Yardstick Morality

 

Here is another metaphor to demonstrate approximately what I mean by moderate morality.

 

If the moral spectrum were a 36-inch yardstick to measure, say, the virtue of courage, we would want to graphically show that the middle if the virtuous way, so it might seem that we lay out the 36-inch line, with 0 on the left symbolizing pure cowardice, and 36 on the right symbolizing pure rashness or crazy recklessness.

 

Our heuristic might be to identify the virtue of courage ideally, literally, quantitatively, and exactly placed at 18 inches, the precise middle of the line, pure courage, neither cowardly nor foolishly, disastrously brave. But is not how it works. This exact middle is too rigid, not reflecting truth, existential reality, context, and the complexity of life in the trenches.

 

To be more accurate—as accurate as one can be when assigning ethical value to behaviors, character, and motives, it seems to me that the moral position, to generally take between the contrary poles, on most occasions for deciding, is to go into the decision with the axiom that both poles represent for us what is right and wrong, or good or bad.

 

 But, the middle or moderate position is not usually expressed or identifiable as a precise, 50-50 quantitative assignment of value (of being equally good or bad) between the poles, located at the 18-inch mark. Rather, moral value being is to be assigned with primary emphasis on one side of the spectrum as the morally superior choice of being right more than wrong, and good more than bad.

 

Then in the spirit of dialetheism, one immediately qualifies in this situation, at this time and place by declaring what is moral must in part be ceded to the other, opposite pole. Conceding merit to the other pole represents as the minor moral emphasis must be made clear. Accepting and adopting some of that minority moral emphasis, from the opposite pole, is moral choosing too.