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?


  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.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

More Political Notes

-Rick Santorum seems a somewhat likeable guy who believes several crazy, distasteful things. It may not be helpful to say his ideas are nuts, but it still is less useful to fashion him an evil man because his discriminatory views don't jive with the left, centre, or centre-right in America.

-Calling a person a 'front runner' before votes are counted is just plain wrong.  Calling one a front-runner after some votes are counted is slightly misleading.  The race isn't about who the media thinks is ahead, and it is only indirectly about who gets the most votes.  What really matters is accruing the most delegates.  In the race for a major party's nomination for POTUS, the guy with the most delegates-who-will-actually-vote-for-him-at-their-national-convention is ahead. If no delegates have been awarded, there isn't really a front-runner, no matter what polls might say.

-I doubt the primary process will hurt the eventual Republican nominee for POTUS all that much.…

Pointless Ruminations on the Absurd

The world around us is in no way required to conform to our expectations, beliefs, or desires. Rather, it is all but guaranteed to disappoint us, at least once or twice a lifetime. The loftier (or more deeply felt) our ideals, the more this may be true.

When we accept this incongruity and are keenly aware of it, but cannot change our thinking, absurdity steps in. The world no longer quite makes sense. It is untethered from rational or moral concerns, adrift in a bizarre joke told by no one.
Desire for normative order is often irrational and misplaced. Placing ethical constraints on amoral matters makes no sense. Yet these appear (sometimes, seemingly) inescapable conclusions. Hence the sensation of absurdity.

We can apply these incongruous demands to anything and anyone. But this is not a universal philosophy. It is a philosophy of the self, a diagnosis.

Magical Unrealism

The same men who say global warming is a hoax, Obamacare has been failing for eight years, and abstinence-only sex-ed works are also convinced even basic gun control is an impossible and useless approach which would only make us less safe. These are also the dudes most likely to tell you black and brown folk have it too good, Obama is a secret Muslim born in Kenya, and Sharia law is being forced on American legal systems. I wonder if there's some sort of overarching thread or theme to all this.