What is the difference between a moral and a nonmoral issue?

By Lee Archie <larchie@philosophy.lander.edu>

What is the difference between a moral and a nonmoral issue?

While thinking about this question, I looked at several dictionaries of the English language and several philosophical dictionaries in the library. None of these sources, including the philosophical ones, were particularly helpful. “Moral” was linked to “ethical” and vice versa. The only way out of this circularity was linking one or the other of these terms to “good and bad,” “right and wrong,” “duty,” and so forth. Yet, these latter terms, in turn, were linked back to the original terms.

The definition of a term, to be helpful, must, in a sense, be circular since no more or less than what the term means should be indicated by the definition. However, the lexical definitions I consulted are viciously circular—the meaning of “moral” would have to be known already in order to understand the definition. Not surprisingly, the author of our text, John Hospers, merely indicates that the distinction between “moral” and “nonmoral” is not a sharp one to many persons.

To suppose that the distinction between “moral” and “nonmoral” can be made on the basis of conscience, intuition, revelation, or feeling, is, in my opinion, a serious mistake because, since different people differ in conscience, intuition, revelation, and feeling, the distinction between the terms would essentially be subjective. This state of affairs would imply that when we use the words “ought,” “right,” “duty,” and so forth, these words would have no public meaning. The possibility of having an ethical theory would be undermined.

For these reasons, I believe that if a distinction between the terms can be made, the distinction must be based on ordinary language. By looking at the situations in which these terms are used, the only non-viciously circular use I am aware of is in referring to the consequences of the behavior and character of human beings. If no human being existed on this earth, I do not believe that we would say morals or ethics existed.

Thus, the key to this seemingly intractable problem is the notion of “choice.” Without choice, there can be no morals because one “could not have done otherwise,” and so an action could not meaningfully be termed “right” or “wrong.” Finally, I think we describe choices with moral terms based upon their ceteris paribus consequences. If an action has the potential to help or harm another person or yourself, then that action is of moral concern. If the action has no potential to help or harm another person or yourself, then that action is a nonmoral issue. Now, it is meaningful to say we ought to do those actions that have the greatest potential to help and ought not do those which have the greatest potential to harm. My distinction now rests on whether or not we can define “help” or “harm.” If we can, then the definition is of use and is no longer viciously circular.

All words have an open-texture or a certain indeterminacy of application. For example, there are possible occasions when we could not be sure whether an object should be called a chair, even though we are clear about what a chair is. So, likewise, there are situations in which we might not know whether or not there are possible consequences that help or harm others or ourselves; nevertheless, when such situations arise, these undecidable cases can be handled through stipulative definitions. For example, if we see a ten-foot object in the shape of a chair, we can stipulate that nothing over four-feet tall is to count as a chair.

To submit a comment, click here.

g. snyder <g_snyder@hotmail.com>

i think your paper is thought out well, but i wonder what you would say about stoic ethics. since stoics think things in the world are beyond our control, then an act could have no consequences since these are causal. your definitions would not apply.

Leah <coco_c_007@hotmail.com>

Though the thoughts you expressed were certainly valid, they made me realize exactly why the notion of ethics as an entity seperate from conscience, intuition, revelation, and feeling gives me a small case of the willies. By objectifying ethics, we are essentially telling others that we know what's best for them, and that they should follow a set of guidelines that someone else has come up with because this someone else obviously knows what's good for them. In effect, it almost seems that we're taking away the rights of those around us to choose what path is best for them. I do agree that some sort of standards should be set, but not that they should be applied across the board without regard to various religiosn, up-bringings, social strata, and the like.

Anna C. Nance <eirendel@yahoo.com>

Well thought out.

Nichole Sanders <snk79@hotmail.com>

Your paper was well thought out, but a little confusing. In a way i understand but then just as i'm getting I lose it.

Amy Young <bbfhyoung@yahoo.com>

Your paper is very thorough, however, it took me several readings to understand your entire position. The ironic thing is that the point is very simple and makes a lot of sense. Now the problem is where do we go from here if it is so difficult to define meanings that are intrinsic to English speakers? Ethics is all about language and interpretation isn’t it.

Brian W. Bearden <bbearden@student.lander.edu>

It appears you put a lot of thought into your paper; however, it seems that the true difference between a moral and nonmoral issue is just a matter of opinion because everyone views things differently as a result of their own beliefs.

Brian W. Bearden <bbearden@student.lander.edu>

Jamie Meadows <riojeepgrl@yahoo.com>

Interesting thoughts, because that is what your paper is, thoughts. What is moral or immoral is an interesting question and you answered like a politician, very carefully, you seem to not want to offend anyone. But, I wouldn't mind learning (in class) about what is considered BEING moral or immoral. Anyway, your paper is one I would have expected from a professor, very thurough.

Gina Baker <daphine10@hotmail.com>

I thought that your paper was very well organized, but it was a little hard for me to follow. I had to read it a couple of times before I understood everything.

Tom Lundis <Kman26@hotmail.com>

In your paper you state that ethics derives from choice. Would that not then mean that in B.F. Skinner's view there would be no such thing as ethics? If we are but cogs in a machine or clay to be molded, then we are not responsible for our actions. If we are not responsible for our actions, then would ther be no basis moral discussion?

jennifer lester <lesterjennifer@hotmail.com>

Dr. Archie thoroughly covered the topic. stoic ethics poses
no problems. it seems as if free will, which is closely linked
to choice, causes confusion. even stoics have to choose. the decision may
be small, but choice is unavoidable. we choose to sleep in,
what to eat for dinner, etc. humans are driven by circumstance
to choose, whether or not the outcome is directly in their control is
irrelevent.

Michelle Komski <michellekomski@hotmail.com>

I think this paper is well thought out but at the same time doesn't really answer the question asked. It seems to be saying there is no way to tell the difference between the two.

Michael T Tucker <tuckerm@greenwood.net>

Good paper, I kind of got tired when reading it. I think you were right, I was a little too long.

Michael T Tucker <tuckerm@greenwood.net>

Good paper, I kind of got tired when reading it. I think you were right, It was a little too long.

Chun Yeung <jane1227@yahoo.com>

I think it is a good paper, and it makes sense to me. Especially, no choice, no moral.

D. Andrews <dandrews92@hotmail.com>

Nice job--I especially agree with your point on "stipulative definitions."

Rachel Crowe <rcrowe@usa.net>

Your definitions of moral and nonmoral were clear. Some examples of moral and nonmoral issues may help in order to provide an even better understanding.

Tim Andrews <tandrews@emeraldis.com>

I agree--the only way of differentiating between a moral or nonmoral issue is by determining whether or not an action has the potential to help or harm a person (or people).

Matthew Knight <mknight_dsb@hotmail.com>

I understand your argument about the circularity of the deffinitions of moral and nonmoral. I agree that to fully define the issue common language must be used.

Nick Hart <hart125@hotmail.com>

what is the difference nonmoral and immoral

Russell Martin <rangjung21@hotmail.com>

did you consult the Oxford English Dictionary(OED)?

Daniel <hollytreeds@hotmail.com>

Type Your Comment Here

daniel <hollytreeds@hotmail.com>

I think the paper had some good examples of moral and nonmoral defintions, i got confused few times but other than that well written paper

Due Date <2/21/2000>

Formal comments completed