Louis O. Kattsoff

Functions and Meaning

In the preceding chapter I have treated words of a certain sort as names of particuler and universal events. But both words and sentences are not only names but bearers of meanings. An event as an unique, simple and undiluted event which can only be indicated cannot, in a sense, be known at all. If all we could do was to recognize the events named, we could not have knowledge of them nor of their structure but only acquaintance with them.

Ends and Means

We have tried to show the relation of moral decisions to moral principles. But every moral argument that ends in a decision must be supported not only by the principle but also by a factual or empirical premise without which the connection between abstract principle and concrete act could never be realized. This second factual premise must be examined more closely if our decisions are to be intelligent.

Moral Principles: Hedonism

We have seen that moral principles are principles used as criteria when we are called upon to make moral decisions. A next step in the understanding of moral decisions, therefore, is to find out what the moral principles are to which people do as a matter of fact appeal.

Nature of Moral Statements

This chapter will explain briefly the various types of statements and then indicate how moral statements can be plausibly interpreted as one or another type of statement. It should be quite evident that the deliberations we are about to undertake are very important. The intelligent person most assuredly is curious about his moral utterances. He not only wants to know how to make moral decisions, but he desires to understand the significance of the statements he uses in arriving at these decisions. Those who happen to be content simply with the ability to use moral principles to make moral judgments perhaps will find this chapter less interesting. Nevertheless, the analysis will unquestionably have its relevance to moral situations. Knowing the nature of a moral statement is important, not so much in the making of a moral decision in a direct fashion as in comprehending what is happening when two people utter incompatible moral statments, especially when these express moral principles or moral judgments. For the necessary steps in solving disagreements are indicated more clearly if we know whether a moral statement is a statement of fact, an emotive expression, or something else.

Freedom and Responsibility

There are certain special problems that need to be considered before we are done. These concern the making of moral decisions in a most intimate fashion and illuminate what is involved in such decisions. One of the most seductive and difficult of these problems occurs when a person accused of an infraction of a moral principle tries to defend himself or excuse his action by an appeal, “I couldn’t help it. I wasn’t responsible for what happened.” This is the cry of Oedipus when it was revealed that he had killed his father and married his mother. Oedipus’ plea was that he could not be held responsible because he committed the crimes in ignorance of the facts. Such is the defense of the person who pleads “temporary insanity.” He didn’t know what he was doing and was impelled to do what he did by uncontrollable impulses and emotions.

The Principle of Duty

The principle of duty, as a moral principle, is not as popular as it once was. People have learned to look upon an appeal to duty with distrust and a feeling of uneasiness. Indeed, even when used in correct contexts, the one who calls others to do their duty tends to be apologetic and somewhat embarrassed. The reason is that the principle of duty has often been used as an enticement to non-reflective action. Political leaders, both good and bad, have called upon citizens to do their duty in causes both good and evil. Invasions have been so often undertaken by armies composed of soldiers doing their duty, that the call has become suspect.

The Moral Situation

Since the subject matter of our study is the moral situation, it needs to be analyzed in order to expose those of its elements that deserve our consideration. But if we are to analyze a moral situation, we must be able to identify one. How is it possible to identify a moral situation before a definition of what is meant by “moral situation” is given? Yet a definition of “moral situation” would seem to be impossible until after some specimen has been examined. Of course, we could start with a purely arbitrary definition. This would not do because we are concerned with actual moral situations. Ethics is like a science in this respect. This predicament is not unique to our present study — ethics. Indeed, it is common to all fields of investigation. Even if we had a definition, to the beginner in the field it would be virtually meaningless, or at least misleading. Definition or not, examples of what we are talking about are indispensable when an investigation is begun for they serve as tests for what is said.

Justifying Moral Principles

Moral decisions are founded upon moral principles. For the most part, these principles are taken to be authoritative and no challenge to that authority is raised. But what is the source, if there is any, from which the authority of the moral principle flows? If one believes that one ought to obey God’s will, then to demonstrate that to be honest is to act in accord with the divine will is to show why one ought to be honest, even if one isn’t. The justification of an act is the principle which implies that the act be done. But how can we justify the principle itself?

Man, Morals and the State

Men live in states. This quite obvious, trite, and seemingly trivial remark has weighty implications for our discussion. Men make their moral decisions within the confines of state organizations. The state, in other words, is one locus of such decisions. Living in a state in which one tries to make moral decisions, a person finds himself confronted with conditions, demands, and situations which have direct bearing on his decisions yet are of a different kind from the circumstances we have so far been compelled to take into account.

Judging the Person

Means and ends, motives and consequences, play quite important roles in moral judgments when the subject of the judgment is the agent and not the act or the ends. The discussions of the preceding two chapters have laid the groundwork for an examination of such judgments as “John Doe is moral” or “John Doe is immoral.” What do such statements mean and how, if at all, can they be confirmed?