unanswered response

From Teddy's blog: "Hunting, Service, Necessity -- I was thinking about Silliman's idea of the moral imperative to educate ourselves on the plight of others and help when we can in connection to the neccessity defense some hunters evoke. Obviously, in country like ours, it is not neccesary for the vast majority of people to hunt to survive. This is true of developed countries all around the world. If we can agree that eating animals is morally wrong, do we have some sort of obligation to help those who eat meat to survive to find alternatives?"

DKJ responded: "I think we do. Principled opposition to morally suspect practices (meat-eating, hunting, FGM, etc.) obliges us to educate and assist others who might not be fully aware of or have access to other options."

I responded: " But isn't such a move 'interrupting' their moral development? If their culture is not to the point that it's developed a language for morality, then our words will have no meaning. Providing food, period, would mean more than shifting their culture so dramatically."


One of the discussions that we had in Moral Relativism was about the language of morality -- if one society does not have a language about morality, then to tell them that this or that action is morally wrong will, in effect, fall on deaf ears. So wouldn't it behoove those of us who have this language to let the other societies develop one on their own? (If we push the point of morality, and the language thereof, at what point does it stop being a moral act and become an tyrannical one?)

'Ought-Is' is confusing me... and it ought not to!

*laughs* ((I'm sorry, but the title cracked me up when I thought it up...))


Seriously though, I'm confused. This might be a product of an incomplete study of logic... maybe I just simply haven't gotten there yet...

I'm starting from nuts and bolts. (...and I think I lost some of the nuts, but I won't know until it falls apart...)


Okay. A normative statement, according to Wikipedia (not the best source, but it's a place to start)

...a normative statement expresses a judgment about whether a situation is desirable or undesirable. "The world would be a better place if the moon were made of green cheese" is a normative statement because it expresses a judgment about what ought to be. Notice that there is no way of disproving this statement. If you disagree with it, you have no sure way of convincing someone who believes the statement that he or she is wrong.

Maybe the example confused me (I mean, how can that not be wrong?? a) we'd probably eat ourselves out of planet and home, b) everyone would be constipated from too much cheese *laughs* c) the whole world would stink, d) I'm fairly certain that cheese does not make a good foundation for the buildings we've managed to build... (maybe really old parmesean or romano might work...) How can a normative statement not be disproven??), but working with that definition alone -- if I decided debated my boyfriend about meat-eating and evolution of the brain, I would be fighting a losing battle. If there's no sure way of convincing someone otherwise, then how would one go about convincing?

Someplace in my brain, that made sense. Problem is that I cannot re-explain it to myself, so I did not consciously understand what I just read.

Another attempt yielded an explanation from answers.com:

(excerpt) ((Note: links in this quote do not work))
In philosophy, normative is usually contrasted with positive, descriptive or explanatory when describing types of theories, beliefs, or statements. Descriptive (or constative) statements are falsifiable statements that attempt to describe reality. Normative statements, on the other hand, affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong.


Methinks this might be the easiest way to begin broaching the different statements... However, Wikipedia (of course) doesn't go further into the descriptions that I'm looking for... harumph.

Positive statements vs. Normative statements

from everything2.com (one would think there'd be a zillion philosophy sites explaining this...)
(excerpt) ((Again, links in quote don't work))
A statement that tells you what should be done. These are specifically statements used in ethical contexts, where a statement may not be measurably true or false in any objective sense, but is still used as if it gives useful information.


If this is true, then at least 'meat-eating is essential to human brain evolution' is a subjective sentence?? ...that doesn't seem right. It can be empirically proven (or so people keep trying to tell me...).

The statement is not true or false... and yet it seems that such a statement could be nothing but true or false... *puzzled look*


Continuing on my search, I found a paper by Professor Johnson =-) The Ought-Is Question: Discovering the Modern in Post -Modernism
(excerpt)

1. The Is-Ought (Ought-Is) Question

According to tradition, to "get from is to ought" (and, presumably, from ought to is) means to deduce an ought-conclusion from exclusively is-premises. Let us use getD to indicate this standard (deductive) interpretation. It is a relatively simple matter to show that any substantive is-ought (or ought-is) controversy must limit itself to this interpretation. Consider the effects of loosening the connection from strict entailment (that is, getD) to any type of nondeductive inference or explanation:

(1) One should avoid hitting others because hitting is potentially dangerous.

No one denies that statements of fact and value are often combined or associated, as one serves as evidence for, explains, or determines (in some nonreductive sense2) the other. (1) is a perfectly sensible assertion, where the projection of possibly harmful consequences of certain acts serves as a reason for concluding that those acts ought to be avoided. That is, we can getND (in some nondeductive sense) to that conclusion. But, construed as a deductive inference, the is-ought problem is obvious:

(2) Hitting is potentially dangerous (an is-statement).

(3) Therefore, one should avoid hitting others (an ought-statement).

Now (3) follows from (2) only given (at least) the additional evaluative premise (2'): One should avoid doing things that are potentially dangerous. That is, one cannot without some further premise getD from (2) to (3). The logic is the same, though more obvious still, if we reverse the movement from ought to is: The moral imperative "one should avoid hitting others," though clearly dependent for its meaningfulness on some understanding of factual matters, does not entail that hitting is potentially dangerous (or any other purely factual claim). In our present case (paraphrasing Siegel's depiction of Weinstein's thinking) we have:

(4) Dialogue ought to be conducted in conditions of full access and equal respect (an "ought-statement").

(5) Therefore, agreements and conclusions reached in dialogue not conducted in conditions of full access and equal respect are less likely to be true (an "is-statement") (GO, p. 18).

This, too, fails as a deduction, since we cannot getD from (4) to (5) without the assistance of (at least) one further premise acting to link the evaluative element of (4) with the factual results outlined in (5).3 Of course, the results will be the same for all "postmodern" attempts to getD from ought to is; while efforts simply to getND from ought to is are not a source of controversy for either Siegel or Weinstein.

Someplace in my brain, that made sense. Problem is that I cannot re-explain it to myself, so I did not consciously understand what I just read. I'm starting to think that a) this involves more grammar than I know (which, I'm ashamed to say, is truly miniscule), and b) this involves logic that I simply haven't gotten to yet.

I'm starting to understand that if I'm to give a logical argument, I cannot leave anything out. (That which is 'accepted as common knowledge' is not so common -- I got strange looks (arguably not uncommon by themselves) for not knowing that Denver, Colorado has an elevation of 1 mile.)



I also found The Origins of Morality, which is a blurb that, again, I almost understood.
In addition to Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy, there was another issue to be had with the evolutionary ethics of Darwin and Spencer, namely the “ought-is” problem. David Hume brought up this problem, addressing the sudden, unexplained jump from “is” to “ought” in moral systems. To say what is the case and to say what ought to be the case are two unrelated matters, according to him. On the one hand, empirical facts do not contain normative statements, or else they would not be purely empirical. On the other hand, if there are no normative elements in the facts, they cannot just suddenly surface in the conclusions because a conclusion is only deductively valid if all necessary information is present in the premises. (Hume) Darwin commits this ill when he writes that "happiness is an essential part of the general good." He jumps from “is” statements to “ought” statements in order to make his hedonistic claim. Spencer does the exact same thing, with his equation of evolutionary progress with good. Thomas Huxely puts it well when he writes- “The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before.” (Huxley)


The quote at the end is great, but I refuse to use it until I understand this 'Ought-Is/Is-Ought' thing.

'Ought' seems to indicate a suggestion: One should not stand under a ladder.
'Is' seems to indicate a declarative statement, a fact, something provable: Person X weighs 500lbs.

So, if I say 'You shouldn't stand under the ladder because Person X (who is assumedly on the ladder) weighs 500lbs', the statement is incomplete because I haven't given the condition of the ladder...?

P. Person X weighs 500lbs and is standing at the top of the ladder.
P. The ladder is wooden and old (ready to collapse)
----
C. You should not stand under the ladder.

Does that work? If not, why not?

I know that I'm missing something... but what?

. o O (Uh oh... the first sign of old age -- knowing that you are missing something, but you've forgotten what it was... oh boy and oy vay...)

Business Ethics vs. Moral Ethics - How to reconcile?

People (the general masses) require a leader: someone who exhibits the qualities that we think are 'virtuous', and thus we provide ourselves with a model, something to aspire to. That's all fine and good, in theory.

And looking at current society, I can understand why this or that person was chosen as a leader of the masses -- they exhibit, what I call, 'business ethics' (as opposed to 'moral ethics'). They _are_ the epitome of the values that current society holds as valuable... whether or not we agree with it.

At it's simplest form: Business ethics strive to create 'good business' people, their 'goodness' measured by their assets. Moral ethics strives to create 'good people', their 'goodness' measured by their character.

From Wikipedia:

General business ethics

• This part of business ethics overlaps with the philosophy of business, one of the aims of which is to determine the fundamental purposes of a company. If a company's main purpose is to maximize the returns to its shareholders, then it could be seen as unethical for a company to consider the interests and rights of anyone else

Unethical to consider the interests and rights of anyone else besides the company? ....that is Business Ethics in 'the shell of a nut'...

People, animals, seemingly life itself becomes objectified because of this monetary distance. Indeed, there are countless articles about the child sex trade ('Sex Tourism' Street Children) -- even children have become commodities! They are being sold to the brothels...

We _know_ that these actions are morally incorrect.
In fact, the actions make humanity into hypocrites...
to which Business Ethics replies: Maybe. But, at least we're rich hypocrites!!

The emphasis is skewed to different ends.

As the saying goes: 'Money talks' ... and morality walks.

(Indeed, how many classmates have I known who took Business Management to secure their future paychecks, rather than classes that would develop their passions?
They looked at me: "I'll be the one giving you a dollar when you're homeless..."
I looked at them: "Fine. At least I'll be happy with my chosen profession..."
Again, note the different emphasises...)



So how do we reconcile these differences?

Is it possible to make the business-person realize the virtues of being a morally upright person?

With society arranged as it is, I have to admit that unless there's a paycheck involved, people will not willingly change their ways. Object materialism has a tight grip on people, and their futures.

There is no monetary gain in being virtuous. You cannot claim it for a tax deduction, nor as an asset for a loan. It has no value in this society.

The only solution that I can think of is Gandhi's Seven Deadly Sins which at least works towards bringing Business Ethics and Moral Ethics together... However, Business Ethics would argue that they 'lose' their values, and Moral Ethics would retort that social transactions are worth more than business transactions.


Couple Business Ethics with people's everyday lives, and we begin to understand why there's been a serious change in the way that people think of themselves -- specifically, that they think more about themselves than others, than the idea of a community.

I'm 25. Society raised me to be an individual. The only sense of community that I have is my family -- which even that I ran from (and will be returning to shortly). My neighbors have their lives, and _very rarely_ do they ever intersect. I have my personal bubble (aka 'home'), and you have yours, and everyone has their own little island.

This is why moral relativism has such a strong foothold in society -- everyone to their own, and to pursue some universal code of ethics is tantamount to imperialism.


So, even IF a leader arrived on the scene, touting the value of Moral Ethics... people (probably) would not hear it.


Indeed, Business Ethics has even kidnapped the meaning of value:

(taken from Free Online Dictionary:

1. An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return.

2. Monetary or material worth: the fluctuating value of gold and silver.

3. Worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor; utility or merit: the value of an education.

4. A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable: "The speech was a summons back to the patrician values of restraint and responsibility" Jonathan Alter.

5. Precise meaning or import, as of a word.

6. Mathematics An assigned or calculated numerical quantity.

7. Music The relative duration of a tone or rest.

8. The relative darkness or lightness of a color.

9. Linguistics The sound quality of a letter or diphthong.

10. One of a series of specified values: issued a stamp of new value

Monetary value takes the first and second places, and moral value takes fourth.


And that is society's current value of 'value'...