What are moral principles? And why believe in them? by George Dance
(libertarian)
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Libertarians are fond of using the word "principle". The U.S. Libertarian Party has had the nickname, the "Party of Principle", since its founding. Not all libertarians support that party, of course; but few, if any, who reject the party also reject its principles. On the contrary, libertarians who reject the party usually argue (in whole or in part) that it violates, betrays, or sells out libertarian principles. To most libertarians, principles are of supreme importance.
So what is a principle? Like any word in common use, this one can be defined in many, slightly different ways. For example, dictionary.com gives 13 definitions for "principle." The top five are:
1. an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles. 2. a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics. 3. a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics. 4. principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles. 5. guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle.(1)
Definition 1 incorporates what type of principles libertarians are talking about: moral or ethical principles (ie, rules of action or conduct); however, it is too broad, since not all rules are principles. 2 and 3 convey an important truth: to be a principle, a rule has to be fundamental or primary . 4 and 5 look like the most applicable definitions: a principle is the basis of conduct, which supplies a guiding sense of ... right conduct.
A principle, then (as we are using the word), means a fundamental or primary rule of action that gives a guiding sense of right or wrong and thereby serves as a basis of conduct.
Which leads to obvious next questions: Why have principles at all? Do we need them? Why not just get along without them?
To properly answer those questions, we have to look at a philosophical problem called the is-ought gap.
Discovery of the is-ought gap is credited to 18th-century Scottish philosopher David Hume. Hume wrote a book about the principles of morals (called, with due imagination, On the Principles of Morals); however, his description of the is-ought gap is from an earlier work, the Treatise of Human Nature, that he wrote when he was in his twenties. In that earlier, more radical book, Hume repudiated reasoning about ethics entirely, pointing to a problem in past and present moral reasoning:
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.(2)
In other words, descriptive (is) statements are different from ethical (ought) statements: so different that it is 'inconceivable' (and therefore impossible) that one could deduce one from the other.
For example, take this argument (called a sorites, as its actually an interconnected series of arguments): P1. Genocide is the mass killing of people. P2. In a mass killing, both the innocent and the guilty are killed. C1. Therefore, a mass killing is killing innocent people. C2. Therefore, genocide is killing innocent people. C3. Therefore, genocide is morally wrong.
In this argument, P1 and P2 are the premises, and C1 and C2 the conclusions. P1-C1, and P1-C2, are valid arguments, meaning that the conclusions follow validly, or logically, from the premises. That means that, if P1 and P2 are both true, then the conclusions C1 and C2 are also true. Conversely, if either C1 or C2 are false, then one of the premises must be false. (It is that second aspect of valid arguments that Ayn Rand was referring to in her constant pleas to Check your premises.)
P1-C3, on the other hand, is not a valid argument. Genocide is morally wrong is an ought statement (one ought not to commit genocide), which does not follow from the previous statements. In order to get to C3, one needs an ought statement:
P3. Killing innocent people is morally wrong.
Add P3 and the argument is valid.
Suppose that, instead of P3, one used a different is statement, such as
P4. God forbids the killing of innocent people.
That still does not add up to a valid argument; unless one also adds an ought premise:
P5. Whatever God forbids is morally wrong.
So what does that have to do with principles? Well, remember how we defined a moral principle: as a fundamental or primary rule of action, that gives one a guiding sense of right or wrong, and therefore serves as a basis of conduct. A moral principle, then, is (1) a moral statement that (2) is fundamental or primary meaning -- that is not derived from any previous statement.
Every ought statement is either justified by reasoning, or not so justified. If a statement is not justified, then it is fundamental or primary; i.e., a principle. If a statement is so justified, then it is a conclusion to a moral argument. Every ought statement, then, is either a principle, or a moral conclusion.
If a statement A is a moral conclusion, then it follows from a valid argument, which (as we have seen) has to be an argument with at least one moral premise B. That premise B, in turn, must be either a principle or a moral conclusion. If B is a moral conclusion, then it follows from a valid argument, which has to contain at least one moral statement C. C, in turn, must be either a principle or a moral conclusion; if C is a conclusion, then it must be a conclusion from an argument containing at least one moral statement D; in turn, D must be either a principle or a moral conclusion; etc.
It is possible for A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, ... to all be moral conclusions, each derived via a chain of reasoning from previous moral statements. However, it is not possible for such a chain of reasoning to be infinite: because that means one never actually justifies any of those conclusions. Every chain of reasoning requires a first premise or premises; every chain of moral reasoning requires at least one first moral premise; and that first moral premise is exactly what was defined above as a principle.
Every moral statement then, must be either a moral principle, or a conclusion to a chain of reasoning that begins with a moral principle. For every moral statement, then, there must be a corresponding moral principle; and everyone who believes in or agrees with a moral statement believes in a moral principle.
And everyone would agree with at least one moral or ethical statement. Even those who explicit reject morality would agree that it is wrong to force one's morality on others, which is a moral statement.
Since all of us -- all the people in the world -- believe in moral statements, then all of us believe in moral principles. And since each of us believes some moral statements, each of us believes some moral principles.
All we disagree on is what the correct moral principles are. But that is a question best left to another article.
---
Sources
(1) “Principle,” Dictionary.com LLC, Web, May 18, 2011. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principle
(2) "Is-Ought Problem," Wikinfo, May 18, 2011. http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Is-ought_problem
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of George Dance only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
George Dance is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
