The Morality of the Intellect

Bad Form

Right now, somebody is accusing me of equivocating. The appearance of equivocation, for those who know the term, is unmistakeable. “Right”—or “correct”—in an intellectual sense is not same as “right” or “good” in a moral sense. The words sound alike, and have a similar heritage, but different nuances of meaning. And by this standard, I am equivocating.

Also, I beg the question. An argument from the A-moral point of view is that central argument of any moral system is that just as there were “correct” answers to questions, there are “correct” actions, and this is based upon the assumption that actions or intents can have “correctness” in the same way that arguments can have. It presumed its definition. The basic principle is that morality is a misapplication of the intellectual process. By citing such misapplications here, I am not proving anything, just that earlier people misapplied the concept.

First, my equivocation is intentional. And I have from the beginning intended to tell you about it. That is what these four paragraphs on the subject do. First, they argue my point, and second, they warn you against miscalculations that I may have made—and how you may spot them.

But I equivocate no more than the criticism to my own argument: that “right” essentially means “correct” and when it is used in that case it has meaning, but when it is misapplied it is invalid. This as well does not completely separate the moral from the intellectual meaning, but casts the moral meaning as a missapplication of the intellectual meaning. In other words it says, “Yes, I know that two dictionary meanings exist, but only one makes valid statements.” On the otherhand, I say “Yes, I know separate definitions, exist, but they have become specific applications based on the tendency of some to see them as separate (the amoral argument for example).

Secondly, the argument that has me begging the question really ignores the obvious implication against misapplication. If we argue that misapplication is a “bad” step to make in the intellectual process, and creates wrong conclusions, then we are also saying that we ought not do this. It is important to re-think our line of argument so that we understand the subject “rightly” and avoid wrong application.

Thought in Action

s thinking an action? Do I not need to allocate some amount of my energy to re-think? Often, to investigate requires real expenditure of energy. Sometimes it’s only to walk to a library or bookcase, take down the book and spend hours reading it to collect information. Although, many books are created through that process, others require more physical actions to gather information. Authors must travel, dig, experiment, spend long hours in the lab, charting data, or lose nights of sleep and pull their hair out trying to discern a pattern within the data.

If we accept that you must gather information in order to be correct, and that seminal information gathering is usually an expenditure of action having little to do with the intellectual process. Than a statement that it is right to gather information is consistent with the idea that the actions to gather information are a process.

Are not there correct and incorrect surveys? Don’t bad surveys get criticized on methodology? Is not methodology a specification for actions? When I take an un-scientific poll isn’t there a sequence of incorrect actions that I am taking? Isn’t there enough understanding of correct polling, that I really have no excuse not to take the actions which are correct polling practices?

What makes a good source? Does it not require expenditure of intellectual and physical effort to arrive at a good source? I have a prayer book close to me, I want to know what it says about the subject of morality, so that I can cite it as a source. “That won’t work,” says the critic. “The religious viewpoint already is biased toward the existence of morality.” So what source do I need to cite? And do I need to use those sources regardless of the effort that it would take me to derrive it?

I can read a little of Hume. Is that enough? Some would say no. Some would say that I need to read Hume in depth. Is it then true that all I have to do is cite Hume, once I’ve read him in depth, and any argument I make is valid? No. I need to understand it. Again, rightness and wrongness of interpretation begin to play a part. What is correct interpretation? It depends on the other store of knowledge that I have—that I’ve correctly accumulated and assimilated. Or how correctly I've undertaken these same actions before.

Not only are we saying that there are actions that are required to collect correct information, but there are repeatable prescribable actions to this end. And that there are actions which can be proscribed as well (such as grabbing the first book available, reading half the first page, a chapter or two in the middle of the book—and then scanning the index to see what we might have missed).

Science among other things is a body of methodology. It contains a body of knowledge about the correct way to gather information on various subject. Therefore, you cannot get correct conclusions without correct data. You cannot get correct data without correct methodology or actions. Correct methodology should be followed, so that correct actions can be taken, so that correct data is gathered, so that correct conclusions can be made. These delineate a whole line of actions which are good, bad, right, and wrong.

Therefore the argument that actions cannot be described in those terms is simply false. They can be and are, in the area of intellectual discussion. All those interested in intellectual discussion reject that no one can tell good from bad actions in an intellectual sphere.

Boolean Logic

e can also examine some sterile words which had an opposite etymological descension. We have sterilized the word accurate; it does not have the emotional meaning that right and wrong do. However, it is derrived from care. Accurate measurements are done with care. The original meaning of this word does not convey the exactness of our modern word. It suggests more a manner of measuring than the result of the measuring. It in fact suggests that using care is good, and expending efforts that result in care, is preferrable.

Let's look at the boolean words, the most sterile of all the intellectual words: true and false. Why they come from Trustworthy and Deceitful! (See Dictionary.com for true, and false.) Moral qualities both!. It is a tautology to say that a truth is trustworthy, and that a falsehood is deceptive. Again talking about sources for the data that makes up the intellectual process, trustworthy sources are good, and deceitful sources are bad. Those sources which were attempting to defraud and misrepresent data from lack of pureness to the goal of relating data, are not good things to include in your argument or even to clutter up your mindspace.

Both of these concepts have direct impact to the value of the conclusion. We often cannot draw conclusions from falsified data. If a scientist has falsified data for his pet project, such studies are untrustworthy. Therefore, the value of the intellectual process is affected by decisions to excercise care or not and whether to lie or not.

Finally, I come to discussion. And, discussion is really the simplest of all the concepts I hope to convey in this essay. Discussion is simply the testing of conclusions. Done. Gathering data is both a moral process and a process affected by intellectual morality, gathering conclusions is a process of morality. One would hope that I have not conveniently side-stepped any holes in my argument hoping that if I wave my hands you will not notice. One hopes that I have not used any device except attempting to depict commonly observed instances and presenting my conclusion honestly in this essay.

Discussion is the presentation of conclusions to be tested and evaluated. The intellectual process creates the conclusions, the process of discussion lays those conclusions out for criticism and more discussion, where more data is pulled in, analyzed and related to the topic. Again, it is important that all this data be trustworthy. Therefore discussion is also an intermediate process to making conclusions. Conclusions then need to be tested and refined. It is an ongoing process. In fact anyone who declares the value of an “open mind” supports the value of discussion.

A Litany of My Sins

et me run down the rules I have broken in this essay:

1. I do not define what I mean by morality.
2. I don't quote anyone. Or cite any sources. It appears to be a subjective treatment.
3. I have equivocated words like good and bad, right and wrong.
4. I used a straw man argument for my objection.
5. I have used etymology, without realizing that words have separate definitions.
6. I argue with questions, and assume the answers.
7. I use conventional wisdom

Now, should I or should I not have done those things?

What do you think?

Let’s discuss.