The Moral and Ethical

I need to differentiate between "morality" and "ethics."  These are definitional differences and somewhat arbitrary within common usage of the terms, but I think it useful to keep distinct what we might mean by "moral" and what we might mean by "ethical."

On the one side, the intentionality of an activity defines its morality.  Let us say, for example, that my actions are predicated on the desire to take care of the basic needs of my family.  The governing intentionality, in this case, is "take care of the basic needs of my family" and this intentionality defines the morality of my acts.  Some unpacking:  

First, intentionality is teleological in a weak sense -- that is to say, it proposes an end for our activities.  I say "weak" because it is not a once and for all end, but a provisional and contingent end set within a variety of circumstances.  I may have taken care of the basic needs of my family today, but cold and hunger may raise their specter tomorrow.

Second, intentionality "governs" in a number of senses, but principally it differentiates between those acts that are instrumental to the end, and those that are not.  Here again the instrumentality, the effectuality, of an act relative to its intentionality is provisional and contingent.  It is one thing to posit "take care of the basic needs of my family" in a capitalist system, another in a socialist system.  Acts in one system or environment may well be ineffectual, and the same or similar acts in another may well be effectual.

Having said as much, there is some alignment between the notion of intentionality and Wittgenstein's notion of a "language game."   Intentionality is a "given."  It is a biological and/or social construct a priori to any one individual.  An overused example:  "checkmate" is the governing intentionality of chess.  It is possible, of course, that one or another player may make random moves on the board, and that player is certainly "doing something," but if he or she is not seeking checkmate, they are doing something else.  They are not "playing chess."   Seeking checkmate is what it "means" to play chess.  Likewise, "take care of the basic needs of my family" is a given.  It is a biological and/or social construct a priori to my choice.  It is possible, of course, that I might go through my days drinking and carousing, and when asked "why?" I could claim that "I was taking care of the basic needs of my family," but the follow on question would be a legitimating "Really?  How so?"  They would want to know just how my drinking and carousing could be instrumental to that end.  My drinking and carousing might be "doing something," but they are not what it "means" to take care of the basic needs of my family. 

More tomorrow ....