Status of moral rules

    Moral rules are a fundamentally important part of moral experience. People do use moral rules to make moral decisions and often use moral rules, perhaps implicitly, to defend moral judgments. In short, moral rules are used by most of us, much of the time, to solve moral problems. Many moral problems we face have a central core, some main ingredient, that is the object of some moral rule. For example, if Jones promises to Smith to do some action A, then whether to do A should become part of Jones's moral decision-making. This claim can be universalized: no matter who makes the promise to whom, doing the promised act ought to be accounted for in moral decision making. The fact that promising in general leads to moral obligations, and is thus a moral consideration, shows that a moral rule about promising is generally applicable.
    Rules may be precise enough to be applicable and may address the moral core of a situation succinctly and compellingly. A rule theorist may agree that real situations are complex, even enormously complex, but nevertheless a few features can form moral judgment. We look for general features in historical situations to explain why a war began or why a recession ended, even though such circumstances are more complex than the background environment of most personal moral problems. Rule theorists believe that we can, with the succinct use of rules, adequately cover the ground of moral decision making, but in doing this, they limit the moral domain to the features of life actually covered by rules, a limitation many philosophers find extreme.  Top

Rules and relativism

    Moral rule theorists stand opposed to relativists because some rules are applicable across societies and cultures. For example, a society in which harm and deceit are widespread and accepted is a morally bad society. Rule theorists believe that the universally binding nature of moral rules is a strength, an essential part of moral experience, and not a weakness. They agree that morality is social, but argue that moral rules are the common and necessary cement in all social life.
    Rule theorists argue that relativists cannot adequately defend against the charge of bias. A caste system, no matter how well ingrained, is morally improper and biased, even if supported by local custom. We have more confidence in something when it is widely accepted; moral rules have been supported in many different places and at many different times. When many people from different places accept the same thing, we believe that local bias is not a factor. Moral rules that are widely accepted express basic moral demands, and in this way diverse people find significant commonality.   Top

Moral rules and moral principles

    Although the statements made above supporting moral rules apply equally well, perhaps better, to moral principles, rule theorists believe that principles are not properly used in moral deliberations. First of all, basic principles are vague. They believe that a principle like "Do no harm", gives inadequate instruction, but a moral rule like "Do not steal" is much more precise and clear enough to be readily applied in many circumstances. If we apply the principle against harm, we may believe that stealing in some circumstances does no harm or that it does real good. By allowing us to speculate on what causes harm, how to determine harm, and what kinds of harms are more hurtful, we might find ourselves without adequate moral guidance.
    Rule theorists want to limit speculation about morally proper behavior. Morality is social; we need some social guarantees that people will generally avoid undesirable behavior. If we invite a guest into our house, we do not want that guest to steal our goods, even if we don't realize something is gone (so our guest thinks no harm is done), or even if our guest is poorer than we are (so that perhaps some good is done). We want secure enjoyment of our goods, so we have laws and moral prohibitions against stealing. Moral prohibition, like the moral rule against stealing, is a needed complement to the law against stealing. Often the moral prohibition is more compelling than the law because laws are sometimes difficult to enforce and moral prohibitions are often widely followed.   Top

Negative moral rules as the main aspect of morality

    Those who rely on moral rules often believe that they are the only valid part of our moral experience -- that all of moral experience is properly derivable from moral rules. For most rule theorists, morality provides the basic glue of social life. It is intended to prohibit actions that are typically destructive of social interaction while leaving us free, at least morally speaking, to do whatever else we care to do. These prohibitions, expressed in moral rules, give the negative bounds of actions, describing the types of things we may not do. This limits the moral domain. Such theorists believe that moral rules are negative in orientation because they simply tell us what not to do, not what to do. A negative approach is thought to have the virtue of giving universal and clear guidance. A positive rule, like "Give to charity," is indefinite; it presents an imperfect duty: It does not tell us how much to give, what charities to give to, or when to give. (A perfect duty, by contrast, tells us exactly what it is that we should do or not do.) "Do not steal," is a perfect duty that always applies to all. All people can obey negatively oriented rules. But many people cannot obey positive commands; for example, a poor person may not be able to give to charity. For at least these reasons, rule theories tend to state rules negatively, using prohibitions rather than general positive requirements.
    For the rule theorist, a negative morality provides the best basis on which we can get along, no matter where we live or where we were raised. It tells us what we may not do but otherwise leaves us free to pursue any positive action we see as fit. When morality is extended beyond a small domain of actions, these theorists insist, it robs people of their moral freedom, imposes the will of some on others, and cannot be rationally defended. We can defend negative moral rules because without them life would be very difficult for all, but, some rule theorists argue, the use of positive responsibilities makes life easier for some at the cost of others.     Top