What is Morality?
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:47 am
Some scholars argue that the readiness to define key words is paramount to any deep conversation. In the following paragraphs I shall offer a definition of morality. It implies that how you treat yourself is as important as how you treat others, in the sense that if you deliberately do the things, persist in the habits, that you know will cripple you or tend to cause yourself an early death, you are in a weaker position to help others. So, if you allow yourself to slip into addiction, mutilation, or some other form of self-abuse, you are not in the strong position you would be if you did not; and thus you will not be able to be of such assistance to people who need your help.
My point is that morality is toward yourself as well as toward others. But what is it? What is "morality"? Since Ethics is about the good life for the good individual person, it is appropriate to first understand what "good" is before we proceed to discuss moral goodness, or morality. I'm going to invoke some Logic now.
In my system of Ethics, I needed a term for the case where - instead of x is a member of the class C - x is now is a member of the class X. Let me explain. When x is a C, that means x is a category or classification. The concept-name is C. For example, this x is a chair. C stands for chair, here.
This particular chair, x - observed by the senses - will be a good chair if x fulfills the definition of what a chair is. If this chair is a knee-high structure, if it has a seat, if it has a back ....then it is good as a chair. This chair has value.
If you believe a chair must have more than its mere bare definition, then you have shifted the concept, say to "easy chair" or "chaise lounge," or "flowery upholstered chair", etc. Then this chair would have to have those extra characteristics, those further properties, in order to fulfill this new description of what you suppose a chair to be. You are the judge valuing it. It is your conception, it is the name you put on it - and the meaning associated with that name - that sets the norm. We have been discussing value in general. And goodness is full value. Value is a matter of degree; meaning is its measure.
Now if x is a member of the unit-class named X, where x is an individual, and X is his proper name, then x can be moral to the extent that x fulfills his own definition of himself: X. The latter must not contain any contradictions else it cannot be fulfilled. A good murderer would be a morally bad person, and the better the individual is as a murderer, the worse as a person.
So, x is-a-member-of X means self being Self. Self is one's self-identity which includes one's self-image, one's values, one's principles, etc. "self" = one's bodily, observable self, one's conduct, behavior, etc. I have named this relationship of self to Self: Morality. Morality is moral value.
Whatever was true of value in general is now true of morality: it is a matter of degree; when complete fulfillment is present we have goodness {also described as sincerity, honesty, authenticity, genuineness, etc.}; it has its dimensions that can be analyzed to see its fine-structure; etc., etc.
To acquire a fuller, more well-rounded picture of the meaning of morality, (within this frame-of-reference), and its extensive implications, see the four parts of the book entitled A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS. Here is a link to the first part of it: http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ETHICS.pdf
After you have looked it over, including the End Notes, let me know what you think about it. Okay?
In order to clear up some possible confusion I should add these comments: Anyone who commits crimes has a contradiction in his self-definition. He is affirming non-harming of individuals (including himself) while at the same time denying non-harming of individuals. If the crime is violent, then even more so is he or she a living contradiction who cannot fulfill his/her self-definition because it is incoherent.
Early in the Unified Theory of Ethics it clearly says, on p. 6:
f your observable self, your conduct, matches your beliefs, (your ‘Self’), and if your beliefs are evolving in a more compassionate, more empathic, more inclusive direction, to that degree you are moral. Your views regarding how to enhance the group(s) to which you belong, as well as how to conduct yourself when you think no one is watching; or, say, how you would behave if you were invisible, Those views comprise what the theory refers to as your ‘self-ideals.’
In the late 1580's, maybe in 1587, these lines were penned:
"To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man." ---William Shakespeare
My definition of "morality" is a very dynamic one. I over-simplified earlier if I left the impression that it is merely "self being Self." Actually, and more accurately, it is "self being true to true Self." More-precisely still, it is "self increasingly corresponding to an improving, constructive (in contrast to 'destructive') Self-image." "To fulfill" in my previous description, means "to be in one-to-one correspondence with." The correspondence is between perceived properties and the property-names which comprise the Self-image (which includes one's self-identity, one's value-structure.) The notion is dynamic because the person is to be growing in an ethical sense, maturing; more and more his Self is to be absorbing the latest views of to what a human being could aspire. S/he is to become all s/he is capable of being and becoming. That is the way I understand the concept.
I'm prepared to answer any questions you may have about this proposed definition. The term arose as a relationship between other concepts in the system. The most appropriate name to put on that relationship seemed to me to be "morality." I hope and trust you find it to be acceptable, once you have studied the complete system ...which will never be complete, as it is evolving, as improvements are suggested, and as new discoveries impel its modification for the better.
My point is that morality is toward yourself as well as toward others. But what is it? What is "morality"? Since Ethics is about the good life for the good individual person, it is appropriate to first understand what "good" is before we proceed to discuss moral goodness, or morality. I'm going to invoke some Logic now.
In my system of Ethics, I needed a term for the case where - instead of x is a member of the class C - x is now is a member of the class X. Let me explain. When x is a C, that means x is a category or classification. The concept-name is C. For example, this x is a chair. C stands for chair, here.
This particular chair, x - observed by the senses - will be a good chair if x fulfills the definition of what a chair is. If this chair is a knee-high structure, if it has a seat, if it has a back ....then it is good as a chair. This chair has value.
If you believe a chair must have more than its mere bare definition, then you have shifted the concept, say to "easy chair" or "chaise lounge," or "flowery upholstered chair", etc. Then this chair would have to have those extra characteristics, those further properties, in order to fulfill this new description of what you suppose a chair to be. You are the judge valuing it. It is your conception, it is the name you put on it - and the meaning associated with that name - that sets the norm. We have been discussing value in general. And goodness is full value. Value is a matter of degree; meaning is its measure.
Now if x is a member of the unit-class named X, where x is an individual, and X is his proper name, then x can be moral to the extent that x fulfills his own definition of himself: X. The latter must not contain any contradictions else it cannot be fulfilled. A good murderer would be a morally bad person, and the better the individual is as a murderer, the worse as a person.
So, x is-a-member-of X means self being Self. Self is one's self-identity which includes one's self-image, one's values, one's principles, etc. "self" = one's bodily, observable self, one's conduct, behavior, etc. I have named this relationship of self to Self: Morality. Morality is moral value.
Whatever was true of value in general is now true of morality: it is a matter of degree; when complete fulfillment is present we have goodness {also described as sincerity, honesty, authenticity, genuineness, etc.}; it has its dimensions that can be analyzed to see its fine-structure; etc., etc.
To acquire a fuller, more well-rounded picture of the meaning of morality, (within this frame-of-reference), and its extensive implications, see the four parts of the book entitled A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS. Here is a link to the first part of it: http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ETHICS.pdf
After you have looked it over, including the End Notes, let me know what you think about it. Okay?
In order to clear up some possible confusion I should add these comments: Anyone who commits crimes has a contradiction in his self-definition. He is affirming non-harming of individuals (including himself) while at the same time denying non-harming of individuals. If the crime is violent, then even more so is he or she a living contradiction who cannot fulfill his/her self-definition because it is incoherent.
Early in the Unified Theory of Ethics it clearly says, on p. 6:
f your observable self, your conduct, matches your beliefs, (your ‘Self’), and if your beliefs are evolving in a more compassionate, more empathic, more inclusive direction, to that degree you are moral. Your views regarding how to enhance the group(s) to which you belong, as well as how to conduct yourself when you think no one is watching; or, say, how you would behave if you were invisible, Those views comprise what the theory refers to as your ‘self-ideals.’
In the late 1580's, maybe in 1587, these lines were penned:
"To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man." ---William Shakespeare
My definition of "morality" is a very dynamic one. I over-simplified earlier if I left the impression that it is merely "self being Self." Actually, and more accurately, it is "self being true to true Self." More-precisely still, it is "self increasingly corresponding to an improving, constructive (in contrast to 'destructive') Self-image." "To fulfill" in my previous description, means "to be in one-to-one correspondence with." The correspondence is between perceived properties and the property-names which comprise the Self-image (which includes one's self-identity, one's value-structure.) The notion is dynamic because the person is to be growing in an ethical sense, maturing; more and more his Self is to be absorbing the latest views of to what a human being could aspire. S/he is to become all s/he is capable of being and becoming. That is the way I understand the concept.
I'm prepared to answer any questions you may have about this proposed definition. The term arose as a relationship between other concepts in the system. The most appropriate name to put on that relationship seemed to me to be "morality." I hope and trust you find it to be acceptable, once you have studied the complete system ...which will never be complete, as it is evolving, as improvements are suggested, and as new discoveries impel its modification for the better.
Here is something to think about, to reflect upon: