Morality is not the doctrine of how we may make ourselves happy, but how we may make ourselves worthy of happiness
22 07 2008A bit off normal topics, but I think the matter needs addressal. I see this all the time. I hear and read very intelligent people espousing what is, at best, a very confused view. A conflation of two necessarily separate subjects: Ethics/Moral Theory and the Sciences. Deriving ought from is.
I could spend quite a lot of time laboring over the topic. But it’s late. I’m tired. So I’ll demonstrate the silliness of this confused position with a few simple examples.
Your arm is broken, therefore it ought to be.
Your mother is dying of pancreatic cancer, therefore she ought to be.
Many children die everyday from AIDS, therefore they ought to.
Let’s see if it works the other way - forces of nature described using moral language.
The hurricane that destroyed NO is evil.
The great white shark that ate surfer dude is naughty.
The lightning that hit my uncle should receive a serious moral reproach.
Awkward to say the least. That’s because we reserve moral language and moral decisions for human behaviors - regardless of whether we can or cannot ultimately reduce them to some biological property or function or compulsion. Morality is right action. It is a prescription for behavior. It is not a description of any kind. Descriptive (sciences of any sort) and prescriptive (morality/ethics) domains do not touch. And never, NEVER, can a description be used to justify a behavior, regardless of how tempted we may be to do so.
Categories : News





