Values - Precise Language

Thinking Clearly About Values

Published on January 1, 2004 By Phil Osborn In Philosophy

Ethics & Morality - a Practical Approach

A distinquishing characteristic of conscious living things, as opposed to rocks, crystals, etc., is that they act. Action is motion directed towards a goal. Without a purpose, guide or goal we have merely motion. A value, in a purely operationl, observational sense, is that which one acts to gain and or keep. It is the goal and guide to action. Living entities are future-directed, while non-living entities merely extend the past.

The purpose of morality is to specify what values are, what kinds of things qualify as values or potential values, what kinds of things do not qualify or cannot be values, and how values are to be acquired in general and loss of values to be avoided. General principles of action which tend to lead to the successful acquisition of values we call virtues. Characteristic classes of action which generally over time lead to the loss of values we call vices.

Much of the general theory of value and virtue has been far more thoroughly explicated by various philosophers of the neo-Aristotelean school, starting with Aristotle himself. Some of the more cogent arguments - which have served as the most direct influence upon this writer - are those developed by the modern American author, Ayn Rand, herself an avowed Aristotelean.

There are some difference in terminology between my writing here and Rand's. She occasionally used terms in ways which were confusing, as they conflicted with the common usage. Sometimes she did this to make a point, as in the way in which she redefined "selfish." This could be effective polemically or could simply be devisive or merely confusing. I might note here that Rand's position appears to be winning, from a historical perspective. We have moved from an era running up to the mid-70's, when "selfishness" was equated with evil, thru the so-called "me-decade" of ostentacious, often obnoxious behavior, to a kind of calming out, in which people seem to be more intelligently focused on what really is in their self-interest, such as love, peace, spiritual fulfillment, etc.

I try to stick to common usage as much as possible without losing clarity. I treat the term ethics as referring to an agreed upon set of rules governing behavior in an organization or association, not a synonym for morality. Often, ethical behavior is confused with moral behavior, much as theory and hypothesis are used differently by scientists or knowledgeable layment versus the general public.

When a member of a professional association, for example, says that he or his company subscribe to the ethical standards set forth in some document pubished by that association, this does not mean that he is claiming to be moral, or that he will not steal the shirt off your back. It merely means that he asserts that if he does, it will all be done within the specified rules of procedure.

Morality, on the other hand, in distinction to ethics, does deal with what is actually conducive to acquiring values and avoiding losses. Morality might countenance, for example, acting according to agreed upon ethical standards when these standards are set up in such a way as to promote the good - i.e., the acquisition or retention of values - or avoid evil. Morality allows one to judge an ethical code and to specify the limits beyond which it no longer applies.

Often the term meta-ethics (meta - about or above) is used to refer to the kind of discussion above. This is confusing, as it really ought to be meta-morality, but for the sake of not making it more confusing - each of us with our own private language - I will stick to that usage. Thus we have a hierarchy of meaning:

Metaphysics or ontology - those things which are true of everything

Epistemology - those concepts and ideas which are necessary to specify the nature of consciousness and its relationship to reality, including validity of concepts and truth of statements in general

Logic - the rules derived from ontology and epistemology which specify how to determine the validity of inference - how new truthes can validly be derived from old or from the incorporation of new data

Meta-ethics - the identification of the concept of value

Morality - the identification of general classes of values and virtues and the methods of identifying or implementing them in general

Ethics - a particular set of procedural rules designed to facilitate a particular set of goals, usually associated with a particular organization or association

And, finally,

Legality - (I hesitate to use the term jurisprudence with all the baggage it carries, and legality is hardly better - someone suggest something better, please) the rules by which ethical systems are enforced or challenged

Note that each level partakes of all the levels above. When logic yields a position in meta-ethics which seems implausible, we refer to epistemology and/or ontology to resolve the problem. Logic, after all, can only specify that IF a and b are true, THEN c must follow. It may be that a or b are not true, or that they have been incorrectly applied out of context. To judge logic, we need to refer to how thought is constructed, i.e., epistemology.

And, of course, we will use logic to evaluate logic in reference to epistemology. The system could be (and certainly has been) criticized as self-referential. But can any alternative be proposed? Even in theory? In the end, we are left with consistency as our ultimate criteria. We assume that the universe is not contradictory (ontology), else no truth is possible (epistemology). If the universe is non-contradictory, then when we find a contradiction, we know we have made an error of thought (logic). This hierarchy leads us through a natural path of identifying where any contradiction may be.

Thus, by this model, legality is usually a matter of applying ethics to a particular situation in order to resolve a conflict or specify an extension of the ethics itself as new situations are encountered. When the ethics itself is in error, then legality becomes a method of applying morality to the ethical system itself in order to correct it. Often, however, long before such fundamental recourse becomes necessary, the initial ethical system may be referred to a more comprehensive system of which it is a subset.

So, we may have multiple levels of reference in complex organizations. Or, conflicts may occur between individuals each following a different ethical code which is consistent within their own organization. Then it may well be that a higher, more general ethical code, such as the Uniform Commercial Code, for example, may be invoked, assuming that all parties can be shown to be under its jurisdiction. When all else fails, then legality refers to the more fundamental constraints of morality.

This is often masked by the fact that the average citizen of 2001 may not be explicitly governed by any ethical system. He or she may have never agreed to any such set of rules. In that situation, morality becomes the de facto ethics, as in the "good and ancient common law." But the common law was based on the known history of usage and common agreement in a particular locality. Trying to retroactively fit it into the crazy mix of historical violations - invasions, rapes, murders, wars, etc. - that underlie the world today everywhere would likely make the process of resolution more expensive than any possible outcome could yield.

Every piece of property on earth has probably been stolen many times over, the current possessors all inheriting or purchasing stolen property. The common law would bankrupt the entire earth at this point. Even leaving the earth for virgin space, the moon or mars or some remote solar system, would not solve the problem, if we wanted to be truly consistent, as the means to get there and colonize would still be the fruits of prior conquest or theft. The only solution is clearly to give up and die. Yet this would contradict the basic premise of morality itself. So, what is to be done?

Let us examine the historical record for hints as to what might work or probably will fail.

In the past, various groups of people have come into violent conflict. In some cases, one or both parties resolved disagreements via the common law among their own culture, prior to the conflict. The classic case is the invasion of England by the Normans. The Anglo-Saxons resolved conflicts via the common law. Then they were conquered. It clearly would not serve the perceived interests of the Norman conquerors to allow the conquered to continue using the unadulterated common law, as it would immediately be applied against them. So, they introduced their own set of rules, positive law, in which the Norman appointed judges instructed the juries as to the new law, and the juries were now restricted to judging only the facts of the case. (Sounds familiar, doesn't it?)

This paradigm is necessary whenever conquest takes place - or whenever morality seriously conflicts with the interests of those holding the most guns. You still have to have some means of resolving conflicts, and it has to keep the appearance of being fair and reasonable. If people see no hope, they tend to become dangerous and unproductive.

Thus, factors such as the War on Drug Users, or the illegal taxation system, or the property seizures on the most absurd of legal pretexts, all largely perpetrated both domestically and worldwide by the Amerikan Empire, necessitate a rejection of "jury nullification" by the captive legal system. In fact, this is one of the most basic human rights, which no court can outlaw. It is always possible that any ethical system may conflict with morality, in which case, a true solution must resolve that conflict. As recognized at the Nuremnburg trials, neither soldiers, nor police, nor juries (or judges) are exempt from acting in accordance with basic morality. American judges have much to answer for.

In distinction to the positive law approach, which ends up perpetrating conflict without any hope of ultimate resolution, it is useful to look at the contractual law systems, such as those used by Hanseatic League or the modern Uniform Commercial Code. These systems ignore prior conflicts and ancient claims and simply specify how people coming from all kinds of different cultures and legal systems - as all the different laws in the different states of the U.S. - will resolve disputes. The only facts allowed into consideration are those specified in the code or in the specific contract under consideration.

It will never be possible to straighten out all the historical wrongs. It may, however, be possible to get general agreement on this very point. If we can establish this point as a general truthe, then it may be possible to narrow down the range of conflicts to include only those that are clearly amenable to resolution. In the case of both these and future conflicts, in may be possible to get general agreement on the legality to be employed.

On the face of it, this sounds like pie-in-the-sky lunacy. How could we ever get everyone to agree? Fortunately we don't have to. They will come to us.

Here is how it works: We take what already works in business and we find the common denominators that allow formulation of a general social contract that specifies how we agree to resolve our disputes - with ALL other signatories to the social contract.

More to come!

Comments

stevendedalus

on Jan 02, 2004

How would your philosophical mind evaluate the ethics and morality of the current administration in railroading the gullible citizenry to accept a war of choice through arrant misrepresentation?

Phil Osborn

on Jan 09, 2004

Ethics? Morality? Bush????

Actually, in December of 2002, I figured out what they were up to, and I attempted to alert other people. I even managed to call into Ian Master's Background Briefing (Sundays, L.A. area, 90.7FM KPFK, kpfk.org, 11AM - 1PM). Unfortunately, Ian was pushing the idea that Bush, et al, were simply fools, and also has me conflated with someone who thinks that the Queen of England is behind everything, so I was unable to get very far then or later, when I called back and he cut me off or simply hung up on me.

I also went to some of the local Ayn Rand Institute meetings, where I challenged their speakers, who were all for the war, as I take it, and simply felt that the Bush people had no real plan, just shooting from the hip. I said they did indeed have a plan and spelled it out precisely. A couple months later, the neo-cons fessed up to their grand design for a U.S. led coalition of the willing to police the world.... Exactly my conclusion months earlier, and using even my terminology. Spooky....

More later

Wahkonta Anathema

on Jan 12, 2004

Interesting discussion. I too am well versed in Ayn Rand. Her distinction of and redefinition of the word Selfish and selfless if fundamental to her work, and is much more than semantics. In effect, she held that we see men as trees when we should be upright and see things truly, the 'collectivist' paradigm holding the masses in a spell of perdition by reversing such definitions as those for selfish and selfless. Unless one begins to understand her true meaning in this, her words fall into the petty argumentative forums we witness today.
As to the rest, I would like to see what else you put up to resolve the conflict. I agree with 'x' in JFK, "The control of a government over its people resides in its war-making powers." In the end NO system will end the neurosis that drives the George Bush's of our world. He was involved in setting up the Medellin cocaine cartel, then roughed it off and declared them criminals. How? By force of controlled laws. He set up the Cali cartel and did the same thing. Noriega was also set up and betrayed by him. He was involved with Osam Bin Laden, and still hangs out with his family at the Carlysle Group. We all know he had relationship with Hussein for years, selling bio-chemicals and WMD, then turning around and putting forth that LAW justified his condemning Saddam for possessing them. Such a man's perception of LAW and ORDER is not in keeping with those of any civil society. He used the very LAWS to put them into power, then used them to take them out, and all for his own profit. I challenge you to show me a system of LAW that would contain such a social philosophy and make others trust he will not merely violate any agreement he deems profitable to himself.

Phil Osborn

on Jan 14, 2004

"In effect, she held that we see men as trees when we should be upright and see things truly" .

???? Sorry, I don't understand that one. As far as a code that could contain people like the Bush's and Saddam's of the world, I think that the goal of a true civil society - where disputes are routinely handled non-violently via civil proceedings of some kind, such as arbitration or a common-law jury trial, may have to come from the ground up. At present, we do have some major opportunities, opportunities that could well be taken away at any time, so action should not be put off indefinitely for the purpose of deducing perfect solutions.

For example, a uniform social contract, similar to the idea of the fairly successful Uniform Commercial Code, but limited to what the vast majority of folks worldwide would find reasonable as a method of resolving disputes, is totally doable today. The UCC has perhaps grown way to complex to achieve the goals of the more radical originators, but if the focus remains on the method of dispute resolution, with all the other details to be spelled out in independent contracts, then such a universal agreement might be very useful and attract both individuals and businesses everywhere. It would exist for some time alongside the various state and other contractual legal systems, such as UCC, I'm sure, but the potential is there, via mechanisms such as bonds, letters of credit, collective responsibility agreements such as the micro-loans system uses, etc., for such a system to open up small and large scale trade between peoples who are largely blocked today due to excessive risk factors.

I can envision a world economic system governed at the grass roots level by universal reference to a common social contract, one in which kids in the Congo could sign up for something like a "trust" in their name - similar to the way people are forming the nanocorps now in droves in the U.S.. The kids, being minors, could not be held to the trust legally, altho their parents or guardians might be, if they chose. However, the value of the trust, real and projected, would be equity in the kid's account, available to be exchanged for education, medical needs, capital for starting a business, etc. Thus, the idle capital of the rich countries could make its way into the poorest 3rd world, on a profit-making basis. Wouldn't you like to be part of a mutual fund that depended upon the value of shares in tens of thousands, perhaps millions of productive individuals? And wouldn't that tie you and everyone else in the world into a network in which it became to everyone's selfish advantage that other people did indeed succeed in life?

Sherye Hanson

on Apr 11, 2004

I have never read Ayn Rand, but I always thought that even if you don't want to lift people out of poverty because of compassion, that greed would do. The poor don't buy. How do you address the idea that there is a limited supply of stuff and if I share it with you, then I'll have less for myself?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!