Ethics, Deliberation, and Motivation

Let’s consider the situation in which a person has asked, about some situation, “what should I do?” Obviously this comes up all of the time, so you’d think that we would have a pretty good idea what is happening when someone is deliberating in this way.

Filling in some particulars, let’s say that the person is trying to decide whether or not to eat meat, given the ethical considerations of doing so. So the person might consider some things:

Do any or all animals deserve moral standing?
If so, what about eating them violates this moral standing?
If not, ought I refrain from eating meat for another ethical reason, such as world food supply issues?
If so, do all have equal moral standing, or by what criteria do we judge the value of an animal’s life?

And on and on…

Now, I am not posting this in order to start an animal welfare discussion. What I want to discuss is what, exactly, is going on here if we are not assuming some form of moral realism? Because it seems to me that such moral deliberation makes no sense if we aren’t assuming a moral realist standpoint. Yet nobody who I ever discuss ethics with ever wants to commit to a realist position.

Before going further, let’s define moral realism:

This is a paraphrase of the definition in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy

moral realism: a metaethical view committed to the objectivity of ethics, and consisting of three components: 1) A metaphysical component which consists of the claim that there are moral facts and moral properties whose existence and nature are independent of people’s beliefs and attitudes about what is right and wrong. 2) A semantic component that consists of the claim that moral judgments should be construed as assertions about the moral properties of the objects of moral assessment, that moral predicates purport to refer to properties of such objects, that moral judgments can be true or false, and that beliefs can match the propositions that moral judgments express. 3) An epistemological component consisting of the claim that some moral beliefs are true, that there are methods for justifying moral beliefs, and that moral knowledge is possible.

Now that we’ve got the technical definition, lets sum it up this way:

moral realism: the view that there are moral facts, that when we talk about these moral facts we are talking about them in a straightforward and common sense way, and that we can justify and have better and worse beliefs concerning these facts.


At this point, perhaps, this posting will become like one of those choose your own adventure books:

1) If you accept some form of moral realism, please explain your moral realist position.
2) If you do not, please continue below.

Getting back to the original example—the person deliberating about whether or not to eat meat, and if we don NOT accept some form of moral realism:

What are we doing when we deliberate in this way???

I think I’ll stop here for now, realizing that I haven’t written all that I wanted so far, but so that there isn’t too much to discuss. Are we on the same page so far? I want to continue asking what the deliberative questions are attempting to get answers to if moral realism is not a correct position, and whether any other ethical view, such as relativism or subjectivism, could possibly provide justified and/or rational motivation.

Pops

If you're just
gonna watch tv
then I do recommend
a second job

---

Do we have
to sign every hour over to
the public?

---

Badmitton--
what the hell am I doing
playing this game?

---

The watch does not
stop ticking if you
break its glass

Titles

I've been thinking about titles lately because I'm trying to come up with a title for my play. The entire play is done, but I simply need a title.

I think that you can break down titles into three groups: the amazing titles, the average titles, and the bad titles. I guess that sounds pretty obvious, but let me elaborate:

The bad titles: it seems to me as if this is maybe 10-15% of all titles. These are the ones that don't seem to fit at all with the content of whatever the thing is, and just seem out of place. A good example--I got a cool card game for a present this year, and the game is called "Lunch Money" but it has absolutely nothing to do with lunch money. It is a card game in which the players play cards that represent fighting moves, in order to beat each other up. Also, the game has a horror feel to it, and "lunch money" has a elementary school feel to it, for obvious reasons. The two don't match at all and it really seems like a crazy name for the game.

The average titles: This is maybe 85-90% of titles. These are ones that merely describe what is going on, or sometimes have something catchy about them, but really aren't that interesting. Anything in the form "The ________" would almost always fall into this category. Even most daring titles would qualify here. I mean, how often is it that a title really makes any difference to the experience of something, at least consciously. Examples: The Castle, The Unforgettable Fire, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, The Empire Strikes Back, The Stranger. They work, but who really cares about them, as titles, at all?

The amazing titles: to me, these are maybe 1% of all titles. These are the titles that say something important themselves that is hopefully also reflected in the work. Sometimes, I think, you can even tell a title is great without having experienced the content of the thing. It could be that the title doesn't fit at all with what is contained in the pages, but usually, it seems to me, if the title is really good, it will likely also fit with the content of that which it represents.

One of my favorite book titles is The Sun Also Rises. I've never read that book, and I bet I wouldn't like the book as much as the title actually. The Sun Also Rises -- Also. That implies so much about the story, and also about what it is to be human. Besides, the sun is such a great symbol already.

I think Hemmingway was a master of titles, though, because he also wrote For Whom the Bell Tolls. (That's not a line from anywhere else that he simply borrowed, is it?)

Another master of titles was Nietzsche. My favorite, and a much copied title of his is: Human, All Too Human (Menschliches, Allzumenschliches in German as he wrote it). If you have ever read Nietzsche, and have an idea of the content of any of his works, you can probably tell that such a title would be fitting. However, if not a fan of Human, All Too Human as a title, he also wrote: The Wanderer and His Shadow, Twilight of the Idols, Daybreak, The Gay Science, and Beyond Good and Evil.

I also like the song title, One Thing Real, by Dan Bern. The songs is funny in parts, but has serious undertones about a search for (obviously) something real--something concrete. In the refrain, the line is sung, "I'm lookin' for one thing real tonight." Now, the thing I like is that the title could have been One Real Thing. It also could have been Something Real. Both of those would have made the content of what was being said almost identical. However, switching the two words "real" and "thing" is great for a number of reasons. First, it takes us away from the problems that cliches have--that we simply miss what is being said because we have heard it so many times. Because he has juxtaposed the words, we have to listen and think because we have not heard the phrase in that order before. Second, the order more correctly fits with the order of thought of someone struggling to find something concrete in their life. Someone in this position is likely realizes that they are struggling, searching, etc. for something, even for one thing! But what kind of thing would they be looking for? Something...REAL! "Real" fits better last because it is the characteristic of the search that is discovered last. Finally, having the word "real" as the final word allows Dan to lengthen and stress the word real, which is, of course, the key word of the song. "I'm looking for one thing reeeeeeeeeaal tonight."

So, I'm stuck with no title for my play. Right now, I'm considering using a title that I've had in mind for a very long time for something. I haven't known what I wanted to use it for, but just that I liked the title--Ice Cream Social. Here's why I like Ice Cream Social as a title:

To start with, I think it immediately strikes the reader as a possible symbol for human existence in society, and I like that. One might say that life is just one big ice cream social. You have a little fun, run around with other kids, as parents, talk about your kids with other adults, chat a bit, and its over. Maybe this is a somewhat limited view of human life, but I think these sorts of symbols are usually most powerful when they overreach themselves a bit. The other thing I like about Ice Cream Social is that to me there is also a hint of someone being left out of the fun--someone sitting in the corner while the children run chasing each other with ice cream stains on their shirts and faces. I think of it similarly to the Renoir painting that is talked about in Amelie, with the focus of discussion about the girl staring into space with the blank look and glass to her mouth.

Totally Tapped of Ideas

Hey, I have nothing interesting to say anymore. I just can't think of anything. If you come up with an interesting point or debate topic, and post it as a comment here, I'll give you 5 merit points.

Think of it--5 points! Imagine what you could do with those points!

Also, 1 merit point for suggesting a good work of fiction that is less than 300 pages.