Equivocation on “Wrong”

“Pragmatically wrong: If you want a girlfriend, it would be wrong to publicly pick your nose.”
“Inappropriateness: Wearing shoes inside in Japan is wrong.”
“Morally wrong: Marrying your cousin is morally wrong.”
“Define Terms Clearly at the Beginning: Start discussions by clearly defining what you mean by “wrong” in different contexts. Distinguish between pragmatic wrongness (relating to practical consequences of actions), cultural inappropriateness (related to social norms and customs), and moral wrongness (related to ethical principles and values).”
“Use Examples to Illustrate Differences: Provide concrete examples to illustrate the difference between pragmatic wrongness, cultural inappropriateness, and moral wrongness. Examples can be a powerful tool to show how the same action can be wrong in different ways depending on the context.”

Table of Contents: _{^{(Click any link below to navigate to that section.)}}

In discussion on ethics, I frequently encounter demands that I state whether they believe a behavior is “wrong”. But “wrong” is semantically very different in different contexts as seen below.

Pragmatically wrong: If you want a girlfrind, it would be wrong to publicly pick your nose.
Inappropriateness: Wearing shoes inside in Japan is wrong.
Morally wrong: Marrying your cousin is morally wrong.

While I believe torturing cats is pragmatically wrong if you want people to like you, and inappropriate in most cultures, I do not believe it is morally wrong since I am a moral nihilist. How can I prevent equivocation in this context?

To prevent equivocation and ensure clarity in discussions about ethics, especially given the nuanced meanings of “wrong,” you can adopt several strategies. These will help differentiate between the pragmatic, cultural/inappropriateness, and moral aspects of judgments about behavior:

Define Terms Clearly at the Beginning: Start discussions by clearly defining what you mean by “wrong” in different contexts. Distinguish between pragmatic wrongness (relating to practical consequences of actions), cultural inappropriateness (related to social norms and customs), and moral wrongness (related to ethical principles and values). This initial step sets a clear foundation for the conversation.
Use Specific Language: When discussing specific actions or behaviors, explicitly state the type of “wrongness” you are referring to. Instead of saying “It’s wrong to do X,” specify by saying, “It’s pragmatically wrong to do X because of Y,” or “It’s culturally inappropriate to do X in context Z,” or “From a moral nihilistic perspective, I don’t view X as morally wrong because of A.” This precision in language prevents misunderstandings about the basis of your judgment.
Encourage Questions for Clarification: Invite your interlocutors to ask for clarification if they are unsure about the type of wrongness you are discussing. This promotes a dialogue where definitions and meanings can be refined in the course of the conversation.
Use Examples to Illustrate Differences: Provide concrete examples to illustrate the difference between pragmatic wrongness, cultural inappropriateness, and moral wrongness. Examples can be a powerful tool to show how the same action can be wrong in different ways depending on the context.
Acknowledge the Complexity of Ethics: Acknowledge that ethical discussions often involve overlapping considerations of pragmatism, cultural norms, and moral principles. Recognizing this complexity can help prevent oversimplification and encourage a more nuanced discussion.
Explain Your Position on Moral Nihilism: Since your view as a moral nihilist might differ significantly from those who believe in objective moral truths, it’s helpful to explain what moral nihilism entails and how it influences your judgments about actions being “morally wrong.” Clarifying your philosophical stance can help others understand where you’re coming from and prevent misinterpretation of your views.
Promote Understanding Through Dialogue: Finally, emphasize the importance of dialogue and understanding diverse perspectives. Encourage participants to explore not only their own views but to consider why others might see things differently. This fosters an environment where equivocation is less likely because participants are actively engaging with the complexity of ethical language and concepts.

By implementing these strategies, you can facilitate clearer, more effective discussions about ethics that account for the varied meanings of “wrong” and reduce the likelihood of equivocation.

You’re right, “wrong” can be ambiguous in ethical discussions. Here are some ways to prevent equivocation:

Disambiguate “wrong”: When someone asks if something is wrong, clarify which kind of wrong you’re considering. You can say things like:
- “Is it morally wrong?”
- “Is it pragmatically wrong?” (if it affects your goals)
- “Is it socially inappropriate?” (based on social norms)
Use more specific terms: Instead of “wrong,” use terms that reflect the specific nuance you mean. Options include:
- Immoral (opposite of moral)
- Harmful
- Unkind
- Unwise (if it goes against your goals)
- Discourteous (if it violates social norms)
Explain your reasoning: Briefly explain why you consider the behavior wrong in a particular sense. “Torturing cats is cruel” (moral) or “It might make people dislike you” (pragmatic).

Here’s how you could respond to the question of torturing cats:

“Torturing cats is definitely cruel and harmful. Morally, I can see why someone would consider it wrong. However, as a moral nihilist, I don’t hold to absolute moral truths. But, I do recognize the social consequences. Torturing animals is generally seen as wrong and could make people dislike you.”

By being clear and specific, you can avoid misunderstandings and have more productive discussions about ethics.

Can you provide actual scenarios in which someone might equivocate on the term “wrong”?

Equivocation on the term “wrong” often occurs in public debates, ethical discussions, and even in everyday conversations. Here are some actual cases or scenarios where equivocation can happen, drawing upon the different senses of “wrong” you’ve mentioned (pragmatic, cultural/inappropriateness, and moral):

Scenario: A politician argues that a proposed social policy is “wrong” because it is ineffective (pragmatically wrong) and goes against the nation’s values (morally wrong). Opponents might argue against the policy’s effectiveness without addressing the moral claim, or vice versa. The debate becomes muddled because “wrong” is being used to mean both ineffective and ethically unacceptable, without clear distinctions between these meanings.

2. Cultural Practices and International Perspectives

Scenario: An international NGO publishes a report stating that certain traditional practices in a community are “wrong.” If the NGO does not specify whether these practices are pragmatically wrong (e.g., harmful to health), culturally inappropriate (by the NGO’s home culture standards), or morally wrong (according to a universal ethical principle), the community might feel unjustly criticized on all fronts. This can lead to defensive reactions and hinder meaningful dialogue on potentially harmful practices.

3. Corporate Ethics and Business Decisions

Scenario: A company decides to lay off a significant portion of its workforce to remain profitable. In discussions, executives might say it’s “wrong” to keep certain departments running. This “wrong” could be interpreted as pragmatically wrong (not cost-effective), morally wrong (if it implies a lack of loyalty or compassion for employees), or even culturally inappropriate (if the company prides itself on being a ‘family’). Without clarifying, stakeholders might equivocate between these senses, leading to confusion and conflict among employees, shareholders, and the public.

4. Environmental Debates

Scenario: In a debate on climate change, someone might say it’s “wrong” to continue relying on fossil fuels. “Wrong” in this context might be interpreted as pragmatically wrong (because it’s unsustainable), culturally inappropriate (if the discussion is within a community that values environmental stewardship), or morally wrong (due to the harm it causes future generations). Without specifying, the argument can become unfocused, as different participants assume different meanings of “wrong.”

5. Discussions on Dietary Choices

Scenario: When someone states it’s “wrong” to eat meat, the term “wrong” could be interpreted in several ways: pragmatically wrong (considering health or environmental sustainability), culturally inappropriate (in communities where vegetarianism is the norm), or morally wrong (from an animal rights perspective). Without clarification, this can lead to equivocation, with each side of the debate talking past the other, assuming a different basis for the judgment of “wrong.”

In each of these scenarios, the equivocation arises from using “wrong” without specifying the context—pragmatic, cultural, or moral—leading to misunderstandings and hindering constructive dialogue. Making these distinctions clear can facilitate more focused and productive discussions.

Politics:

Two politicians are debating a new law.

Politician A: “This law is wrong! It takes away people’s freedom!” (Appealing to moral principles of freedom)
Politician B: “No, it’s not wrong. It’s just impractical and won’t achieve its goals.” (Focusing on pragmatic wrongness)

Here, both use “wrong” but mean different things. Politician A implies the law goes against fundamental rights, while Politician B focuses on its effectiveness.

Parenting:

A child asks their parent if it’s wrong to eat candy before dinner.

Parent: “Well, it’s not exactly wrong, but it might spoil your appetite for dinner.” (Focusing on pragmatic consequences)

The parent avoids a hard moral judgment but uses “wrong” to suggest it’s not a good idea.

Advertising:

An advertisement claims a product is “all-natural” when it contains some processed ingredients.

Advertiser: “It’s not wrong, the base ingredients are natural!” (Technically true, but misleading)

The advertiser equivocates by focusing on a narrow definition of “natural” to deflect from the broader social expectation of transparency.

Breaking the Rules:

A group of friends discuss sneaking into a movie without paying.

Friend 1: “It’s wrong, it’s stealing!” (Morality)
Friend 2: “It’s not that wrong, everyone does it!” (Social norms)

Friend 2 uses “wrong” to suggest it’s not a big deal despite its violation of rules.

By recognizing these situations, you can be more aware of potential equivocation and encourage clear communication in discussions about ethics.

What other terms similarly create confusion in ethical discussion or are intentionally abused in ethical debates?

Several terms are commonly subject to confusion or intentional misuse in ethical discussions and debates, much like the term “wrong.” These terms often have nuanced meanings and can be interpreted in various ways, depending on the context. Here are some of these terms:

Justice: This term can refer to legal justice (adhering to the law), distributive justice (fair distribution of resources), or social justice (equality in rights and opportunities). The ambiguity or selective use of “justice” can lead to confusion or manipulation of arguments in ethical debates.
Freedom: Freedom can be understood as negative freedom (freedom from interference) or positive freedom (the capacity to act upon one’s free will). Debates often arise over what constitutes undue interference or what actions should be considered expressions of free will.
Equality: Equality might refer to equal treatment, equal opportunities, or equality of outcome. In discussions, failing to specify which aspect of equality is being addressed can lead to misunderstandings, as different interlocutors might assume different meanings.
Rights: The term “rights” can be interpreted in terms of legal rights (protected by law), moral rights (grounded in ethical principles), or natural rights (inherent to human beings). Discussions often conflate these types, leading to equivocation.
Good: In ethical debates, “good” can mean morally good, effective in achieving a goal (instrumentally good), or contributing to well-being (intrinsically good). Without clarification, discussions about what is “good” can become unfocused.
Harm: Harm can refer to physical harm, psychological harm, or even broader societal harm. Debates about what actions are harmful often hinge on the specific understanding of harm being employed, leading to potential confusion or intentional obfuscation.
Responsibility: This term can refer to causal responsibility (being the cause of something), moral responsibility (having a moral obligation), or legal responsibility (being legally accountable). The ambiguity surrounding “responsibility” can complicate ethical discussions, especially when attributing blame or duty.
Fairness: Like equality, fairness can be interpreted in various ways, including procedural fairness (fairness in the process), distributive fairness (fairness in the outcome), and interactional fairness (fairness in interpersonal treatment). Disagreements often arise from different understandings of what constitutes fairness in a given context.
Value: In ethics, “value” can refer to intrinsic value (valuable in itself), instrumental value (valuable as a means to an end), or subjective value (valued by individuals). Discussions about what is valuable can become muddled without specifying the type of value being considered.
Autonomy: Autonomy can mean self-governance, freedom from external coercion, or the capacity for self-determination. Ethical debates around issues like consent, medical decision-making, and political freedom often hinge on the particular interpretation of autonomy being used.

In each case, the potential for confusion or misuse arises from the term’s multiple meanings and the failure to specify which meaning is intended. Clear definitions and context-specific clarifications can help mitigate this issue, leading to more productive and understandable ethical discussions.

Several other terms can cause confusion or be misused in ethical discussions:

Fairness: This term can be subjective. “Fair” to one person might mean equal treatment, while to another it might mean considering different needs.
Natural: Similar to the advertising example, “natural” can be a loaded term. Does it mean minimally processed, found in nature, or simply not synthetic?
Right: Like “wrong,” “right” can refer to morals, legal rights, or simply being correct. Be clear which meaning is intended.
Harm: Defining harm can be tricky. Does it include emotional harm, long-term consequences, or just immediate physical damage?
Choice: The concept of free will and how much agency someone has in a decision can influence whether a choice is considered truly “wrong.”
Values: Everyone has values, but they often differ. Clarifying which values are being considered can help in ethical discussions.
Progress: This term implies a positive direction, but progress for one group might come at the expense of another.

These are just a few examples. Often, terms are misused intentionally to manipulate an argument. Here are some tactics to watch out for:

Appeal to emotion: Using loaded terms to evoke strong feelings can cloud judgment.
Straw man fallacy: Misrepresenting an opponent’s view to make it easier to attack.
False dilemma: Presenting a situation as having only two options, when there might be more.

By being aware of these tactics and ambiguous terms, you can have more productive and clear discussions on ethics.

Create a 7-item quiz on the discussion above with answers at the end.

Here’s a 7-item quiz based on our discussion about equivocation in ethical terms, the complexity of ethical discussion, and the clarification of terms commonly used or abused in ethical debates. The answers are provided at the end.

Quiz: Understanding Ethical Terms and Equivocation

A. Freedom
B. Justice
C. Equality
D. Rights

2. Which type of “freedom” refers to the absence of interference in an individual’s actions?

A. Positive freedom
B. Negative freedom
C. Instrumental freedom
D. Intrinsic freedom

3. Equality of outcome is a concept under which term?

A. Rights
B. Harm
C. Equality
D. Value

4. The term “rights” can be categorized into all the following except:

A. Legal rights
B. Moral rights
C. Natural rights
D. Pragmatic rights

5. Which of the following best describes “instrumental value”?

A. Valuable as a means to an end
B. Valuable in itself
C. Valued by individuals
D. Valuable for societal progress

6. What does “autonomy” primarily refer to in ethical discussions?

A. Equal rights
B. Fairness in treatment
C. Self-governance
D. Legal responsibility

7. Which term is often used ambiguously and can refer to physical harm, psychological harm, or societal harm?

A. Freedom
B. Justice
C. Harm
D. Good

Answers

B. Justice – The term justice can refer to various types, including legal justice, distributive justice, and social justice, depending on the context.
B. Negative freedom – Negative freedom refers to the absence of interference in an individual’s actions.
C. Equality – Equality of outcome is a concept related to ensuring everyone ends up with the same results, which falls under the broader term of equality.
D. Pragmatic rights – The term “rights” includes legal rights, moral rights, and natural rights, but not pragmatic rights, which is not a commonly used categorization in discussions of rights.
A. Valuable as a means to an end – Instrumental value refers to something that is valuable because it helps to achieve something else that is valued.
C. Self-governance – Autonomy in ethical discussions primarily refers to self-governance, or the capacity for self-determination and making one’s own choices.
C. Harm – The term “harm” is used in various contexts to refer to physical, psychological, or societal harm, often leading to ambiguity without further specification.

Quiz: Avoiding Equivocation in Ethical Discussions

This quiz tests your understanding of how the term “wrong” and other terms can be ambiguous in ethical discussions.

Instructions: Choose the answer that best completes the statement.

You believe torturing cats is morally wrong, but someone argues it’s not “wrong” because they are a moral nihilist. What does the nihilist likely mean by “wrong” in this context? a) Immoral (opposite of moral) b) Unwise (goes against goals) c) Socially inappropriate (violates norms) d) All of the above
A politician argues a new law is “wrong” because it takes away freedoms. Their opponent argues it’s just impractical. This disagreement highlights the different meanings of “wrong” as: a) Moral vs. Pragmatic b) Legal vs. Illegal c) Harmful vs. Beneficial d) Objective vs. Subjective
A parent tells their child it’s not “wrong” to eat candy before dinner, but it might spoil their appetite. Here, “wrong” is used to suggest: a) A violation of moral principles b) A violation of social norms c) Negative consequences
An advertisement claims a product is “all-natural” when it contains some processed ingredients. This is an example of equivocation on the term: a) Fairness b) Natural c) Right
Which of these terms can be subjective in ethical discussions? a) Harm b) Values c) Both a and b
When someone argues a situation offers only two choices (right or wrong) when more options exist, they might be committing the fallacy of: a) Appeal to emotion b) Straw man c) False dilemma
The best way to avoid misunderstandings in ethical discussions is to: a) Use the term “wrong” exclusively. b) Be clear and specific about the meaning you intend. c) Focus on emotional appeals.

Answer Key:

(b) Unwise (goes against goals)
(a) Moral vs. Pragmatic
(c) Negative consequences
(b) Natural
(c) Both a and b
(c) False dilemma
(b) Be clear and specific about the meaning you intend.

Provide 12 discussion questions relevant to the content above.

Defining Justice: How do the concepts of legal justice, distributive justice, and social justice differ, and can they ever conflict with one another? Provide examples.
Freedom’s Dual Nature: Discuss the distinction between negative freedom and positive freedom. Can you think of situations where prioritizing one over the other might lead to ethical dilemmas?
Equality and Fairness: Is equality of outcome always fair? Consider scenarios in education or employment where equality of outcome and equality of opportunity may lead to different results.
Rights and Their Foundations: Debate the basis of rights. Are rights best understood as legal constructs, moral principles, or something inherent to human beings (natural rights)? Support your position with arguments.
The Value of Values: What distinguishes intrinsic value from instrumental value? Give examples of things you believe have intrinsic value and explain why.
Autonomy in Ethical Decision-Making: How important is autonomy in ethical decision-making, especially in contexts like healthcare or the workplace? Discuss potential conflicts between respecting autonomy and other ethical principles.
Understanding Harm: Explore the different dimensions of harm (physical, psychological, societal). How should ethical discussions navigate these different types of harm when making judgments about right and wrong actions?
Justice vs. Equity: How do the concepts of justice and equity intersect, and where might they diverge? Discuss with reference to a current social issue.
The Role of Cultural Context in Ethics: How does cultural context influence the interpretation of terms like “freedom” and “rights”? Discuss whether ethical principles can be universal or are inherently cultural.
Ethical Implications of Technological Advancement: Consider how technological advancements challenge traditional notions of harm, autonomy, and privacy. What new ethical questions do these advancements raise?
Equivocation in Political Discourse: Analyze how equivocation on terms like “justice” and “freedom” can impact political discourse and policy-making. Can you identify recent instances where this has occurred?
Moral Nihilism and Ethical Discussions: How does the perspective of moral nihilism challenge conventional ethical discussions? Discuss whether it’s possible to have productive ethical debates with a moral nihilist.

Discussion Questions: Avoiding Equivocation in Ethical Discussions

The Many Shades of “Wrong”: Beyond moral right and wrong, can you think of other contexts where “wrong” has different meanings? How can we distinguish between these meanings in conversation?
Pragmatism vs. Morality: Imagine a situation where doing something morally wrong could lead to a positive outcome. How would you weigh these factors when making a decision?
Social Norms vs. Universal Truths: Are there any ethical principles that are truly universal, or are they all shaped by social norms? How can we tell the difference?
The Power of Language: How can companies or advertisers use equivocation to mislead consumers about the ethical implications of their products? What are some strategies for spotting this tactic?
Fair Enough?: Why can the concept of “fairness” be subjective in ethical discussions? How can we find common ground when people have different ideas of what’s fair?
The Burden of Proof: When someone claims something is “wrong,” who has the responsibility to define what they mean? Is it the person making the claim or the person responding to it?
Beyond Black and White: Why can presenting a situation as a “false dilemma” be a hindrance to ethical discussions? How can we encourage a more nuanced approach?
The Role of Emotions: Can strong emotions cloud our judgment in ethical discussions? On the other hand, can emotions ever play a positive role? If so, how?
Straw Man Fallacy in Action: Can you think of an example from current events or history where someone used a straw man fallacy to misrepresent an opponent’s ethical position? How did it affect the discussion?
Values in Conflict: Imagine a situation where two core values clash. For example, honesty vs. loyalty. How can we navigate these situations and make ethical decisions?
Progress for Whom?: Can something be considered ethical progress if it benefits one group at the expense of another? How can we weigh the impact on different stakeholders?
Building Bridges: What are some practical tips for having productive and clear discussions about ethics, even with people who hold different viewpoints?