Navigation
An overview of the difference between moral, legal, and social norms and how we use logic to justify our actions.
If a law is unjust, is it still 'wrong' to break it—or is it actually 'right' to disobey? Understanding the difference between what is and what ought to be is the first step in mastering the logic of ethics.
To think like an ethicist, you must first distinguish between descriptive claims and normative claims. A descriptive claim describes the world as it is (e.g., 'The door is locked'). A normative claim asserts how the world should be or evaluates its worth (e.g., 'The door should be open'). This is often called Hume's Law: you cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is.' Just because something is a certain way (a social norm or a law) doesn't automatically mean it is morally right. Ethics uses logic to bridge this gap, moving from observations to justifications.
Quick Check
Which of the following is a normative claim: 'Most people believe lying is wrong' or 'Lying is wrong'?
Answer
'Lying is wrong' is normative because it makes a value judgment. 'Most people believe...' is a descriptive fact about human psychology.
Moral reasoning isn't just about feelings; it's about logic. A moral argument consists of premises (reasons) that lead to a conclusion (the moral judgment). For a moral argument to be valid, it must include at least one moral premise. If your premises are and your conclusion is , the logic must follow a path where the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Without a moral premise, you are simply stating facts without a 'bridge' to a moral action.
1. Premise 1 (Moral): It is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to sentient beings. 2. Premise 2 (Descriptive): Kicking a dog causes unnecessary suffering to a sentient being. 3. Conclusion: Therefore, kicking a dog is wrong.
In logic notation: If (causing suffering) is (wrong), and (kicking a dog) is , then is .
Quick Check
Why is the statement 'Stealing is illegal, so you shouldn't steal' an incomplete moral argument?
Answer
It lacks a moral premise connecting legality to morality (e.g., 'One has a moral duty to follow the law').
How universal are moral truths? Moral Absolutism argues that there are objective moral principles that apply to everyone, everywhere, regardless of culture or opinion (e.g., 'Murder is always wrong'). On the other hand, Moral Skepticism (or Relativism) suggests that moral 'truths' are just social constructs, personal opinions, or cultural preferences. Skeptics argue that because different cultures have different norms, there is no single 'correct' moral code. This tension defines much of modern ethical debate: are we discovering moral laws, or are we inventing them?
Consider the practice of 'politeness.' In Culture A, it is polite to finish all food on your plate. In Culture B, finishing your plate suggests the host didn't provide enough food. 1. A Skeptic would say: 'Neither is right; it's just local custom.' 2. An Absolutist would look for a deeper principle: 'The universal rule is to show respect to your host; the specific action is just a variable.'
We navigate three types of norms daily. Legal norms are enforced by the state (e.g., speed limits). Social norms are enforced by community expectations (e.g., wearing a suit to a wedding). Moral norms are internal justifications of right and wrong. These often overlap, but they can conflict. For instance, during the Civil Rights Movement, activists broke legal norms (segregation laws) because they violated higher moral norms (equality and justice). Logic helps us decide which norm takes precedence when they collide.
An employee discovers their company is illegally dumping chemicals. 1. Legal Norm: The employee signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). 2. Social Norm: Loyalty to one's employer and colleagues. 3. Moral Norm: Preventing harm to the environment and public health.
To justify 'whistleblowing,' the employee must construct an argument where the moral premise (preventing harm) outweighs the legal premise (contractual obligation).
Which of these represents a 'Descriptive' claim?
In the argument 'Cheating is dishonest; therefore, you shouldn't cheat,' what is the missing 'hidden' premise?
A Moral Skeptic believes that there is one single moral code that applies to all humans regardless of their culture.
Review Tomorrow
In 24 hours, try to explain the 'Is-Ought Gap' to a friend using an example of a law you think is immoral.
Practice Activity
Find a news editorial today. Identify one descriptive claim and one normative claim made by the author.