Skip to main content

What are moral claims?

I have often wondered how to distinguish moral rules or claims from other normative statements (being statements about right or wrong, or what one should or shouldn't do). The subtle differences between 'should' and 'ought' (where 'ought' alone is thought to be objective or to lack contingency) are not enough, because there are many moralities and moral systems which intelligent people of goodwill can differ on, and because it is not clear that morality is something which can escape contingency.

So, what implicit difference is there between the normative statements, "It tends to be bad to sacrifice your queen early in a chess match," and, "It tends to be bad to lie, cheat, or steal"? --You can substitute 'one shouldn't' for 'it tends to be bad', if you like.-- Without simply saying, "Well, one is obviously about morals," which self reference does nothing to help distinguish moral claims, the only thing I am aware of is the scope. One applies to a game, and one to life in general. But then there are aesthetic principles which are normative and general to life, such as when it is appropriate and acceptable to wear to white or various ideas of propriety.

So, without reference to transcendency (which might apply to all or none), what separates the moral from the aesthetic or the proper? Can we simply say, etiquette and aesthetics are about how we feel, but morals need not take this into account? I don't know if I'm comfortable with that idea.

Addendum (6/27):

It may also be that moral claims distinguish themselves from other normative statements only through relation to a system of morals or ethics--at which point, those systems are, what, just those that do not apply to winning games, making good paintings, praising judgments, setting tables properly, and a million other things?

Comments

  1. I get the feeling I should read Kierkegaard to answer this question.

    But, you know, there are also moral choices or claims to be made in playing games. For instance, cheating in the game. Or, rather than quickly ending a game by assaulting the enemy headquarters, you continue bombing the energy factories or weapons systems to just prolong the engagement. Or blowing up non-combatant homes and houses that are there in the game but have no score value or strategic point. Or when in multiplaying the superior playing keeps killing and manhandling the inexperienced ones, rather than let them learn the game freely.

    It seems to me, and this is me here, that these kinds of things reflect some kind of moral involvement even in gaming.

    But, I'm inclined to think that what determines a claim as specifically a moral one is, as you suggest, just its framing as such. Like a urinal, it only becomes such when it is claimed as such. In which case, aesthetic or normative claims are just as dubious for why they are what they are as moral ones. It's not so much a problem with morality, but with, I suppose, the activity of making pre/proscription at all.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An introduction to a book that doesn't exist:

Prose and verse are generally accepted as distinct writing formats with their own rules, styles, and grammars.  Though their borders are somewhat vague, they have come to be seen as something of a dichotomy in the eyes of the general public.  There are, however, at least 3 other popular approaches to writing as exhibited in picture-books, comicbooks, and plays.  Though sometimes given short shrift, these styles are accepted as literature.  They are included in libraries, book stores, and academic study.  Most importantly, they are read. In the general case, there is clearly writing being done in the creation of any one of these.  But what of the wordless comic or silent play?  Should we consider scripts written, but fully realized plays, comics, and picture-books, to be performance, art, or some other kind of non-literature?  These worries of theory are kinks to be worked out, surely, but they are not of immediate practical concern to the writer...

Every thief must go.

Robin , chapter 5  Previous Chapter Robin kept herself busy through her unemployment doing chores and practising martial arts, but mostly she spent time playing in the woods.  The bears avoided her, and she kept out of the thieves' way, as much as she could.  This was no easy task, for Sherman's Forest had its share of scoundrels. Chief of these was Lance Bucskin, infamous for scamming old ladies and still more renowned for his hatred of puppies, which he would kick whenever the chance arose.  Even his own men found his proclivities distasteful, but he had a way with weapons and highway robbery which held his fellows in awe. LANCE-- [clad in all green with a pointed cap; has a devil may care attitude; close cropped blond hair with a well waxed van dyke beard; 28 and in peak condition, he loves exhibiting his physical prowess as much as he enjoys booting little dogs; he is holding up a family as his rapt minions stand by] They're really not all that hard to im...

'((BORDERS))' & 'The Blue Trees' at Westlake Park

For the last few weeks, two public art projects have coexisted at Westlake Park, in the thick of Seattle's downtown. '((Borders))' is by Steinunn Thorarinsdottir , a metal sculptor who seems primarily interested in featureless people in various states and positions.  Originally installed outside of the U.N. headquarters, it is supposed to reflect something (or other) about multiculturalism.  Passersby seem most interested in the composition of the statues. Thoraninsdottir's site is pretty cool, by the way. Konstantin Dimopoulos's 'The Blue Trees' is meant to bring trees into contrast with their surroundings, and so remind people of them.  By extension, this is supposed to bring attention to deforestation, over-logging, and the like.  The actual effect is mere surreal wonderment, but anyone so confused can read the small sign standing in the middle of the park for clarification. I'm not sure how successful these are in achieving their stated int...