How do we judge if an action is moral or not if there are competing frameworks by which we judge them?

Question

If the same action can be moral and immoral in different ethical frameworks (e.g. consequentialism, virtue ethics), how can we judge if the action is moral or not? Is morality ultimately subjective depending on the framwork we are using? Does it ultimately come down to the question of adopting the most suitable ethical framework in different contexts? What justfies the framework's "suitability" then?

Answer 1

Our moral judgements do not depend entirely on an explicitly held moral frameworks. In philosophy, a moral theory is put forward as an attempt to systematize and make more principled our pre-reflective moral judgements. That isn't to say that pre-reflective moral judgements are entirely concept-independent. Everybody is raised in a culture where they learn various moral concepts that influence their moral judgements. However, it is also true that there are many examples of people having intuitive moral judgements that contradict the culturally prevalent norms and attitudes. Thus, it seems to be a background assumption of normative moral philosophy that our moral judgements function like concept-laden perceptions. Our moral concepts influence but do not determine our moral judgements. This premise justifies the common method of argument in philosophical moral argument which is to consider judgements about various concrete moral situations and evaluate the predictions of different theories in the light of those judgements.

Answer 2

You'd theoretically have some rough guidelines in terms of what all people agree upon is "good" and "bad". Like idk being deprived of agency, being harmed, ostracized, conflict, violence, destruction, etc. would all be things most people would argue are not good.

So if your moral framework end up with that, you should probably ditch it even if your philosophical logic appears to be good to you, because it's practically not working.

Though unfortunately things aren't that easy all the time, because while probably most people think these things are bad, almost hinting at a universal morality, far less people don't have a problem using them as retribution, punishment, deterrence or whatnot, for wrong doing against their moral framework. So that in the worst case it's bad only if the other person does it.

Now moral frameworks try to answer the question of what is ultimately good and bad and people try to derive some ethics from it (a guideline on how you should act moral). But in practical terms they only really concern themselves with one moral framework at a time. That makes it much easier to judge because there is no conflict of moral frameworks. But the problem is that most of these moral frameworks kinda have a point, so unless they are garbage to begin with, you will encounter edge cases where your morality tells you to act in a certain way, but where this will lead to problems. Not with your self-encapsulated moral framework, but with reality. Like if you're arguing that the other person is acting "wrong", but they have no conceivable alternative to doing what they are doing.

Then it's still possible to pass judgement, but it's kinda pointless beyond self-affirmation. Because it's not going to be any productive in solving the underlying problem.

So yeah in reality we more or less arbitrarily pick one framework and judge by that one. Like either a powerful person or group decides that (tyranny, monarchy, theocracy, aristocracy, ...) or the ethical framework is less of a coherent moral framework but more of an agreement on a list of dos and don'ts. Which might be influenced and guided by one or more moral frameworks but which don't have to adhere to one in particular (unless explicitly chosen). So that ethics is just "follow the laws" and that fits into subjective morality because the individuals got their part in shaping the makeup of these laws. (at least in theory).

Answer 3

Yes, while religions typically assert that any action can be definitely immoral, in philosophy actions can only be immoral with respect to a chosen framework. Philosophy recognizes multiple different viable ethical frameworks, and so choices may occur where the frameworks disagree.

In such cases the decider has to choose a framework to follow.

This however is not much different from having just a single framework, even in that situation the interpretation and application of the framework to a specific situation can be subjective. So a decider would still have to make a choice of choosing a certain interpretation and application even if there were just one framework.

So the responsibility of the decider remains with the decider, and the decider needs to consider in general how to justify their choice.

In a society, a decider that chooses a very different (and not generally accepted) ethical framework than most other people may become regarded as acting immorally, in particular if seen as having cherry-picked a special framework just for one action to justify it.

Societies however may tolerate people deciding based on frameworks that only minorities follow, as long as those minorities don't make up rules as they go.

As an example (speaking loosely here for illustration), in many some countries young men are expected to perform military service (moth morally and legally, or just one of the two) but may be exempt from it if it's against their religion (both legally and morally). On the other hand some religious minorities might have rules about female circumcision or honor killings which would not be tolerable within other societies (legally or ethically).

So the choice in frameworks is not arbitrary, and philosophic rigour requires a lot of justification and consistency to consider some system as an ethical framework.

I believe there is no objective guidance on how to choose the right framework for each situation, it seems to me most "guides" recommend to apply multiple framework when in doubt, and combine the results in reasonable ways (trying to satisfy them all as much as possible). When no compromise is possible and multiple alternatives equally good/bad, then a decider appears to have freedom to pick any of the best alternatives.

Answer 4

Morality is based on personal beliefs of right and wrong and a judgement is an opinion based on these beliefs. Ethics reflect the acceptable beliefs of a group of individuals whose personal morals may not always align with the group but accept group decision.

Based on these definitions, any individual may make a moral judgement on an action regardless of the ethical framework. This judgement, however, will never supercede the ethics of the group. So a lawyers morality will be secondary to the code of ethics of the profession.

Answer 5

On a practical level, a man or a woman does not tend to subscribe to competing frameworks of ethics. Hence they can judge a moral claim. Likewise a community and a society, despite being a community of individuals, likewise and largely subscribe to the same framework of ethics, and this is why a society or community can also judge moral claims. It is one reason why we call them a community or society as opposed to a set of alienated and atomised individuals.

What you are asking about is the theoretical ground of moral claims. Well, despite there being many local variations and modalities, moral frameworks are not incommensurable. All ethical frameworks say that murder is wrong, for example. This is one reason for believing in moral realism.

Answer 6

If the same action can be moral and immoral in different ethical frameworks (e.g. consequentialism, virtue ethics), how can we judge if the action is moral or not?

A person will either be sufficiently persuaded by a framework (and/or by the solution to which the framework leads), or they will remain undecided and fall into a moral dilemma/trilemma (etc) as a result of being unable to resolve which framework is best.

If your moral framework is a strict religious one, you might deem that a god's morality outweighs all others, regardless of how complete or consistent that morality is in comparison to others.

But do we ever choose the things which persuade us? Or do they choose us? It is plausible that we almost never choose our beliefs; that we are either persuaded of a proposition or we are not. Persuasion seems exerted upon us via experience rather than choice, in which case the answer to the question of 'how we judge if the action is moral or not' might simply be:

'By comparing the assumptions, methodology and/or conclusions of the framework to our existing beliefs'. Whichever fits best wins out.

Even if a framework is capable of changing our beliefs, we again find ourselves in the position of being unavoidably persuaded, as opposed to some being in some state of choosing what to be persuaded by.