Read Aloud the Text Content

This audio was created by Woord's Text to Speech service by content creators from all around the world.

Text Content or SSML code:

So far, we have not limited our illustrations to just moral claims. Moral claims are only one of several different kinds of normative claims. Like other normative claims, moral claims (whether prescriptive or value) appeal to some standard. The standard in this case is a moral standard—a comprehensive set of foundational moral values (or sometimes, of foundational moral prescriptions) together with all that can be derived from these. Moral value claims evaluate people in moral terms. We might call someone a “good person,” meaning she acts in morally right ways most of the time. We describe murderers as “bad,” emphasizing their glaring moral failings. We can also describe people by particular moral traits (e.g., as loyal, caring, dishonest, or selfish). Moral value claims nearly always ascribe some value, good or bad, to persons or their personal characters. Moral prescriptive claims, meanwhile, talk about the rightness or wrongness of actions. Some examples: • Workers ought to accurately report their income when filling out IRS form 1040. (prescriptive) • Gyges stopped acting decently and became an extremely vicious person. (value) • No one should physically injure another person. (prescriptive) • It’s a good thing for people to be generous. (value) • It was right for you to tell him that. (prescriptive) It’s worth pausing here to make a useful distinction. In our terminology, every claim or statement (value, prescriptive, or descriptive) that is true holds for every-one. This simply means that itt’s true; it doesn’t mean that I believe it or even know about it. Unfortunately, there are many truths I don’t know and many more I don’t believe. Even when a claim holds for me and everyone, however, it may not apply to me. To apply, it must call for some response—often some action. Thus, true moral claims, unless specifically addressed to just some person(s), hold for all, but they don’t necessarily apply to everyone in every circumstance.6 For instance, the prescriptive claim about reporting income on form 1040 holds for all U.S. citizens but only applies to citizens who are required to file form 1040. Likewise, the pre-scription about not injuring others holds for everyone but can’t very readily apply to someone who is completely alone.To make the nature of morals and morality clearer, it will help to distinguish the moral realm from other normative “realms” that have their own standards and give rise to their own value or prescriptive claims.7The realm of etiquette has to do with what is acceptable social behavior. It refers to values such as being “well-mannered” at the table, “polite” at social events, “proper” at weddings and other formal occasions, “courteous” in driving, and even “decent” when texting or emailing. Values like these in turn yield normative claims of etiquette:• Kevin shouldn’t noisily slurp his soup. (prescriptive)• Everyone in that family is polite. (value)Etiquette develops, in part, from practical considerations like efficiency, safety, and hygiene. For instance, all human societies have rules about meeting people—probably because our determining if the other is a friend or foe can be very important. Etiquette also forbids talking with your mouth full, no doubt be-cause of the inevitable loss of clarity and the inconveniences of food falling out. Etiquette is also a matter of convention, and cultures often differ over what they consider acceptable. The values of etiquette for a particular culture make up that culture’s standard of etiquette. Being conventional, however, doesn’t diminish eti-quette’s importance. Etiquette plays a central role in achieving smooth social inter-action and avoiding unnecessary conflicts.Although it is normative, etiquette doesn’t overlap a great deal with moral-ity. I am not a moral failure because I am bad-mannered or impolite. Neverthe-less, etiquette—being impolite or discourteous, say—can have moral implications. In such cases, the breach of etiquette itself is not usually a moral wrong but is a means to committing a moral wrong (e.g., expressing an insult). Etiquette becomes a moral issue when there is an accompanying intent to offend or demean the other person. Without such intent, the very same act might merely be embarrassing. Thus, the values of etiquette must be distinguished from moral values.The realm of law: Law resembles the moral realm more closely than any other. Both moral and legal standards prohibit murder and stealing, for example. In fact, most moral values are mirrored by legal values; for example, justice and equality are both moral and legal values in our society. There may also be a moral duty to obey most (but not necessarily all) laws. Despite their close relationship, however, law and morality differ in important ways. Laws are created by civil au-thority; without such authority, there can be no laws. Furthermore, laws only hold in certain jurisdictions; for instance, some Texas laws don’t hold in Indiana, and some U.S. laws don’t hold in Britain. In addition, laws come into and go out of ex-istence at definite times; moral values and prescriptions appear much more time-less. Even where the law normally does not hold, furthermore, moral values still do: honesty between family members remains morally important even though the law only rarely reaches into homes. Also, there are important legal prescriptions that have no moral basis. For instance, in the following pairs, neither claim is mor-ally preferable to its alternative: • (a) All drivers should stay on the right side of the street. (b) All drivers should stay on the left side of the street. (It depends on the laws of the par-ticular country.) • (a) No one may use a registered trademark that has been renewed within the past ten years. (b) No one may use a registered trademark that has been renewed within the past twelve years. (The number of years is partly arbitrary.) Most important, it is possible for laws to be immoral. Laws establishing apart-heid or slavery, for instance, violate basic moral rights. It can even become one’s moral duty to violate such laws. In any case, it should be clear that laws and moral-ity differ.The prudential realm: There is another wide range of normative values that differ from moral values. Prudential values include what is in our self-interest and what contributes to our well-being—what would be prudent. Health, personal safety, and a decent education are all good for us. Thus, these prudential values support corresponding prudential prescriptions: • Everyone should brush their teeth daily. • People shouldn’t associate with shady characters in dark alleys • If Sandra wants to make it safely home in the heavy rain, she should slow down. • If you want to do well in your new job, you should ask questions. Since our interests are often too obvious to be worth mentioning, many prudential claims are expressed as simple prescriptions as in the examples about bur64509_ch01_001-024.indd 13 04/25/17 03:50 PMbrushing teeth and avoiding dark alleys. Everyone recognizes that it’s in their in-terest to take care of their teeth and avoid getting mugged. Other sorts of actions, meanwhile, are called for only under certain circumstances. For this reason, pru-dential claims are best expressed in an “if/then” (conditional) form: “If you want to do well in your new job, then you should ask questions.” Stated this way, pru-dential claims prescribe something (asking questions) that would be wise to do if our circumstances make the corresponding value or goal (doing well in a new job) relevant to our self-interest. For those who don’t have a new job, or any job at all, this prescription wouldn’t apply. Likewise, if Sandra isn’t driving through a downpour, she may not need to drive as slowly. That’s why it’s best to formulate prudential claims as conditionals; while the complete conditionals typically hold generally, their prescriptive parts don’t always apply to everyone. That depends on whether or not a person shares the conditional statement’s other part—its value or goal. Of course, it’s also true that if you don’t want healthy teeth, then you don’t have any reason to brush daily. Since nearly everyone wants healthy teeth, we don’t normally bother adding “if you want healthy teeth”; that “goes without saying.” Whether full expressed or not, therefore, complete prudential claims are, strictly, conditionals.In response to the Gyges story, Plato argues that living a moral life actually is in a person’s best interests, just like the saying “Honesty is the best policy” sug-gests that it is prudent to practice honesty. Nevertheless, specific moral acts do sometimes work to our disadvantage. Telling the truth or protecting a threatened child can put us at risk and even cause us personal harm. Thus, we can’t take moral claims to be automatically prudential. Further, many prudential claims are clearly not moral claims (e.g., while brushing my teeth tonight is certainly prudent, I’m not acting immorally if I skip tonight’s brushing).