1. Morality and the concept of good and evil are not necessarily the same thing
2. The reason to suggest a behavior can easily have nothing to do with morality
For example: the statement "one ought not eat too much candy to avoid a stomach ache".
Because that statement is a
descriptive claim, not a
normative claim. It's making a claim about the way things
are, not the way things
ought to be. It's just pointing out that if you eat too much candy you will have a stomach ache.
You're confused by the presence of the "ought". But the word is just being used in a different way. The presence of the string of letters o-u-g-h-t does not make a statement an ought-statement. What matters is the
meaning of the statement, whether the statement is claiming something about the way things are vs the way things ought to be.
If you were to add "and I ought to avoid a stomach ache" that would be a normative claim. And as is your earlier claim "we ought to increase pleasure".
This is an ought, yet the concern is entirely practical and does not necessarily imply that not following that "ought" is bad, but that a behavior can backfire in some situations. One may have just eaten so the effect of the candy could be blunted due to the presence of protein and fiber for example.
:doh Practicality
is an ethical notion. Something is said to be practical if it's valued as worth doing.
Ought to be done. As opposed to impractical, something which isn't worth doing, that isn't "useful", that doesn't have value. These are value judgements. Ethics. Notions about what we ought to focus on (the practical) and what we ought not to focus on (the impractical). The notion of practicality does not exist outside a context of morality/values/oughts.
Same with backfire. You are assuming an ought-statement. That it's something
we ought to avoid.
This is the same sort of type of suggestion........will already want to do these types of things.
But the key is that they are all ought-statements. They all share a common nature. They are all statements about the way things ought to be, rather than statements about the way things are. That's all morality is.
Your confusion stems from the fact that, colloquially, people tend to reserve the word "moral" to refer to only a certain subset of ought-statements, usually ought-statements regarding violence, sexuality etc. And the same goes with "ethics" - it's usually reserved for ought-statements regarding professionalism in the workplace and government. But such distinctions are completely arbitrary. They only exist in our use of language. There is no meaningful difference in the nature of the claim "I ought to go exercise" and the claim "You ought not torture". They both share the same nature - they both describe the way things ought to be. The meaningful difference arises between ought-statements and is-statements. Between normative claims and descriptive claims. Not
among descriptive ones. And, since you apparently aren't aware of this, when philosophers are discussing "morality" - whether it's objective/subjective/non-existent etc - they are referring to ought-statements in general, just as I am, not just "moral" ought-statements.
Furthermore, even if you want to try to argue that there is some difference, it doesn't matter. Everything you have pointed out that applies to the subset of ought-statements we label as "morality" can be equally applied to ALL ought-statements. Every ought-statement we believe - including your claim "we ought to increase pleasure" - came about as an evolutionary tool. So, if you take the position that that means that moral statements have no basis, that they're just a fiction that evolution has led us to believe, the same can be said of all the other "non-moral" ought statements, including your claim that "we ought to increase pleasure". You are no more justified in making that claim that anyone making a "moral" claim. Evolution has simply led you to believe "we ought to increase pleasure". That doesn't mean it's actually the case that we ought to increase pleasure.
Using words like ought outside of a moral context is a pretty common phrasing in the English language. Another example is a friend suggesting whether another friend should accept a date request from some cute guy or girl. "You ought to go out with him or her due to reasons x, y, z" would be far from a moral statement but a strong prompting or suggestion as typically understood by people
Nice try though
Yes, indeed. People make ought-claims
all the time. That's why it's ridiculous to hear people say stuff like "there is no morality" and then in the next breath say "we ought to ____". It's cognitive dissonance.
