Can a moral principle really be contradictory?
- Danzr
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 12
- Joined: September 6th, 2017, 11:30 am
Can a moral principle really be contradictory?
1. One ought to always be honest and one ought to lie to protect the innocent.
there are 2 moral imperatives in this principle.
Since moral imperatives have no truth value, is it technically right to say that the principle is still contradictory?
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Can a moral principle really be contradictory?
I view Morality within the perspective of a Framework and System of Morality & Ethics.
Within 'morality' i.e. Pure, moral principles must be absolute without any conditions nor contradiction, e.g. "Lying is absolutely not permitted, no ifs and buts."
However within 'Ethics' [Applied] we do not permit but rather make provisions for 'lies' in various unavoidable and justifying circumstances. This provision is not a passport to lie.
The person who lied [white lie or otherwise] must be mindful [with an active conscience] of his/her immoral act and should be conscientious not to repeat it again.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Can a moral principle really be contradictory?
Yes, because even though they are not empirical propositions about the external world, they are still propositions about what is right and wrong, so the basic rules of language and logic still apply, such as the rule of the excluded middle. They should be internally consistent. So it would make no sense to say "it is both right and not right to kill people", if we're talking about killing people in precisely the same circumstances in each case.Since moral imperatives have no truth value, is it technically right to say that the principle is still contradictory?
Your example is a similar case:
You're saying: "One ought to always be honest and not always be honest."One ought to always be honest and one ought to lie to protect the innocent.
-- Updated Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:27 pm to add the following --
Spectrum:
I disagree that the problem is the existence of conditions. The problem is that the proposition in the OP breaks the rules of language. I would see no problem, per se, with the conditional statement:Within 'morality' i.e. Pure, moral principles must be absolute without any conditions nor contradiction, e.g. "Lying is absolutely not permitted, no ifs and buts."
It is usually best to be honest but one ought to lie to protect the innocent.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Can a moral principle really be contradictory?
Moral principles are necessarily non-absolute.Danzr wrote:For the purposes of argument let's say we have a moral principle that states:
1. One ought to always be honest and one ought to lie to protect the innocent.
there are 2 moral imperatives in this principle.
Since moral imperatives have no truth value, is it technically right to say that the principle is still contradictory?
Imperatives are absolute - that is, possible to break, but not without some cost or punishment.
A principle is nothing more than a guideline.
Life is complicated; social life is even more complicated. Neither can be confined in straight black lines.
You probably can't even come up with a comprehensive definition of "honest", let alone "truth" - so how is anyone to judge the absolute degree of honesty in telling such part[s] of the truth [insofar as you know it] as you consider [necessary, relevant, applicable, explicable, verifiable] appropriate to a given [interlocutor, question, subject matter] circumstance?
Not so much contradictory as relative.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Can a moral principle really be contradictory?
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Can a moral principle really be contradictory?
Why should one be honest?
If you have a convincing answer to that question, you will have a better guide for applying the moral principle that is drawn from it.
Not much point in formulating a principle unless one needs it to serve some purpose.
-- Updated September 19th, 2017, 1:59 pm to add the following --
I found it not so incomprehensibly ambiguous or non-grammatical that I could not take a stab at what was intended.Steve3007 wrote:None of those thoughts about the nature of moral principles are relevant if the proposition in the OP breaks the rules of language, because if it does that we can't really tell what it was intended to say.
Oddly enough, even the rules of language are not absolute.
Meh - that's humanities for you!
Math and physics are more ruleable.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Can a moral principle really be contradictory?
Me too. I was just being a bit anal about answering the question in the OP.I found it not so incomprehensibly ambiguous or non-grammatical that I could not take a stab at what was intended.
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Can a moral principle really be contradictory?
I believe the above is not effective, i.e. 'best' and 'one ought to lie to protect the innocent' is too loose and open to interpretations and abuses.Steve3007 wrote:I would see no problem, per se, with the conditional statement:
It is usually best to be honest but one ought to lie to protect the innocent.
It would be more effective to establish Absolute moral statement as a guide.
e.g. Lying [as defined] is not permissible, no ifs and no buts.
When this is brought to the consciousness of the masses, any one who intend to lie will spontaneously pause and have to think many times before they lie.
If there are conditions and open-ended, then many will not have the awareness and will not pause at all. If they are caught lying they will find ways to justify to the allowed conditions.
While Morality deal with the absolute as a guide, Ethics makes provision for the conditional.
Humans as humans [presently], a percentile will lie and some are obsessive liars. While Ethics provide for conditions it should make it as tough as possible for anyone to be excused from lying and ensure there are preventive strategies.
Let say, a person Y has to face a critical surgery.
Which hospital do you think the person will choose, i.e.
- 1. Hospital A - whose vision/mission is 'aim for 100% No death arising from negligence'
or
2. Hospital B - whose vision/mission is "X number of death due to negligence is acceptable because it is the industry fact and statistics"
Meanwhile, for Hospital B, if there are death due to negligence, they will not be too serious because it is the industry fact and statistics. In this case the vision/mission of the Hospital will not promote and drive staff to perform their very best.
As you can see in this example, setting absolute standards as a guide, e.g. zero defects has its advantage to strive towards the highest level of performance and excellence.
So which Hospital do you think Y will choose?
Besides note how accepting absolute standards will also contribute to its bottom line and competitiveness.
It is the same with Morality and Ethics, where established absolute moral standards as guides will facilitate continuous improvements towards [closer and closer to] the ideal.
Because humans are fallible and exposed to multi-variate conditions, Ethics [applied] will deal with reality.
The above is a Kantian model.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Can a moral principle really be contradictory?
Why? What is the purpose of a no-lying for any reason commandment?Spectrum wrote: It would be more effective to establish Absolute moral statement as a guide.
e.g. Lying [as defined] is not permissible, no ifs and no buts.
I can readily see the purpose of hospital policy that forbids fatal negligence, but how does that compare to casual social interaction?
- SimpleGuy
- Posts: 338
- Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm
Re: Can a moral principle really be contradictory?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Can a moral principle really be contradictory?
"Thou shalt not kill, but needs't not strive officiously to keep alive."
-- Updated Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:40 am to add the following --
Although, in re-reading Spectrum's post, I see his point about keeping things simple.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Can a moral principle really be contradictory?
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Can a moral principle really be contradictory?
What is "truth value"?Dark Matter wrote:Moral imperatives have no truth value?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Can a moral principle really be contradictory?
You are correct that as a marketing tool, the citizenry will gravitate to the virtuous sounding TV ad. However, I can tell you that what technique a "zero percent tolerance" hospital (or any other system) uses to accomplish their goal can either improve or worsen their ability to accomplish that goal. In other words, just expending energy does not necessarily lead towards forward progress.Spectrum wrote:I believe the above is not effective, i.e. 'best' and 'one ought to lie to protect the innocent' is too loose and open to interpretations and abuses.Steve3007 wrote:I would see no problem, per se, with the conditional statement:
It is usually best to be honest but one ought to lie to protect the innocent.
It would be more effective to establish Absolute moral statement as a guide.
e.g. Lying [as defined] is not permissible, no ifs and no buts.
When this is brought to the consciousness of the masses, any one who intend to lie will spontaneously pause and have to think many times before they lie.
If there are conditions and open-ended, then many will not have the awareness and will not pause at all. If they are caught lying they will find ways to justify to the allowed conditions.
While Morality deal with the absolute as a guide, Ethics makes provision for the conditional.
Humans as humans [presently], a percentile will lie and some are obsessive liars. While Ethics provide for conditions it should make it as tough as possible for anyone to be excused from lying and ensure there are preventive strategies.
Let say, a person Y has to face a critical surgery.
Which hospital do you think the person will choose, i.e.
In Hospital A case, the administration will strive to achieve the absolute standard as much as possible even with the knowledge humans are not fallible thus the real possibility of death due to negligence. If there is even one death due to negligence they will work their butts off to find the root cause to prevent and ensure they strive to meet the absolute standard.
- 1. Hospital A - whose vision/mission is 'aim for 100% No death arising from negligence'
or
2. Hospital B - whose vision/mission is "X number of death due to negligence is acceptable because it is the industry fact and statistics"
Meanwhile, for Hospital B, if there are death due to negligence, they will not be too serious because it is the industry fact and statistics. In this case the vision/mission of the Hospital will not promote and drive staff to perform their very best.
As you can see in this example, setting absolute standards as a guide, e.g. zero defects has its advantage to strive towards the highest level of performance and excellence.
So which Hospital do you think Y will choose?
Besides note how accepting absolute standards will also contribute to its bottom line and competitiveness.
It is the same with Morality and Ethics, where established absolute moral standards as guides will facilitate continuous improvements towards [closer and closer to] the ideal.
Because humans are fallible and exposed to multi-variate conditions, Ethics [applied] will deal with reality.
The above is a Kantian model.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Can a moral principle really be contradictory?
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023