As a rule, "partially right, most of the time" is moral.

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So I wanted to present a model for morality that is different from utilitarianism and deontology. That model is simply:

Partially right, most of the time, is moral.

Essentially, it builds on an experience of trying to be moral. It does not need specific instructions or specific consequences, but adapts, within the confines of the ability of the individual for effort, viz., moral effort.

The idea is that you take up this cause, with every new Day and bear out the fact that moral choices, vary day by day, depending on circumstance. In this way the individual comes to identify with heroism, in the true sense of the word that it is a burden begun first in the imagination of could be and a burden that ends in the mind as to what had to have been.

The fat man who could stop a runaway cart on train tracks - if you pushed him -, does not pass this test, because this action is partially right but not most of the time: there may be other runaway carts, other people.

Likewise, telling a white lie does not pass this test, because even if you could do it most of the time, it is not partially right.

As to selecting people to enter a bunker during a nuclear holocaust, a broad spectrum of talent would be reasonable, because it is partially right and also, given a small amount of chance, right most of the time.

I wonder how you will receive my moral idea?

Thanks?

 

[RDKirk]

Hi there,

So I wanted to present a model for morality that is different from utilitarianism and deontology. That model is simply:



Essentially, it builds on an experience of trying to be moral. It does not need specific instructions or specific consequences, but adapts, within the confines of the ability of the individual for effort, viz., moral effort.

The idea is that you take up this cause, with every new Day and bear out the fact that moral choices, vary day by day, depending on circumstance. In this way the individual comes to identify with heroism, in the true sense of the word that it is a burden begun first in the imagination of could be and a burden that ends in the mind as to what had to have been.

The fat man who could stop a runaway cart on train tracks - if you pushed him -, does not pass this test, because this action is partially right but not most of the time: there may be other runaway carts, other people.

Likewise, telling a white lie does not pass this test, because even if you could do it most of the time, it is not partially right.

As to selecting people to enter a bunker during a nuclear holocaust, a broad spectrum of talent would be reasonable, because it is partially right and also, given a small amount of chance, right most of the time.

I wonder how you will receive my moral idea?

Thanks?

You've only stated a tautology.

"Right" means "moral."

All you've said is "Partially moral most of the time is moral."

 

[jayem]

If I understand the OP, it sounds something like casuistry. Which is simply the concept that ethical decisions can only be made on a case-by-case basis. Which in actuality is the only realistic approach. Although casuistic ethics includes the proviso that the same moral decision that was made in one case, should be made in another case if the situations are alike. Casuistry also incorporates the idea of a prima facie wrong. This refers to a decision that, on its face, is always morally wrong. But may sometimes be necessary, if not making it results in a greater, ultima facie wrong. In the end, it's a case-by-case determination. Casuistry is essentially pragmatic, and reflects the morally convoluted nature of the real world.

 

[Gottservant]

You've only stated a tautology.

"Right" means "moral."

All you've said is "Partially moral most of the time is moral."

I would argue that right, aligns with "right action"; whereas "moral" means "partially right action most of the time" (not necessarily completely right or all of the time) - from which we get a moral choice.

The moral choice is, how close to the silver line can we get - without compromising the meaning of our intent?

In principle, anyway: I'm not saying without principle people can't hijack what they think morality is, it just won't be this.

 

[Gottservant]

If I understand the OP, it sounds something like casuistry. Which is simply the concept that ethical decisions can only be made on a case-by-case basis. Which in actuality is the only realistic approach. Although casuistic ethics includes the proviso that the same moral decision that was made in one case, should be made in another case if the situations are alike. Casuistry also incorporates the idea of a prima facie wrong. This refers to a decision that, on its face, is always morally wrong. But may sometimes be necessary, if not making it results in a greater, ultima facie wrong. In the end, it's a case-by-case determination. Casuistry is essentially pragmatic, and reflects the morally convoluted nature of the real world.

It is a case by case application, of the same neurological exercise.

The importance of this definition, is that frees us from being exhaustive about the meaning of morality and allows us to move sensibly on to actually taking on "moral acts".

If the Silver Line varied from case, you would have an argument, but the fact is that the Silver Line only varies as much as it takes, to make moral action true.

 

[durangodawood]

....The fat man who could stop a runaway cart on train tracks - if you pushed him -, does not pass this test, because this action is partially right but not most of the time: there may be other runaway carts, other people....

Why is it wrong some times, but right others?

 

[Gottservant]

Why is it wrong some times, but right others?

It is wrong sometimes but not others, because there are factors like: is he willing? is he fat enough? are you fast enough? do you need to add your own weight? could you cope with the stress? could those you are saving accept the sacrifice?

All this adds up to too many questions, for too little reason.

If something has the effect of you walking around wondering when it will be time to push someone off a bridge, it is being unreasonable?

 

[Gottservant]

I think there is a guide here, for Evolutionists, actually.

An Evolutionist does not need to be right about Evolution, all the time: for them to be "moral Evolutionists".

The same goes for anything that is able to do some good, but not all good - they should fundamentally have a call to action, that is in favour of changing for the better (as being partially right, most of the time, implies).

 

[Paidiske]

It sounds to me as if what you're describing has some elements in common with virtue ethics.

Is that approach familiar to you?

 

[Gottservant]

It sounds to me as if what you're describing has some elements in common with virtue ethics.

Is that approach familiar to you?

I just wikipedia-ed it and you are right it looks similar: I would contend, how ever, that it has a singular virtue, viz. that morality is its singular focus.

It is basically the first complement to the Golden Rule.

It is supposed to exercise the conscience, with a focus on balance between reason and effectuality.

 

[Sketcher]

Hi there,

So I wanted to present a model for morality that is different from utilitarianism and deontology. That model is simply:



Essentially, it builds on an experience of trying to be moral. It does not need specific instructions or specific consequences, but adapts, within the confines of the ability of the individual for effort, viz., moral effort.

The idea is that you take up this cause, with every new Day and bear out the fact that moral choices, vary day by day, depending on circumstance. In this way the individual comes to identify with heroism, in the true sense of the word that it is a burden begun first in the imagination of could be and a burden that ends in the mind as to what had to have been.

The fat man who could stop a runaway cart on train tracks - if you pushed him -, does not pass this test, because this action is partially right but not most of the time: there may be other runaway carts, other people.

Likewise, telling a white lie does not pass this test, because even if you could do it most of the time, it is not partially right.

As to selecting people to enter a bunker during a nuclear holocaust, a broad spectrum of talent would be reasonable, because it is partially right and also, given a small amount of chance, right most of the time.

I wonder how you will receive my moral idea?

Thanks?

"Partially right?" 10% right is "partially," as is 90% right.

 

[Gottservant]

"Partially right?" 10% right is "partially," as is 90% right.

That's right, the degree and extreme to which you are moral, are not moral decisions - they are conscientious decisions (about being moral).

 

[Gottservant]

I still refer to this, even now.

It is a great relief to know that I have not abandoned "morality", simply because I am not right all the time.

 

[Gottservant]

The statement "partially right, most of the time, is moral" is itself only moral, in so far as it is true.

No one can hold someone else to account, without innocence, if they do not accept this.

The point is to encourage people to interpret morality as freely as possible.

 

[Gottservant]

I just want to address the idea that this is casuistry (case by case).

If I understand the OP, it sounds something like casuistry. Which is simply the concept that ethical decisions can only be made on a case-by-case basis. Which in actuality is the only realistic approach. Although casuistic ethics includes the proviso that the same moral decision that was made in one case, should be made in another case if the situations are alike. Casuistry also incorporates the idea of a prima facie wrong. This refers to a decision that, on its face, is always morally wrong. But may sometimes be necessary, if not making it results in a greater, ultima facie wrong. In the end, it's a case-by-case determination. Casuistry is essentially pragmatic, and reflects the morally convoluted nature of the real world.

Where the Silver Line differs, is that it is not appropriate for every case - as would be onerous - nor is it right the same way for every case - since what is right is "interpretive", sometimes more sometimes less.

Where you might be struggling is the idea that the Silver Line is the only "way" of 'expressing' the Silver Line: some people say "She'll be right", other people say "we'll wait and see", still others say "its a matter of what sign you see" - all these things are approximations of the Silver Line, that are more effective in their own right at describing the same thing. It's just that the Silver Line is easier and lighter to remember in the end?

Don't exhaust yourself, just do what you can, often enough and it will add up to enough - that's the Silver Line!

 

[Gottservant]

You could also phrase it "not partially right, not most of the time, as a rule, is immoral".

 

[o_mlly]

It is wrong sometimes but not others, because there are factors like: is he willing? is he fat enough? are you fast enough? do you need to add your own weight? could you cope with the stress? could those you are saving accept the sacrifice?

In your thinking you might consider separating the determination of the morality of the act (objective) which is different than the determination of the culpability of the actor (subjective).

No objectively immoral act is ever made moral by the actor's intent or his/her particular circumstances. However, circumstances can mitigate or, in some cases, even eliminate the actor's culpability for the immoral act.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Hi there,

So I wanted to present a model for morality that is different from utilitarianism and deontology. That model is simply:



Essentially, it builds on an experience of trying to be moral. It does not need specific instructions or specific consequences, but adapts, within the confines of the ability of the individual for effort, viz., moral effort.

The idea is that you take up this cause, with every new Day and bear out the fact that moral choices, vary day by day, depending on circumstance. In this way the individual comes to identify with heroism, in the true sense of the word that it is a burden begun first in the imagination of could be and a burden that ends in the mind as to what had to have been.

The fat man who could stop a runaway cart on train tracks - if you pushed him -, does not pass this test, because this action is partially right but not most of the time: there may be other runaway carts, other people.

Likewise, telling a white lie does not pass this test, because even if you could do it most of the time, it is not partially right.

As to selecting people to enter a bunker during a nuclear holocaust, a broad spectrum of talent would be reasonable, because it is partially right and also, given a small amount of chance, right most of the time.

I wonder how you will receive my moral idea?

Thanks?

You say you don't want to present a deontological model of morality but then bring up trains and rescuing people. If someone doesn't volunteer to rescue people from a train, they fail the test. This sounds like a deontological model of morality. Is it everyone's duty to stand there all day waiting to rescue someone or is it the responsibility of the people who use the train to recognize that it could be dangerous and they may die if they decide to use the train?

 

[Gottservant]

You say you don't want to present a deontological model of morality but then bring up trains and rescuing people. If someone doesn't volunteer to rescue people from a train, they fail the test. This sounds like a deontological model of morality. Is it everyone's duty to stand there all day waiting to rescue someone or is it the responsibility of the people who use the train to recognize that it could be dangerous and they may die if they decide to use the train?

Whose duty it is or responsibility it is, comes down the need for more righteousness or more time, respectively.

Both of those things are addressed by the Silver Line (that partially right, most of the time, is moral).

I think your interpretation was brilliant, and perceptive, but you seem to be suggesting that I forget keeping a definition of what is moral, in mind - understanding the Silver Line brings forgiveness and redemption, without which nothing would be 'moral')