Practical Morality

A lot has been written about morality but I’ve struggled to find a guide that is useful. Here is mine.

For background detail I’m afraid you’ll have to read two other articles:

Life As Assets and Are there Moral Dilemmas?

So what is Morality?

Practical Morality is the act of choosing not to cause a loss to another person, or if a loss is unavoidable to minimise any loss

In short;

Morality is avoiding a loss to Another

1. Choosing to cause a loss is immoral

If you can choose not to cause another a loss but do so then your action is immoral. If you decide to take an asset from another when you didn’t have to then your action is immoral. This does not depend on your personal circumstances or the actions of the other person.

2. Morality is Personal

The decision whether to cause a loss or not is yours alone. Morality is not deciding what someone else wants, or interpreting a code of ethics, it’s simply you deciding whether to cause unnecessary loss or not.

3. A loss is only a loss if not freely given or exchanged

If I offer you money and you take it that is not a loss and is not a moral dilemma. I chose freely to give it, which is my choice. If I give you money in exchange for a car you own (or are selling) then that is a freely chosen exchange and also not a moral dilemma.

Of course if the car is a faulty and you knowingly hide that from me then that is another matter, not giving fair value is immoral — you caused me a loss by hiding the facts.

4. Morality is a Dilemma, not a Choice

When I choose how to keep, give away or exchange my assets then that is my choice, it’s not a question of morality.

5. Dilemmas can be described

A moral dilemma cannot be vague; you have to be able to describe all the people in the dilemma and what is happening and when.

If you say “I hope a spaceman appears and kills the wild animal with a death ray” then that is not completely described. The assets to be potentially lost and the people involved must be all identified.

6. A Dilemma is Now

A moral dilemma exists in a moment in time, to be described completely it must be of a moment. A dilemma in the future has not yet come to be.

How to minimise loss in Practical Morality?

A moral decision is yours and yours alone and while describable only exists at a moment in time for you. I cannot therefore tell you how to decide but I can suggest ways to help you decide:

a. Tangible v Intangible

Is the loss a thing or a feeling? Is it a smashed car or hurt pride?

b. Permanent or Temporary

Is the loss permanent (cut off a leg) or temporary (severe bruising)?

c. Relative to total

If I am forced to take £100 from somene should it be from a millionaire or a pauper?

d. Multiple v Single

Is the loss from multiple people or only one?

e. Percentage of the total

Taking from someone with very little (no-one has no assets) is likely to be worse than taking an asset from someone with plentiful resources. If one of the few things a person has is their pride or reputation it’ll be fiercely guarded.

f. Direct v Indirect Involvement

Is the Other already known or unknown? Am I taking from a stranger or a friend?

g. ‘Experience’ v ‘Remembrance‘

A strong pain now but remembered poorly may be better than a weaker pain that is remembered clearly. The memory can be more painful than the immediate loss.

Feedback

I’d welcome any improvements you may have or if you can point any deficiencies that would also be welcome. There’s no other way to make this better.