Morality - A Question on approach:

[2ndRateMind]

From my brief readings in ethics, it would seem that there are three main academic approaches to morality:

 

Consequentialism. The morality of an activity depends on the outcome of that activity. A typical example would be classic utilitarianism; 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number' should be the test to apply. The pagan injunction to 'Do as ye wish, an' ye harm none', would be another.

 

Virtue ethics. A righteous act is an act typical of a righteous person. Righteousness flows out of good moral character. The ancient Greeks believed something like this, and the approach has recently been revived among moral philosophers.

 

Deontology. Ethics is a matter of following prescribed rules, often with a claim to divine provenance. One keeps the law, because the law demands you keep the law. Orthodox Judaism, and Islamic submission to the will of God, are both good examples here.

 

Which of these three approaches, outcome, character or rule, would be most consistent with LDS doctrine? Or, do you have an entirely different view about what makes a moral act moral?

 

Thanks and best wishes, 2RM.

[james12]

From my brief readings in ethics, it would seem that there are three main academic approaches to morality:

 

Consequentialism. The morality of an activity depends on the outcome of that activity. A typical example would be classic utilitarianism; 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number' should be the test to apply. The pagan injunction to 'Do as ye wish, an' ye harm none', would be another.

This is not part of the gospel as believed by LDS people. The ends do not justify the means because we do not know all the consequences of our actions (which extend into the next life). A common hymn says, "do what is right let the consequence follow" because right is right regardless of earthly outcomes.

 

Virtue ethics. A righteous act is an act typical of a righteous person. Righteousness flows out of good moral character. The ancient Greeks believed something like this, and the approach has recently been revived among moral philosophers.

I believe this hits closest to what we believe. In the Book of Mormon Moroni said, "For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing....Wherefore, a man being evil cannot do that which is good; neither will he give a good gift" (Moroni 7:6,10). God works from the inside out. He changes our hearts and we change our actions.

 

Deontology. Ethics is a matter of following prescribed rules, often with a claim to divine provenance. One keeps the law, because the law demands you keep the law. Orthodox Judaism, and Islamic submission to the will of God, are both good examples here.

Rules by themselves do not change a man. Nephi hit on this point when he said, "Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end the law was given. And after the law is fulfilled in Christ, that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away" (2 Ne 25:27). We must begin with rules and consequences but they are not the end. At some point, they become dead. The law is designed to change us and lead us to follow Christ's way.

[Crypto]

It would seem to me to be a mixture of virtue ethics and Deontology.

By following the Law one can be be of good moral character, In outward appearance at least. Following the law doesn't a change of heart make. As james12 said.

[MrShorty]

Perhaps my church instruction has been different from the other two responders, but I have seen quite a bit of consequentialism in my church instruction:

 

Word of wisdom for example -- He who keeps the word of wisdom will have good health, and we are quite fond of reviewing any scientific studies that support it.

 

Chastity before marriage -- If you keep yourself clean before marriage, you can get married in the temple. Some also like to point to studies that show better marriage outcomes for those who waited until marriage.

 

One of the recurring themes in the BoM is "If you keep my commandments, you will prosper in the land."

 

I see all three approaches to morality in the church instruction I have received.

[mordorbund]

 

Virtue ethics. A righteous act is an act typical of a righteous person. Righteousness flows out of good moral character. The ancient Greeks believed something like this, and the approach has recently been revived among moral philosophers.

 

 

Could you explain virtue ethics better? I'm just reading a tautology here. A righteous act (which I'm guessing is used to define morality) is an act typical of a righteous person. What defines a righteous person? Why, a person with good moral character (right back at the start again).

[2ndRateMind]

Yes, of course ethics in real life is a messy business. All three approaches have problems. As James12 pointed out, the difficulty with consequentialism is calculating consequences into the future. As for character, well, who decides who is righteous? And on what basis? Deontological ethics are my least favourite, however. The idea of keeping rules for the sake of the rule holds little appeal for a rebel spirit like me. I can see the point of other people keeping to rules I approve of, though!

 

The best strategy may well be to choose one's ethical approach according to the pertinent circumstances, bearing always in mind the strengths and weaknesses of each. My own feeling, at the end of the day, in any given scenario, is that provided one is seeking for the optimal best interests of all the interested parties, one has the right attitude, at least.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

PS Just seen your post, mordorbund. I agree with you.

[james12]

Perhaps my church instruction has been different from the other two responders, but I have seen quite a bit of consequentialism in my church instruction:

 

Word of wisdom for example -- He who keeps the word of wisdom will have good health, and we are quite fond of reviewing any scientific studies that support it.

 

Chastity before marriage -- If you keep yourself clean before marriage, you can get married in the temple. Some also like to point to studies that show better marriage outcomes for those who waited until marriage.

 

One of the recurring themes in the BoM is "If you keep my commandments, you will prosper in the land."

 

I see all three approaches to morality in the church instruction I have received.

I agree that there is at times a consequentialistic approach presented by individuals within the church. However, I find it has little support in the scriptures and I would say on an individual level it is not part of the gospel. Your examples of the the word of wisdom and chastity are not the reasons most members obey these laws. Rather, they are side benefits. 

 

The example of keeping the commandments to prosper in the land is interesting. I would say this is applicable in aggregate but not on an individual level. For example, the Nephites prospered in the land if they kept the commandments but someone like Abinadi is still burned at the stake even though he was a prophet of God.

[2ndRateMind]

Yes. I go along with this. I do not think the virtuous necessarily prosper in this life, only in the next. And this can only count as an argument in favour of virtue if all are agreed that God exists, and is benevolent and just, and the concept of what constitutes virtue is held in common. Altogether, though, I am suspicious of attempts to promise heavenly rewards for earthly activity. So often they are attempts by an established centre of power to hold others in thrall. I am much more sympathetic to arguments for virtue that are independent of one's creed, and confine themselves to known, earthly effects.

 

So for example, one might argue that if everyone was virtuous, the world would be a better place for all concerned. That kind of consequentialism might work for anyone, of any religion, or of none.

 

Cheers, 2RM.

[Urstadt]

Virtue ethics is not so much about a righteous act coming from a righteous person. This is circular reasoning and Aristotle (the author of virtue ethics) wouldn't have surrendered his philosophy to that kind of relativism.

Instead, virtue ethics is about being virtuous for virtue's sake. I am not honest in my dealings with my fellow man so that I may be admired by men or so that people give me their business. I am honest for honesty's sake. Because that is the virtuous thing to do, period. I'm with Aristotle on this to a certain point. Where I stop being a fan of virtue ethics is where Christ is removed from the equation. Glorifying Him is removed from the equation.

Deontology is crap.

Consequentialism isn't really morality, it's instrumental reasoning and pragmatism. However, I am not knocking it at all. There are times that I refrain from doing something merely because I don't want the consequences. E.g., I refrain from speeding on the road not because of some intrinsic moral stand I take, I just don't want the ticket. So, it definitely has its place, just not in morality.

As for a moral philosophy that is closest to the gospel, I find relational ontology (as put forth by dialogism and ontological hermeneutics) to be the closest to the gospel. We are relational creatures, co-constituted by our relationships (e.g., I cannot be a therapist until I have a client I am working with in therapy). So, from a relational ontology perspective, the purpose of all morality is to serve others. The purpose of religion is to serve others. I am not Mormon because I want to go to Heaven. I am Mormon so I can serve others with compassion in a Christ-like way that glorifies Him.

With virtue ethics, consequentialism, and deontology, the focus is inward. The focus is on the individual. With relational ontology, the focus of morality is on the other. Morality is something we participate in with others, not something we have or not, it's not something we are or not. We participate in morality with others.

To me, relational ontology is the philosophy that most resembles morality in our church.

(See the quote in my signature by John Macmurray.)

Edited August 23, 2014 by Urstadt

[2ndRateMind]

Thanks, Urstadt, for that concise and comprehensive review. I like what you have had to say.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Urstadt]

Thanks, Urstadt, for that concise and comprehensive review. I like what you have had to say.

Best wishes, 2RM.

You're welcome. If you ever want to chat further, or want some references, feel free to reach out to me at any time. I'm also more than happy to continue discussing it here.

[2ndRateMind]

Thanks for that offer. I will take you up on it, to discuss further here, once I have digested what you have had to say and worked out it's implications. It may take me some time. I am, after all, only 2ndRateMind!

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited August 23, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[SanctitasDeo]

I think I tend to agree with Urstadt that relational ontology seems to represent (at least my knowledge and opinions of) Mormonism best out of the four mentioned. Most of the commandments and imperatives in Mormonism involve other people and are often (thought not always) taught in such a way that can make that involvement obvious. There is not really an individualist Mormonism; it is a communal religion, even if we have stopped emphasizing/practicing the earlier communitarianism that we had. 

[2ndRateMind]

So, I have done a (very) little reading up on this relational ontology thing, which is completely new to me. It seems that we have the idea of object->relationship->subject. But relational ontology seems to stress the relationship almost to the exclusion of subject and object. This bothers me a little, and the reason is twofold.

 

Firstly, you can have objects without relationships, but not relationships without objects.

 

Secondly, the quality of those relationships seems, to me at least, to depend on the qualities of the object and subject.

 

I'm still inclined to give objects and subjects primacy, even though I wholeheartedly agree with what I take to be the central idea, that relationships are vitally important, and improving them does us, and the world, much good.

 

Anyway, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing; and perhaps you have comments you might like to make, to correct my over-simplified idea of what this school of thought is all about.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited September 9, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Urstadt]

So, I have done a (very) little reading up on this relational ontology thing, which is completely new to me. This bothers me a little, and the reason is twofold.

Excellent. You are bringing up some key points of a relational ontology. I am happy to clarify a few points.

It seems that we have the idea of object->relationship->subject. But relational ontology seems to stress the relationship almost to the exclusion of subject and object.

I agree, it does seem that way but rest assured that your objections are well placed. Subject and object are not excluded in relationality. They don't just dissolve into a relationship. Relational ontology says that everything exists in relationship and are therefore co-constituted. So, subject and object exist in relation to each other. Furthermore, we cannot understand the subject or the object without our relationship to it. It is in our relationship to and with them that they become sensible to us. Here are so basic examples:

Tall cannot exist without short. Tall exists only in relation to short.

Dark exists only in relation to bright.

A hammer is just an inaimate object until we understand its purpose. What a hammer is changes based on what understanding of purpose a person has for it. A hammer is only a hammer to someone who recognizes/uses it as a hammer. To someone else, a hammer may be a paperweight or wall decoration. It may merely be scrap for someone who doesn't know what one is.

A chair is not a chair if no one in the room understands/knows it to be a chair.

Firstly, you can have objects without relationships, but not relationships without objects.

Excellent point. Relational ontology agrees with you to a large extent. What this framework adds to this, though, is that while objects can and does exist without certain kinds of relationships, these objects can only be understood through our relationship to/with them. Even our theorizing about them is a type of relationship (e.g., object of study and student). I only know how to treat others because of my relationship to them. Even complete strangers, I know to how to approach them and treat them because I know how to act in my relationships to strangers.

Furthermore, some aspects of relationships are inescapable. Tall absolutely cannot exist without short. A rock always exists in relation to its location, the other objects around it (e.g. other rocks, a tree, the lake). Even in relation to other elements (e.g. solids and liquids). Most aspects of relationality are completely inescapable.

Even subjects cannot escape relationality. Atheism only makes sense in relation to religion. Physics cannot exist without math. Neither can engineering for that matter. Psychotherapy cannot exist without philosophy. Neither can the laws of our lands. You and I cannot exist without our relationships to others. Even if you never talk to or interact with a single person on this planet, you still exist in relation to others: as loner, outcast, the quiet one, etc.

Secondly, the quality of those relationships seems, to me at least, to depend on the qualities of the object and subject.

Well, yes, and our understanding of those qualities. The qualities absolutely have a determining effect on the qualites of our relationships, but those qualities are meaningless without our understanding of them. Even if we don't understand an object, it still exists in relation to us as an object that is not understandable. Or we will attach an understanding to it (e.g. cave men using a box tv as a chair, table, or stackable). Those qualities are never excluded, they are just either sensible to us or not.

I'm still inclined to give objects and subjects primacy, even though I wholeheartedly agree with what I take to be the central idea, that relationships are vitally important, and improving them does us, and the world, much good.

I'm with tou on this. Which gets primacy, though, is hard for me to decide. It seems to that the relationship between subject and object makes them equal. Each is co-constituted (what I was saying above) by the other. Short is co-constituted by tall. I am co-constituted by my relationship with you, and others on lds.net, as well as the world. This co-constitution is what makes us equal. On the other hand, if all things are co-constituted, then you, 2RM, giving objects/subjects primacy is one of the co-constitutive aspects in your relations to both in the world.

Have I shed some light on relational ontology for you? Is there anything else still unclear? Do you have any other questions?

I do have a concise peer-review journal article regarding this that I could send you, in addition to your studies and our dialogue, if you're interested.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Urstadt