, but from experience alone I can't be sure.)

Some people in our world - evidently a lot of them - see all of life that way.

For such people, there are only two possibilities. Everything either is or is not something or other; everything either has or does not have Quality X or Quality Y. While I myself am not, I believe, this kind of dualistic thinker, I respect them. I have a growing respect for their numbers. And I think I even understand where they're coming from.

2

Even dualistic thinkers do in fact recognize that some qualities exist in degrees, falling at some point between the one extreme and the other. A person is not necessarily tall or short, for instance; she or he may be "average" (probably meaning, the same height as "me"). The sky may be cloudy or clear, or it may be be partly cloudy; everybody knows that.


Despite the over-used metaphor often applied to dualistic people - namely, "For them, everything is either black or white" - they in fact do recognize that in questions of color, there are shades of gray: dark, light, or "medium" gray, perhaps even finer distinctions ("medium-dark"? "grayish"?). And in relation to skin color - or rather race - the folks I am describing do most often recognize, in our times, that one is not simply white or non-white; one may also be mixed race, even mixed-race in varying degrees. (I myself am apparently something like 0.15% Native American, for instance.)


But for most things, these many friends, family members, co-workers, neighbors, political leaders and followers, voters and non-voters... all these dualistic thinkers see things as either this or that:


  • You are either my friend or my enemy.
  • You're either with me or against me.
  • One's answer to a question is either correct or incorrect.
  • You are either a person of principle, or you sometimes change your mind even on important issues
  • The bathroom light is either on or off.
  • You either win or you lose.
  • What you say is either true or false, and what you think is either right or wrong.
  • You either succeed or you fail.
  • You believe, or you are a non-believer.
  • You fight or you flee.

 (And so on.)

3

And about moral distinctions in particular, these dualistic-minded folks are peculiarly definitive in applying the "either-this-or-that" method to their daily lives.

 In life, they find either:

   1. truth or lies (usually found in "packs"),

  2. justice or injustice,

  3. patriotism or treason,

  4. dignity or humiliation,

  5. honor or dishonor, and

  6. people who are either:

      a. loyal or disloyal,

      b. free or enslaved,

      c. moral or immoral,

      d. right or wrong,

      e. good or bad.

As surely as we know that the sky might be partly cloudy, everybody also knows that our world is decidedly not simply good. It must necessarily be bad, then, right?

So - in their heart of hearts, dualistics know that:

  • Life is basically simple, either one thing or its opposite.
  • Everybody is probably your enemy.
  • Although some things may seem okay, they are probably really inadequate
  • The powerful are out to get you. 
  • Most people are losers, "lazy good-for-nothings."
  • Big words and long sentences are intended to hide the simple truth,
  • Everybody lies and swindles and cheats.
  • Although what you do, most of the time, is good, what most other people do, most of the time, is bad.
  • You have to keep your guard up
  • It's - as we say - "Every man for himself."

4


Okay.  So -

If you're surrounded by enemies, you doubt anyone's apparently good intentions.

If  everyone's a crook, you have to get your own as fast as you can.

If most people are losers, you have to be better than anyone else you see.

If everyone lies, you must question what anyone tells you.

If everyone cheats, the rules don't matter.

If the powerful are out to put you under their control, you must stand up to them and fight for your freedom and dignity.

If you can't depend on anyone or anything, you must vigorously protect yourself with an iron discipline.

5

As the result of perceiving the world this way, the either-or-way, these many people - rich and poor, southern and northern and western and eastern, educated and uneducated, urban and rural, sophosticated and rough-and-ready, upper class and working class - these dualistic thinkers throughout their whole lives are:

  • persistent and consistent,
  • independent,
  • impatient with complex questions or explanations,
  • unforgiving and uncompromising,
  • angry,
  • courageous,
  • defensive,
  • focused on the present, rather than on historical trends or future probabilities,
  • passionate,
  • suspicious,
  • combative or aggressive,
  • fierce,
  • proud,
  • intolerant of uncertainty and opposing opinions,
  • fearful,
  • prone to violence,
  • lonely or "loner-ly."

As they see it and live it, the world is hostile, undependable, immoral, and seductive. They may recognize that it shouldn't and probably needn't be that way, but they know it is.

So - as they see it, a person should consider himself or herself morally superior to the world around her or him, but powerless to fundamentally change things. Such a person can never be satisfied or relax and must be ever-vigilant against the immorality of other people and the uncertainties of an evil world.


*
**
***