What Color is Evil?

An Investigation of the Analogy

Between Colors and Values.

Jonah Bossewitch

PHI 307

Professor Elijah Millgram

January 9, 1994

Over the years, the investigation of morals has taken many strange twists and turns in the quest to determine the source of moral authority. Although the only two possible sources for any authority are internal and external, the debate rages on. In a recent move to resolve this dilemma, philosophers have proposed a conception of morals that appears to straddle the fence. Their claim is grounded in the fact that, the perception of some qualities depends on both internal and external factors. The paradigm example of such a quality is color, and although the question of how we perceive colors is far more complex than most people imagine, the fact that the perception of colors is response dependent, seems inescapable. After centuries of likening values to virtually everything from objects to emotions, philosophers began to wonder, what if values are like colors?

Many philosophers mistakenly believe that the analogy with colors actually simplifies the question of moral authority, since the authority is neither internal nor external, but something in between. This view unnecessarily postulates a mysterious third source of authority , since we can view the authority of colors simply as a combination of internal and external components. If this is the case, the analogy with colors actually complicates matters. Instead of only having to explain the nature of one source of authority, we are now in a position of having to explain the nature of both internal and external authority. However, although the analogy with colors may complicate matters, the idea was also responsible for one of the most important breakthroughs in contemporary moral theory - the idea that the perception of values is dependent on how we're built, or in formal terms, the structure of the agent (S). This idea sprung from the realization that, just as the perception of colors is dependent on the S, the perception of values might be dependent on S as well. Some people see colors "normally" (i.e. the way most people do), some people are color blind, some people experience synesthesia, and in all probability, no two people experience colors in the same way. Similarly, if values are like colors, perhaps the perception of values is a function of S, in the same way that it is for colors.

It is tempting to accept this conclusion because on the surface it sounds plausible, and, in contrast to most other meta-ethical theories, this one it actually proposes a way to make progress in the field. If it is correct, then investigating S will help us understand how and why we make value judgements. However, before we rush off to begin this investigation, we better first carefully analyze the argument. So far, the explanation of the analogy between colors and values has been sloppy and vague. Until we have a better idea of how the two are similar, we have no right to infer that something that applies to one, also applies to the other. One thing is certain, and that is that colors and values must be disanalogous in some ways, or else the two concepts would be identical. Nobody ever intended to suggest that values are colors, only that they are similar in some ways. The revised question that we must now ask is: In what respects are colors and values analogous, and in what respects are they disanalogous?

Whether or not we like it, the answer to this question may show that we have no reason to believe that the perception of values is a function of S. If colors and values are disanalogous in a way that way that is related to why color perception is response dependent, we can not rationally infer that value perception is response dependant as well. By the same token, if we find that colors and values are disanalogous in a way that is related to the nature of what they respond to, or, the types of features that they describe, we may discover that although the perception of both are a function of S, they are functions of different aspects of S. Such a discovery could heavily influence the direction and the nature of the investigation into the structure of agency.

The initial suggestion that colors are analogous to values was based on the idea that both are response dependent, which is equivalent to saying that perceiving them involves internal and external components. In all instances where perception relies, even in part, on inside authority, S is relevant. This is true since an investigation of S is really an investigation of the internal mechanisms involved in a given process. A more thorough understanding of S will lead to a better understanding of exactly what we mean when we say that the authority comes from the inside. In fact, the entire branch of reasoning that attributes moral authority to the inside, can benefit from an investigation of the S. For example, emotivists would gain if they could present a clearer picture of how emotions work, and the way that emotions work is an aspect of S.

Although we don't need the analogy between colors and values to justify the dependence of values on the S, historically, philosophers only began to appreciate the importance of S after considering the case of colors. However, although it may be valid to claim that values are like colors since both are response dependant, values and colors differ fundamentally with respect to what they respond to. This fact turns out to be extremely relevant in determining which aspects of S ought to be investigated in order to gain a better understanding of the perception of values. Investigators of color perception are certainly not interested in the aspect of S that deals with emotions (although ultimately they might be), as they believe that differences in color perception can be explained by individual differences in people's visual systems. As we have hinted at with the two examples of different aspects of S, the structure of agency is a vast topic with many, many different aspects. If we are not cautious, we may find ourselves barking up the wrong tree, investigating an aspect of S that is relevant to color perception, but not to value perception.

Surface Qualities vs. Deep Qualities

One of the key ways in which colors differ from values is that, the quality we call color describes the surface properties of the object, while the quality we call value describes properties of the object that go deeper than the surface. This point is nontrivial, and can only be demonstrated through an analysis of the concepts in question. While it is correct to think that this analysis must involve an investigation of the meaning of color words and value words, "let's not forget that a word hasn't got a meaning given to it, as it were, by a power independent of us, so that there could be a kind of scientific investigation into what the word really means. A word has the meaning someone has given to it. "1 Our problem with moral language is that, we seem to have "forgotten" the meanings that were given to the words. The strange part is, that we continue to use these words even though we are not really sure what they mean. The only way to recover (or discover, as the case may be) this knowledge is by inferring it from observations of the usage of the words in question. As we shall find, the language of color is often used in ways that the language of value is not. Furthermore, this usage is not accidental, as it is impossible to even conceive of using value words in some of the ways that color words are routinely used.

"Hmmm, I really like this plunger, but does it come in cyan?" This type of question is probably heard hundreds of times daily by most salesmen, and all of them (usually) understand exactly what the customer means. The customer is requesting an object (A) that is identical to another object (B) in every respect except for its color (and perhaps its price). When mail order catalogues specify that an item is available in melon, coral, moss, loden, putty, claret, oatmeal heather, ecru, and red,2 it is understood that they are selling items that are identical in every way except for color. Most people take for granted the fact that two objects can be different colors, and still be identical in every other way. However, this trait is not true of every quality, and as we shall see, it seems like there are instances where this is not true of colors either. Things begin to get interesting when we ask, what is it about colors that allows us to treat them interchangeably? Two Senses of Surface.

A first response to this question might appeal to the physics of color. It would go something along the lines of "color is only skin deep". Since color is perceived because of the reflection of light off of the surface of an object, the outside of an object is the only part of an object responsible for the color perceived. Consequently, altering the color need not require an alteration of any part of the object below the surface. This way, the integral parts of the object, i.e. the characteristics that make it that object, can be preserved in a color change, and we can talk about an object changing colors without being changed in any other way.

This approach is doomed from the start, as its oversimplified account of the physics of color is just plain wrong. In his book Color for Philosophers, Hardin relentlessly proves that the physics of color are infinitely more complex than philosophers had ever previously imagined. "The number and variety of the physical properties of objects which influence their perceived color are surprisingly large."3 The fact of the matter is, the factors that cause us to perceive color are usually not caused by the surface of an object. Flames, neon lights, rainbows, sunsets, and oil slicks are just a few examples of objects that should convince us that this assertion is true. If it seems counter intuitive that the color of a "solid" object could be determined by its internal molecular structure, sorry, but to the best of our knowledge, that's the way the world works.

The claim that color is a surface quality can be salvaged by sidestepping the issue of physics. In the preceding argument the word surface was used in its mathematical sense, namely the boundary between the inside and the outside of an object. There is another sense of the word surface that allows us to understand why colors can be treated interchangeably. A surface quality can also mean a superficial quality, or more precisely, a quality which is not built in to the definition of object A. According to this claim, the language of colors is not intended to describe features of an object that are crucial in its identification. Since color words describe surface qualities, (in the superficial sense) the words can be used interchangeably when describing an object without altering the fundamental nature of the object being described.

It is important to recognize that the second argument is weaker than the first, since the first argument makes a claim about the intrinsic nature of colors, while the second argument merely makes a claim about how we use color words. Still, it is possible to object to the second argument on the grounds that there are counter examples to the claim that color words are always interchangeable. For example, if I walked into an auto parts store and asked the shopkeeper if he sold any brake lights in green, he would probably throw me out of the store for wasting his time. In the case of brake lights the color does not a seem to be a surface quality, since the definition of a brake light includes the fact that it is red. We can also find many instances in nature where color seems to have a deep meaning, and is used to communicate information. Bright colors, like red and yellow, are often danger signals indicating poison, and in many species, colors can indicate gender, maturity, or readiness to mate. There are still some remnants of this type of color use of in modern human society. For instance, to a member of a street gang, colors can indicate friend or foe, and can mean the difference between life and death. Finally, recent psychological research4 indicates that the colors of your environment can influence your mood, even if your not aware of their effect. While we have not yet incorporated this findings into our language, we can imagine a time in the future when colors become associated with moods, and cease to be interchangeably in certain contexts. These cases show that there are some uses of color that describe deep qualities of an object. Never the less, it is still valid to claim that most of the current usage of color language only describes surface qualities, and essentially carries no meaning.

The Case of Values.

While color language is primarily used to describe surface qualities, the same can not be said about values. Try to imagine a scenario in which the value language is interchangeably. Say that your trying to describe somebody to a friend of yours who does not know him. Could it ever make sense to say that he is exactly like an a**hole you both know, except that he is a nice guy? How about walking into a music store and asking if they have any good music that sounds exactly like "The New Kids on the Block." Would you ever send back the desert in a restaurant and insist that they serve you something that tastes just like it, only good? It seems as if value language is never interchangeable since it is only used to describe deep qualities. What is going on here? Why can't value words be swapped the same way that color words can? Is the fact that value words can't be swapped simply a issue of how we happen to use them, or is it impossible to even imagine a possible world in which value words describe surface qualities?

If all value language describes deep qualities, it is clear that value words can never be swapped. Since deep qualities are essential to the nature of the object, it is impossible to alter a deep quality without changing the object in a significant way. If this point is hard to accept, consider an analogy involving the predicates electrical and mechanical. Since machines are defined in terms of how they function, and these words describe the way that something works, these predicates describe "deep qualities" of machines. It completely incoherent imagine a musical instrument that is the exactly the same as a bass guitar, except that it is mechanical. Since the fact that it works electrically is an essential part of the object being a bass guitar, once the predicate "electric" is removed from the object, it ceases to be a bass guitar. Therefore, it would never be possible to swap the predicate "electric" for any other predicate, and still be referring to the same type of machine. Returning to the case of values, if all values describe deep qualities, then it is impossible, even in principle, for values to be interchangeable in the same way that colors are most of the time.

The problem is that we have not yet shown that all values describe deep qualities. All we have shown is that, in the examples given above, values described deep qualities. Perhaps there are some uses of value words that describe surface qualities. Just because we could not think of any counter examples to the claim, does not mean that none exist. As we have seen, color language seems capable of describing both deep and surface values depending on the context. Why should we believe that, unlike colors, values are only used to describe deep qualities?

The answer to this question lies in determining the purposes of having color language and value language. This endeavor speculative since we can never actually know why language developed the way that it did. For the time being, let us imagine a time before the "invention"5 of color words or value words in our language. What possible reasons could we have for inventing them? What function would they serve? What types of qualities would we intend for them to describe?

It is easy to imagine the need to development color words, since it is an obvious way to differentiate between objects. Think of what a primitive conversation would have been like before the invention of color words. Bob: "Would you please pass me the spear." Joe: "Which one?" Bob: "Uhhhh." The invention of color language is not surprising, since its usefulness is obvious. Note, color language had to be originally invented to describe surface qualities and not deep qualities. Chronologically, the use color words to describe deep qualities could not have preceded the use of color words to describe surface qualities. There is simply no way to understand color words that describe deep qualities without first having an understanding of color words that surface qualities. Imagine our two prehistoric friends, this time gathering food: Bob: "Don't pick any poison berries." Joe: "Which ones are poisonous?" Unless Bob has already invented color words that describe surface colors, he is once again at a loss for words, (literally) and is forced to reply with his now infamous "Uhhhh." If this argument is correct6, then we may be mistaken about what color words actually describe. The counter examples enumerated earlier (p. 6) implied that color words sometimes describe deep qualities. However, it is also possible to claim that color words only describe surface qualities, even when they are not interchangeable. The fact that they sometimes appear to be describing deep qualities is the result of a subtle illusion.

The claim that colors only describe surface qualities, can be reconciled with the counter examples if you can defend the distinction between a word that describes a deep quality, and a word that is associated with a deep quality. Had Bob been acquainted with the language of color, he would have told Joe to stay away from the red berries. But, this does not necessarily imply that the word red is being used to describe a deep quality of the berries. Bob may have learned that, in the case of berries, the surface quality red was associated with poison. He could have learned this by observing that, every time he watched somebody eat a red berry, they died within an hour. Since Bob has taken some Philosophy courses, he forms the hypothesis that the berries are poisonous, and then conducts some experiments that confirmed his predictions. He concludes that the death of his friends and his experimental subjects are caused by eating red berries, and he induces that in the future, eating red berries will have the same effect on people that they have had in the past. He warns his tribe not to eat any berry he describes red, because if you do you will die. He patiently explains to his tribe how, this use of the word "red" is actually shorthand for the phrase "this surface quality 'red' is associated with the deep quality 'poisonous'." Bob's explanation implies that color words never really describe deep qualities. The fact that they are not interchangeable makes them seem like they are deep qualities. But this can also be explained by arguing that the only reason they are not interchangeable is because they are associated with actual deep qualities, and consequently behave similarly to them.

The Myth of the Green Berry Bushes

Many years have passed, and the tribes that never invented color words eventually all die out, although no archeologist has been able to explain this mysterious mass extinction (although some recently translated cookbooks seem to indicate a fondness for a certain color berry). On the other hand, thanks to Bob's monumental discovery, his tribe has thrived, and they spend most of their free time conducting experiments to discover other deep qualities that are associated with colors. They still scavenge and hunt, but even in times of great famine, they never go near the red berries. While the situation could scarcely improve for Bob's tribe, the Red Berry Bushes were not as fortunate. In earlier times, the Red Berry Bushes, who at the time were actually the Green Berry Bushes, had come up with a plan to insure their survival. They decided that the best way to survive was to scatter their seeds all over the place, with the hope that some of them would take root. The only problem was that they could not move. They need to figure out some way to coax some of those funny looking creatures with legs to move their seeds around for them. That's when the Green Berry Bushes, who really could not help the fact that every creature who ate their berries died, decided upon their own plan for survival. Hardly anybody noticed their green berries since they were the same color green as the Bush's leaves. From now on they would grow red berries to attract the attention of the creatures with legs, who would hopefully move them around. This plan worked for quite some time, except that there was one minor problem. The silly creatures with legs kept eating the red berries even though they were poisonous. For a while, this didn't really bother the Red Berry Bushes since the seeds ended up being scattered, one way or another. But then, one day the creatures with legs stopped picking the red berries. The Red Berry Bushes realized that if this kept up for much longer, they would have to give up their dream of world domination. It was time for another brainstorming session.

The red berry bushes were stumped, until one of the younger bushes piped up "why don't we pretend to be a different kind of bush? If we choose one that the leg creatures like to eat from they won't be able to tell the difference, and they will start to pick our berries again." At first, the majority of the bushes objected. "If we change the color of our berries we will no longer be the same!" A shouting match broke out between the younger generation of Red Berry Bushes and the older one, and it seemed like the meeting had turned out to be a complete failure. All of a sudden, one of the old timers (and the old timers never spoke) hushed everyone up and began to talk. "I was around in the days when we grew green berries, and I remember having the same argument the night that we all voted to switch to red. Back then I was naive, and I believed that color words described deep qualities. But after growing red berries, I noticed that I was exactly the same as before, except that now my berries were red instead of green. It was then that I realized that colors only describe surface qualities." He continued to explain, and his speech was so inspiring that the Red Berry Bushes decided to change the color of their berries again, and became the Blue Berry Bushes.

Meanwhile, over the years, Bob's descendants had become lazy, and their analytical skills had suffered. They had forgotten the distinction that Bob had made between words that really describe deep qualities, and words that describe surface qualities that are associated with deep qualities. As far as they were concerned, the color "red" described the deep quality of an objects ability to kill you if you let it get inside of you. When the Red Berry Bushes made their switch to blue, the people had a hunch that something was not right, but they could not put their finger on it. They began to harvest the blue berries, since after all, they were not red, so they must be OK. When people started dropping dead, the tribe could not understand why. It did not even occur to them that the berries might be to blame, because in the years of their experimentation they had found that the surface quality "blue"was associated with the deep quality "safe to eat" (of course by now they all believed that word "blue" described the deep quality "safe to eat"). If it had not been for the courage and the perseverance of a young woman called Pinky, we not be around today to tell this story.

Pinky was an outcast, whose real name was actually Elizabeth. Even though there are plenty of nicknames for the name Elizabeth, ever since the bizarre encounter with the Blue Berry Bush that "ate" her little finger, she was only known as Pinky. Nobody realized until it was all over that, the encounter had been a premeditated attempt on Liz's life. The Blue Berry Bushes knew that Beth was the leg creature's last hope, and had tried to put an end to the threat that she posed. Ironically, the Blue Berry Bushes actions ultimately led to their defeat, since after her injury, Pinky was no longer qualified to work in the fields. She filled the long, lonely hours by studying the writings of Bob, and became the only person in the tribe who understood that colors were not deeper qualities. She experimented on the blue berries in much the same way that Bob did, and reached the conclusion that the berries were poisonous. However, the task of explaining this to the people would not be as easy as it was in Bob's day, when the people were educated. If she tried tell the people that the blue berries could be described as red, they would lock her up in the cave that they put all of the lunatics. After much deliberation, Pinky decided that she needed to invent a new type of word - one that described the deep qualities of the object. She decided to call this type of word a "value" and proceeded to flesh out the necessary details of her system.	Eventually, after many classroom hours, she convinced people of the need for value language analogous to the color language. She argued that it is sometimes important to describe the deep qualities of an object, like when it is impossible to associate a surface quality with a deep quality. For instance, it is impossible to expose a deception without using words that describe deep qualities. Something is deceptive when it's surface qualities are identical to something else, but it's deep qualities remain different, so by definition a deception can only be exposed by using words that describe deep qualities. "The Blue Berry Bushes have deceived us," she declared, "but we can not expose this deception without introducing some new vocabulary. The fact that a berry kills you is a deep quality of the Berry. Let us call any berry that kills you 'bad , where 'bad' is a value. This way, although only a red berry can be 'red', any color berry can be 'bad'." By inventing the language of values, Pinky was able to expose the deception of the Blue Berry Bushes, save the human race from extinction, and foil the Bushes plans for world domination. At the same time, the invention of values opened a Pandora's Box, that philosophers to this day are still trying to close.

Summary and Conclusion.

We started out this investigation with the question, "In what respects are colors and values analogous, and in what respects are they disanalogous?"

We discovered that they are similar with respect to the fact that they are both response dependant. This is equivalent, to saying that the perception of both are a function of internal and external authority.

We also showed that they are different with respect to what features of an object they are used to describe. Colors are only used to describe surface qualities (in the superficial sense), even though there are some contexts in which color words are not interchangeable. The reason that colors are not always interchangeable is that, colors can become associated with deep qualities, and this can create the illusion that color words themselves describe deep qualities. Values are only used to describe deep qualities. In the Myth of the Green Berry Bushes values were invented out of a need to describe deep qualities. While this is obviously not an account of how values actually developed, the fact that, we sometimes need to use a word that describes deep qualities, is still true. Without the language of values we could never talk about a deception, since by definition, a deception involves the simulation of surface qualities.

Since value perception is partially a function of internal mechanisms, we proved that it is dependent on S. A follow up question asked "Are the same aspects of S relevant to the investigations of both color perception, and value perception?" The answer to this question is a resounding "No"! Although both colors and values are response dependant, the nature of what they respond to is different. This assertion is equivalent to the claim that colors and values describe different types of qualities. Since these two types of perception involve responding to different types of qualities, there in no reason to think that the same parts of our internal structure are used in processing the two different types of information. Colors describe surface qualities, which by definition do not have any bearing on identity of object, therefore, the ultimate representation of a color requires no recognition of the object. In contrast, values describe the deep qualities of an object, which require knowledge of the object, in which case the ultimate representation of a value requires recognition of the object (although it need not be correct). If this is true, then the mechanics of color perception may someday be explained completely in terms of the visual system. However, the mechanics of value perception, would have to involve a much higher order system, since recognition is the necessary first step in forming the representation of a value. While this might not sound complicated, the secrets of object recognition have eluded scientists and philosophers for centuries. Some might find this conclusion depressing, since until we figure out recognition we will never be able to understand values, and it does not look like an understanding of recognition is around the corner. Others, might find this conclusion to be a fresh motivation to tackle the problem of recognition. The rest of us can be consoled by the fact that, although we are not any closer to understanding values, at least now we know why we don't understand them.

I pledge my redness that I did not violate the honor code writing this paper.

Jonah Bossewitch