Language and Ethics—Tentative Thoughts-2025-10-11
1. The learning of language and ethics
A first language is learned, not by any formal instruction, but rather by a sort of absorption that appears to be innate in young children but fades away in later years.
So also, a “first ethics” may be learned, starting at a young age, by a similar absorptive process. Typically, the learning in this case is again based less on any formal instruction than on observation and replication.
So just as a first language is probably best taught and learned through the practice of the language—conversation—so also, a “first ethics” is probably best taught and learned through the practice of ethics—ethical behavior.
So the first ethics, just like the first language, is passed on more by example and imitation than by formal instruction.
In both cases, the learning process appears to proceed largely at a subconscious level . There is still a place, however for more deliberate teaching and learning. This becomes more important in the learning of a second or third language—especially at an older age, and particularly for a language that is foreign or is no longer spoken in conversation—as for a scriptural or classical language. So also, this more deliberate or formal teaching and learning becomes more important in the acquisition of what might be termed a “second ethics”.
2. The core functions of language and ethics
Language is, at its base, a means of communication between individuals. This makes the “sum” of two or more individuals greater than its parts, allowing for all kinds of things that would otherwise not be possible.
One should note here that language can bridge great distances, as through letters—and now electronic communications. It can also bridge the same in time, as it does each time we read (or nowadays listen to) something written or spoken in the past, be this a few minutes or thousands of years ago.
Indeed, in this way, language can even serve as a (one-way) bridge between the dead and the living.
Ethics is a means of regulating the interactions between individuals. This again makes the “sum” of two or more individuals greater than its parts. This is because ethical behavior builds trust and so allows for cooperation that would otherwise not be possible.
Language is, at its base, a means of communication between individuals. This makes the “sum” of two or more individuals greater than its parts, allowing for all kinds of things that would otherwise not be possible.
One should note here that language can bridge great distances, as through letters—and now electronic communications. It can also bridge the same in time, as it does each time we read (or nowadays listen to) something written or spoken in the past, be this a few minutes or thousands of years ago.
Indeed, in this way, language can even serve as a (one-way) bridge between the dead and the living.
Ethics is a means of regulating the interactions between individuals. This again makes the “sum” of two or more individuals greater than its parts. This is because ethical behavior builds trust and so allows for cooperation that would otherwise not be possible.
3. Deception versus honesty: an example of an interaction between language and ethics
Language can be used to inform—and so also to deceive. In communities where there is prolonged contact between individuals, including from birth onwards, lying is likely to be detected sooner or later. This can not only spoil the relationship between the liar and the lied to, it can ruin the reputation of the liar throughout his/her community. This serves as a strong constraint against this practice within such communities. This further reinforces the value of honesty, which is part of almost every known human ethical code.
Truth-telling can also have its hazards, as we all must know. There can be occasions where it is better to remain silent or even to lie. This can be to protect oneself or else to protect others. However, remaining silent or, even more, lying, also have their hazards, beginning, but not ending, with the breakage of the ethical code and the guilt that this can engender in otherwise honest individuals. As mentioned earlier, the major hazard is the likely loss of trust and the consequences of this loss, especially if the dishonesty occurs within a closely bound community.
At a deeper level, we cannot function as either individuals or groups without access to reality. Anything that comes in the way of this is ultimately harmful. However, at times it may be necessary to shield vulnerable individuals, especially children, from the harsh impact of reality.
Language can be used to inform—and so also to deceive. In communities where there is prolonged contact between individuals, including from birth onwards, lying is likely to be detected sooner or later. This can not only spoil the relationship between the liar and the lied to, it can ruin the reputation of the liar throughout his/her community. This serves as a strong constraint against this practice within such communities. This further reinforces the value of honesty, which is part of almost every known human ethical code.
Truth-telling can also have its hazards, as we all must know. There can be occasions where it is better to remain silent or even to lie. This can be to protect oneself or else to protect others. However, remaining silent or, even more, lying, also have their hazards, beginning, but not ending, with the breakage of the ethical code and the guilt that this can engender in otherwise honest individuals. As mentioned earlier, the major hazard is the likely loss of trust and the consequences of this loss, especially if the dishonesty occurs within a closely bound community.
At a deeper level, we cannot function as either individuals or groups without access to reality. Anything that comes in the way of this is ultimately harmful. However, at times it may be necessary to shield vulnerable individuals, especially children, from the harsh impact of reality.
4. The basis of ethics and the golden rule
Ethical codes vary between societies in their details. However, there are some fairly common elements on which all ethical behavior, and so also most ethical codes, are based.
i) Truth-seeking and truth-telling: In order to deal with reality we have to recognize it. We cannot function as a group without assisting others in this recognition. Deception actively distorts the perception of reality, putting those who are deceived at a disadvantage.
ii) Empathy: This is an innate capacity that allows us to “feel” what another being is feeling. Without the development and exercise of this capacity, we are likely to become isolated from one another, to act in ways that are hurtful to others, and to not offer help when it is needed. This capacity can at times be painful to its exerciser. He/she may find it easier to turn away from this discomfort. However, this leads both to social disintegration and to individual numbness, apathy, or even cruel depravity.
iii) Justice: This is an innate instinct for fairness or equity, which allows us to live together amiably without festering resentments.
iv) Respect: This means valuing others, beginning with tolerance of differences, but going beyond that. We feel valued when we are respected, and we come to appreciate the worth of others through respecting them. These two things combined makes working together easier, and utilizes better the potential in each individual.
Ethical codes vary between societies in their details. However, there are some fairly common elements on which all ethical behavior, and so also most ethical codes, are based.
i) Truth-seeking and truth-telling: In order to deal with reality we have to recognize it. We cannot function as a group without assisting others in this recognition. Deception actively distorts the perception of reality, putting those who are deceived at a disadvantage.
ii) Empathy: This is an innate capacity that allows us to “feel” what another being is feeling. Without the development and exercise of this capacity, we are likely to become isolated from one another, to act in ways that are hurtful to others, and to not offer help when it is needed. This capacity can at times be painful to its exerciser. He/she may find it easier to turn away from this discomfort. However, this leads both to social disintegration and to individual numbness, apathy, or even cruel depravity.
iii) Justice: This is an innate instinct for fairness or equity, which allows us to live together amiably without festering resentments.
iv) Respect: This means valuing others, beginning with tolerance of differences, but going beyond that. We feel valued when we are respected, and we come to appreciate the worth of others through respecting them. These two things combined makes working together easier, and utilizes better the potential in each individual.
Various cultures have summarized these precepts in their ethical codes and religious beliefs in what has come to be known as the golden rule. This has both negative formulations, as in:
Do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself.
and positive formulations, as in:
Love and do for others as you love and do for yourself.
5. The applicability of ethics
i) Comprehension and agreement
Each human language is shared by a set of individuals. The number of individuals within this set can vary in size from very small to very large. A particular language can only be used to communicate with those who either know that language or its rudiments, or else know another language that is similar enough for communications to proceed without too much hindrance.
Ethical codes are also shared by a set of individuals, with the number in the set again varying from small to large. Clearly, ethical codes cannot be used to regulate behavioral interactions between individuals or groups whose ethical codes are widely divergent. The codes need to be close enough for interactions to proceed and trust to be cemented without too much hindrance.
ii) A deeper question
Clearly, humans do not always treat strangers as they would treat those they know. There are circles of kinship and friendship, within each of which there is more trust and more bonding than there is with those outside that circle.
Let us illustrate this with an extreme example: most of us are far less constrained or energized by ethics in our interactions with flies then we are in our interactions with humans.
However, there have been many cases in which humans seemed to have had as little regard for fellow humans as they had for flies; so they treated those humans no better than they would treat flies. This is not just part of our shared past. This is also part of our shared present and so also our future.
So the question of the zone of applicability of ethics remains a vital one.
2025 October 11, Sat.
Berkeley, California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Note added: Multiple first languages and/or “first ethics”
It can happen that a child learns more than one language in the first few years of its life, doing so either simultaneously or in fairly rapid sequence, during the course of infancy, early childhood, and what follows soon after.
Thanks to the extraordinary, sponge-like language-learning abilities of young children, the child may become almost equally proficient in these multiple first languages, speaking and comprehending each of these as well or nearly as well as a native speaker of exclusively any one of these tongues.
The two or more languages learned could be very similar, even to the point of being called dialects, or they could be very different—including in sounds, intonations, vocabulary, grammar, syntax, etc.
None of these differences seems to interfere much with the absorptive process characteristic of language learning in children, although the production of certain sounds, for instance, may take longer to learn to perfection.
Indeed, the main difficulty may come when the languages resemble each other too closely, as with neighboring dialects, causing some overlap and confusion in their use.
Of course, it is also possible that there are variations in the child’s proficiency in these multiple first languages, typically depending on onsets of exposure, amounts of exposure, and opportunities of use.
A child will typically switch between its multiple first languages depending on context—using, for instance, one language with its mother, another with its paternal grandmother or other person closely involved in its care. These parallel proficiencies and this switching ability may be maintained well into later age, including adulthood.
So also, is it possible for a child to acquire two or more “first ethics” simultaneously or in fairly rapid succession, become equally or almost equally proficient in each, and switch between these depending on context?
This might perhaps be possible. Surely, something like this should be possible for two or more later-acquired “second ethics”.
Shifting between languages does not usually involve any internal conflicts. Switching between ethical codes might.
2025 October 12, Sun.
No comments:
Post a Comment