Is the moral choice always the right choice?

Brett

Edit: I just realised the title should have read “Is the moral decision always the right decision?”.

Those who are against national borders I assume believe there are no borders, that they are arbitrary constructs based on nationalist ideologies. They call for all borders to be abolished and freedom of movement available to all. This, their argument goes, is a moral position. There are people who feel threatened by politics, poverty, war, famine, crime, cultural practices and religion. They have the right to escape their situation and seek a secure life in another country. Naturally they move towards countries that offer freedom from these tyrannies.

The USA is one such country and the continent makes movement easy. If US borders were removed it would enable people to move freely between Mexico and Canada (if they also take part). Obviously it would also enable those from South American countries as well to move north for a better life. Open borders means no restriction on who moves about, politically, racially or culturally. It also means that people are not required to explain or justify their motives for moving.

It’s impossible to know what shape the migration of people might take. Nor whether people from further afield will find ways of migrating to the continent, nor the numbers in total. According to this moral position there can be no restrictions. There will be limited checks on health issues, or criminal records. The numbers will be overwhelming. And who’s to judge the conditions of crime from one country to another, who’s to judge?

This mass migration may have positive results. The contribution made by them is largely unknowable. They may drive the economy in directions unimaginable, but, let’s assume, in a positive way. They may reshape the continent in ways unimaginable.

But the movement of all these people will certainly have other effects, just for a start on the countries they leave. Those economies could falter or collapse, political upheaval could follow. They might open themselves up to new trade deals that take employment and production from other countries. And there would be a realignment of foreign interests and opportunities taken by outside interests in the resources those countries have but cannot access.

The changes internationally are impossible to forecast, good or bad.

My question is whether a decision based on a moral position can really be considered moral when the consequences on such a large scale are unknowable. Is that the best way, or the right way, to make these decisions. Is the moral choice always the right choice?

Tzeentch

My question is whether a decision based on a moral position can really be considered moral when the consequences on such a large scale are unknowable. — Brett

I don't think a decision based on a moral position can really be considered moral when it forces those morals upon people who disagree with it.

Qwex

Should I make this ham, tomato and lettuce sandwitch?

I'm hungry.
I have other food.
Is it wasteful of animal life?

I'm going to eat it - am I making the wrong choice?

Yes.

Yes, the moral decision is always the right (orderly) decision. However, there are special cases, to further understand the wrong, se.

Think of 'moral' as, rolling information, plus good judgement.

1.0 + 1.0 (moral ratio) = 2.

Marchesk

Unless you're a pacifist, then war is going to present a problem for always doing the right thing. So will survival situations.

But let's take a simpler situation. Lying is considered wrong. So let's say you're in a situation where lying will prevent an argument that will jeopardize getting something done that needs to be done. Let's say it's a work project and the truth will ruin team chemistry, the deadline won't be met, and the contract is lost, so people don't get paid.

So you lie for team cohesion.

DingoJones

↪Brett

What do you mean by contrasting “moral” and “right” in your question? Is “right” meant to mean “moral”? Or do you intend it to mean something more like practical towards a goal?
In other words, Id like to know if you are asking about competing morals or are you asking about how a moral should be weighed against a non-moral (or immoral) consideration?

Jean-baptiste

The question should be " does moral even exist ".

People tend to take this for granted , but it's a very debatable question. Kant was one of the most ferocious partisan of this theory ( as it is one ), and you could expect some great arguments coming from this brillant mind but in reality they were scarcely convincing. He gave the exemple of having one of your friends knocking at your door and begging you to hide him in your house as for some you unknown reasons he was chased by the police ( you can replace him with jewwish boy and the police with the Nazis to make it more spicy). Then to the question should you lie to the police or no he answers a proud NO, one should never lie, and therefore argues that you should turn your friend down ( or the boy) as this is the moral thing to do and that one should always seek to act in a moral way. This famous episode was to me the evidence that there can't be such thing as moral as it's very easy to come up with those kind of situations that you can't resolve if you believe in moral .

Brett

↪Tzeentch

I don't think a decision based on a moral position can really be considered moral when it forces those morals upon people who disagree with it. — Tzeentch

Well this might happen More often than you think. Governments often make many moral decisions on behalf of their constituency: gay marriage, voting rights for blacks, for instance. And the pressure applied to South African over apartheid was certainly moral.

If seems to me that if you live in a democratic system then you are also required morally to go along with the decision. Though it might be debatable in those circumstances that a moral is being forced upon someone, because in those circumstances they’re in agreement with the system that applies the moral.

Brett

↪DingoJones

What do you mean by contrasting “moral” and “right” in your question? Is “right” meant to mean “moral”? Or do you intend it to mean something more like practical towards a goal? — DingoJones

In the demand for open borders I’m looking at in terms of being a moral position. So far I haven’t heard any particular objective coming from proponents of open borders except that it’s the right thing to do. (There may be objectives in some groups I’m unaware of). On that basis then it appears to be a purely moral decision, and a decision that will lead to wellbeing for all.

So yes, the question revolves around whether the moral choice is the right choice in terms of objectives. What exactly are the objectives in creating open borders.

Open borders across the Americas could be one of the great social experiments of all time. But what do we want from it: an end to poverty for some, security for all, total integration of all races, or broad multiculturalism, or a new “man”. Just saying something is morally right, that it’s without argument, will not lead necessarily to any one of those goals.

So it seems to me that the moral decision needs to be attached to a pragmatic decision, that the pragmatic decision guides the moral decision.

Brett

↪Jean-baptiste

People tend to take this for granted , but it's a very debatable question. — Jean-baptiste

My OP is based on those who support open borders and hold a moral position on the subject. So the debate is not over whether morals exist, an interesting and endless argument though they are, but on whether they are the basis for the best decision?

Brett

↪Marchesk

But let's take a simpler situation. Lying is considered wrong. — Marchesk

That seems to be more a matter of ethics to me.

Brett

↪DingoJones

Or is this just idealism driving morality?

DingoJones

↪Brett

Im finding it difficult to parse your point here...
It seems like you want to know if the justification they use is valid or not, weighing it against a practical consideration about immigration and border controls. You are mixing metrics though, this is an example of morality vs practicality (including finding a balance between the two) and if you want to say that ignoring the practical consideration is immoral that is different than saying the practical outweighs the moral.
I think you need to make a strong distinction there to focus on what youre after. Thats my take in it so far.

Brett

↪DingoJones

if you want to say that ignoring the practical consideration is immoral — DingoJones

Ignoring the possible consequences seems immoral. That’s why I wonder if it’s an idealistic position that cloaks itself in morality. Idealism rushes forward blindly, conscious only of the ideal objective. But what is it here?

I definitely wonder if their moral position is justified, especially when there doesn’t seem to be a position, or a clear position, on what they’re morally against. The moral position against South Africa was towards a specific, clear cut goal.

I’m not suggesting that the practical outweighs the moral, only that without a real objective the moral action can lead to chaos.

Qwex

Morality is study about justice of the law of time.

You can say it's a bad time, or time's are bad. You are judging the time. If you judge the time good, you make profitable decisions. The time may be good or bad for you.

How one could argue otherwise baffles me.

Just me having a whack at it really...

Brett

↪Qwex

Morality is the natural justice about the law of time. — Qwex

I can’t make sense of that. Nor am I trying to define morality. What I’m trying to work out is whether open borders should be determined by a moral position, that it’s the right thing to do. But maybe it’s not a moral decision those for open borders are actually are standing on, only that it appears that way?

Qwex

↪Brett

I edited my post any luck?

Brett

↪Qwex

It’s a pretty obscure idea as it stands.

Jean-baptiste

I am wondering if there is any way to decide wether a decision is moral or not when we can't know the consequences of that decision. In your exemple, as there is no record in humankind history of a world teeming with organized societes controlled by state power in which borders are non-existant, nobody knows for sure what could happen and if this would lead to a better situation or not. Then we might think that it is moral if the intentions are good, if the decision was taken by people after a very long debate and that they judged that it was more likely that unlikely it would be beneficial. But then this reasoning could justify even the worst atrocities , couldn't Hitler actions seen as moral then as he was convinced he was acting for the wealth of German people for exemple. Sure he deliberately intended to kill people and that seems immoral, but what about Churchill's sacrifice of the highlands division because he rightly thought this moved had a positive expected value in terms of casualties in the long run or any of those decisions that you can find in history books. Would we considered those decisions immorals if they had turned in a bad way ? If we open borders do we have to wait 20 years to know if that was moral or no ? That sounds like an impossibility because we need to take the decision in the present . Some would say the moral action is to not act if you are not 100 sure of the outcome but on real life there never is such a situation that you can be that confident with. So I am afraid I have no answer but only more questions ...

Brett

↪Jean-baptiste

Then we might think that it is moral if the intentions are good, if the decision was taken by people after a very long debate and that they judged that it was more likely that unlikely it would be beneficial. — Jean-baptiste

I was thinking about how issues like the vote for women, black votes and gay marriage had been debated for some time before it happened, even if we may have been unconscious that a debate was happening.

Churchill was trying to win the war. He may have faced a moral dilemma, but that doesn’t make it a moral decision, does it? Were his decisions moral or just pragmatic?

I really trying to decide if the open borders really is a moral position held by those who are for it, and if there’s another similar example I can apply the OP question? Are all real moral decisions made on the basis of a specific objective, not some ideal that may or may not eventuate, or based on hope?

Qwex

↪Brett

It is not based on hope only. Based on 'rolling information', what is the most intelligent thought. considering all in this thought-process shows similar objectives, what makes things intelligent for the species is the world that extends that we survive.

tomatohorse

In your question, "Is the moral choice the right choice?" It appears that you are treating morality as binary; that is, something is 100% right, or 100% wrong. In reality, I believe you can have "more" or "less" moral choices, which correspond to "better" or "worse" outcomes, given the moral axiom(s) that form the basis of your moral system. So what are your axioms? Or another way of asking this would be, what are the working assumptions you have about morality when considering this situation?

Next up, I'd like to ask what you mean by "the right choice"? Because again, "right" and "wrong" are just descriptions of ways to achieve a desired end. And they are non-binary as well most of the time. For instance, if I want to maximize profits for my business, action _X_ may be the "right" course of action if it gets us more money. On the other hand, _Y_ would be the "wrong" decision if it loses us money, and also has no redeeming value (for instance, losing money in the short term to achieve some greater goal in the long term). Or you may have two options that both gain money, but one is "better" than the other.

The bottom line is that in each case, you have to define your goal before you can speak of decisions being "moral" and "right". (Often when we talk about humans, morality and "rightness" become the same thing, but not always)

Brett

↪tomatohorse

With “the right decision” I’m meaning the decision that leads to best outcomes. Is a moral position the best way to make a decision on, for example, open borders, that leads to the best outcome.? Which is the position of open borders advocates; that’s it’s the right thing to do, that it’s a moral issue.

tomatohorse

Sorry to persist in asking you to define things, but when you say, "best outcomes," what outcomes do you have in mind? (And, for whom?)

tim wood

Then to the question should you lie to the police or no he answers a proud NO, one should never lie, and therefore argues that you should turn your friend down ( or the boy) as this is the moral thing to do and that one should always seek to act in a moral way. This famous episode was to me the evidence that there can't be such thing as moral as it's very easy to come up with those kind of situations that you can't resolve if you believe in moral . — Jean-baptiste

Repeatedly people cite this without understanding what it is, or even what it says, and certainly not why it says what it says. Do us all a favour and go read the thing. You can easily find it on Google. Just to put a sharp edge on this: you don't know what you're talking about, because you do not understand the text you're talking about, and I suspect that is because you have never read it, and possibly have never set eyes on it, nor understand its place in Kant's deontological ethics. All this fixable in less than a half-hour (by reading the source). But will you fix it?

Brett

↪tomatohorse

Sorry to persist in asking you to define things, but when you say, "best outcomes," what outcomes do you have in mind? — tomatohorse

Best outcomes for South Africa was an end to apartheid. Best outcomes for women was getting the vote. Best outcomes for gays was legal marriage. Very clear objectives that can be measured when you get there.

Pfhorrest

I don't think a decision based on a moral position can really be considered moral when it forces those morals upon people who disagree with it. — Tzeentch

So Alice is about to kill someone when Bob stops her because Bob thinks killings like that are immoral. Bob is therefore immoral, for forcing his morals upon Alice?

In any case in response to the OP, yes, the moral decision is necessarily the right decision. What's at question in your example case is whether open borders really is the correct moral position, or if instead there are counterpoints that suggest it might actually be immoral instead to have open borders. If proponents are just asserting that it is moral, without argument as to why, then they're just asserting that it's the right thing to do, without arguing why it's the right thing to do. Opponents can present reasons why it's the wrong thing to do and then they can argue about who's got better reasons, and whoever does, their position is more moral and the better decision.

tomatohorse

Best outcomes for South Africa was an end to apartheid. Best outcomes for women was getting the vote. Best outcomes for gays was legal marriage. Very clear objectives that can be measured when you get there. — Brett

I meant specifically with regard to your question. For example, letting anyone who wants to come in might be good for those immigrants, for the short-term. But it might be bad for the people in border towns who get overrun with an influx of immigrants. Perhaps in the long run it causes a net negative to the country as a whole. Who knows? This is just a hypothetical example.

Or maybe you get a bunch of illegal drugs crossing the border, which is good (I guess) for the drug dealers, but leads to more addicts in your country's population and erodes local communities. I would call that a net negative, on moral considerations.

It's a complex calculation, with many actors and moving parts. At the end of the day, you have to decide where your loyalties lie, and what your primary moral considerations are. Those give you a compass by which to evaluate all these smaller points.

Brett

↪tomatohorse

At the end of the day, you have to decide where your loyalties lie, and what your primary moral considerations are. Those give you a compass by which to evaluate all these smaller points. — tomatohorse

Well I think you need to first decide what your primary objective might be. Then you decide how to reach it. Opening borders based on a moral position about it being the right thing to do leaves every step after that open. How do you measure progress, how do you know if you’re getting closer to your goal? Is it even possible to realise that goal?

Tzeentch

Well this might happen More often than you think. Governments often make many moral decisions on behalf of their constituency: gay marriage, voting rights for blacks, for instance. And the pressure applied to South African over apartheid was certainly moral.

If seems to me that if you live in a democratic system then you are also required morally to go along with the decision. Though it might be debatable in those circumstances that a moral is being forced upon someone, because in those circumstances they’re in agreement with the system that applies the moral. — Brett

When one is in agreement with the morals being applied, I would not consider it 'forcing'. But yes, a lot of what governments do could be considered immoral according to the view I shared. When it is doing so in order to stop a 'greater evil' from occurring, I consider it a necessary evil at best.

So Alice is about to kill someone when Bob stops her because Bob thinks killings like that are immoral. Bob is therefore immoral, for forcing his morals upon Alice? — Pfhorrest

I don't think murder is a very good example to be used in this context. A person, or someone on their behalf, has a right to protect themselves when they are physically threatened. That can't be considered as "forcing one's morals upon another".

Pfhorrest

A person, or someone on their behalf, has a right to protect themselves when they are physically threatened — Tzeentch

That is a moral claim itself. If someone disagrees with that moral claim and tries to stop someone from stopping someone from attacking themselves or others, is it morally okay to stop them from stopping them from stopping them?

You see where this is going? I of course agree completely that people have a right to stop people from harming others, but that is precisely forcing the morals that determine those actions to be "harmful" upon those people being stopped. And of course I agree that murdering someone is harmful to the murdered. But we have that right to stop someone from murdering if and only if murder is actually harmful, which is itself a moral question. So basically, it's right to force the right morals on others, in the right ways, and wrong to force the wrong morals on others, or in the wrong ways. Forcing people to do things that are morally obligatory (like not murdering) is good. Forcing people to do things that are not morally obligatory (like, I'd say, wearing the "right" clothes or listening to the "right" music, or whatever) is bad. Which doesn't tell us much: it just pushes the question back to "what actually is moral or not?"

Tzeentch

↪Pfhorrest

Protecting oneself isn't a moral question, but a function of life.

I don't think intervening when someone is about to be harmed is a means to "force morals upon someone", but rather stopping a person from doing so. Of course, there are many ways one could intervene, and certainly there are immoral ways to intervene.

Is the moral choice always the right choice?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions