Morality Part 1

Let’s start with some broad, generally acceptable concepts.

Human beings are, among other things, creatures of action. We do things. We perform actions.

Morality is the assigning of values to our actions. A value of good is assigned to some actions, meaning that these actions are those that we should perform, and a value of bad is assigned to some other actions, meaning that these actions are those that we should not perform. We say that performing good actions is the right thing to do, and that performing bad actions is the wrong thing to do.

Not all human actions are necessarily assigned a moral value. Some actions we perform are neither good nor bad, right nor wrong, prescribed nor proscribed. We refer to these actions as amoral, or not in the sphere of morality.

These broad, generally acceptable concepts are our starting place as moral philosophers. Moral philosophy encompasses so many spheres of thinking that the fact that we can come up with any starting place at all is rather surprising. Everything we’ve said so far would be agreed to by the Pope, Freddy Nietzsche, John Stuart Mill, and Manny Kant, not to mention Moe, Larry and Curly. I would venture that even Shemp, after squinting his eyes a bit and thinking, would concur that, so far, so good.

But, honestly, we haven’t gotten very far at all. All we’ve done is define morality in a most neutral fashion, trying to shake from it any presuppositions about right or wrong per se. At this point our goal is merely knowing what it is we’re talking about.

BEHOLD THE PARABLE OF THE PUP:

Dogs are, among other things, creatures of action. They do things. They perform actions.

Dogs that are domesticated have human masters. A human master often assigns a value of good to some of a dog’s actions, meaning that these actions are those that the dog should perform, and a value of bad is assigned to some other actions, meaning that these actions are those that the dog should not perform. The human master says that performing good actions is the right thing to do, and that performing bad actions is the wrong thing to do. Good actions for dogs might include sitting, or staying, or pooping outdoors. Bad actions for dogs might include biting, jumping on the bed or pooping indoors. The determination of good and bad is entirely up to the master.

Dogs might be trained to do good things by a system of rewards, and trained not to do bad things by a system of punishments. But not all canine actions are necessarily assigned a moral value by a master. Some actions a dog performs are neither good nor bad, right nor wrong, prescribed nor proscribed. Sleeping in the backyard under a tree, chewing on a bone, drinking water, could be actions a master does not assign a value to.

In the parable of the pup, the dog does not determine right and wrong. This determination is done by the master. The master reveals to the dog which actions are good and which actions are bad.

How the master decides which actions are right and which actions are wrong is not seen in this parable.

THUS ENDS THE PARABLE OF THE PUP