![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I have a problem with morality.
Let me clarify - I have a problem with absolute morality.
Actually, that's not true either. I don't believe in absolute morality, so I don't have a problem with it, per se. What I have a problem with is people who _do_ believe in absolute morality.
Because you can't negotiate with them. Worse than that, you can't get them to understand that you don't share their morals, because they don't view their morals as opinions, feelings and personal judgements, they view them as Right. This inevitably leads to a lack of empathy with their opposition and a tendency to demonise them or dismiss them entirely.
Which isn't to say that there aren't factual things that people connect to their moral judgements. Those you can show to be right or wrong - there are always statistics to quibble over, historical documents that may or may not be valid, interpretations of experiments to debate. Nor am I saying that I'm against people having strong moral values (I feel very strongly about certain things myself) or arguing in favour of their own moral values (I believe people should be allowed to talk about their own moral judgements as much as they like).
What I am saying is that there's a very definite difference between "I want to live in a world where people don't X" and "Anyone who does X, for any reason, is wrong." The first statement is about a person's wishes for the world, how they'd like things to be. The second brooks no discussion, no quibbling about situation A or situation B, whether the long-term good justifies short-term bad or how to live in a world that isn't ideal.
The world does not contain any in-built morality. It contains vast amounts of mess and chaos that we impose our own patterns on. When I see people trying to simplify it down to "X is right and Y is wrong", in any situation, I know that I'm not dealing with a person who understands that, and is willing to try and work towards a bearable situation in an imperfect world.
Which isn't to say that you aren't going to sometimes have to deal with people who believe things that are utterly inimical to your own viewpoint, and neither of you is willing to move far enough from your own viewpoint to reach a compromise. How you deal with those situations is up to you, but you'll certainly find it a lot easier if you remember that you're dealing with two opposing viewpoints, feelings about the way the world should be, and not with divine statements of Good and Bad or Natural Laws.
Let me clarify - I have a problem with absolute morality.
Actually, that's not true either. I don't believe in absolute morality, so I don't have a problem with it, per se. What I have a problem with is people who _do_ believe in absolute morality.
Because you can't negotiate with them. Worse than that, you can't get them to understand that you don't share their morals, because they don't view their morals as opinions, feelings and personal judgements, they view them as Right. This inevitably leads to a lack of empathy with their opposition and a tendency to demonise them or dismiss them entirely.
Which isn't to say that there aren't factual things that people connect to their moral judgements. Those you can show to be right or wrong - there are always statistics to quibble over, historical documents that may or may not be valid, interpretations of experiments to debate. Nor am I saying that I'm against people having strong moral values (I feel very strongly about certain things myself) or arguing in favour of their own moral values (I believe people should be allowed to talk about their own moral judgements as much as they like).
What I am saying is that there's a very definite difference between "I want to live in a world where people don't X" and "Anyone who does X, for any reason, is wrong." The first statement is about a person's wishes for the world, how they'd like things to be. The second brooks no discussion, no quibbling about situation A or situation B, whether the long-term good justifies short-term bad or how to live in a world that isn't ideal.
The world does not contain any in-built morality. It contains vast amounts of mess and chaos that we impose our own patterns on. When I see people trying to simplify it down to "X is right and Y is wrong", in any situation, I know that I'm not dealing with a person who understands that, and is willing to try and work towards a bearable situation in an imperfect world.
Which isn't to say that you aren't going to sometimes have to deal with people who believe things that are utterly inimical to your own viewpoint, and neither of you is willing to move far enough from your own viewpoint to reach a compromise. How you deal with those situations is up to you, but you'll certainly find it a lot easier if you remember that you're dealing with two opposing viewpoints, feelings about the way the world should be, and not with divine statements of Good and Bad or Natural Laws.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-04 04:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-04 09:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-04 04:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-04 09:30 pm (UTC)I can recommend this one to you:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/091517961X/sr=8-2/qid=1144186197/ref=sr_1_2/104-5037349-6668716?%5Fencoding=UTF8
no subject
Date: 2006-04-04 05:21 pm (UTC)But isn't that an absolutist position in its own right? You didn't say "I believe that the world does not..." but "the world does not". Which puts you in an opposite, but equivalent, position to the people you're castigating…
no subject
Date: 2006-04-04 07:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-04 07:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-04 09:28 pm (UTC)So my statement that morality means "How people would like the world to be." isn't a moral statement in and of itself - it's just a definition of a word. Other people are, of course, free to say "No, that's not what morality is - morality is..." (and feel free to do so, as you obviously disagree with me that this is what morality is).
no subject
Date: 2006-04-04 06:09 pm (UTC)The objective, external world does not contain any in-built morality. But, the intersubjective world does; it needs us to work it out from the interactions between our own beliefs and those of the other subjects around us. perhaps a better way to put it is that morality is what arises from the fact of intersubjectivity; it is a key structural component of our cultural life.
I'm not sure that statistics or documents can ever be considered the deciding word on a moral judgement, because morality is about personal and social values and is therefore context-dependent. That doesn't make it intractable, only really bloody tricky.
Also, even when you're dealing with feelings about the way the world should be, some of those feelings may represent better values than others, and so there may be one outcome that is better than another with reference to such a broader context as to look Right, even if it's only right.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-04 09:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-04 09:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-04 10:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-04 10:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-05 11:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-04 11:22 pm (UTC)In the objective world, two airborne objects crashed at high speed into the side of two piles of steel and concrete. In the intersubjective world, the US was invaded and into the war on terror. Across everyone(who perceived it)'s subjective worlds, there were millions of different complexes of meaning of the event.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-05 07:07 pm (UTC)On 9/11 I think the issue here is how far there is an intersubjective element if we're talking about the US and Al Quaeda (sp?). Generalising somewhat, their respective worldviews, while sufficiently intersubjective amongst their respective cultural/social groups, are pretty much incommensurable and thereby not intersubjective/shared as far as I can see - those who the US government labels terrorists are martyr of a holy war as far as Al Quaeda is concerned.
Though meanings might be shared, they are also often contested.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-05 08:14 pm (UTC)Meanings come to be shared when subjects engage each other in dialogue, much of which is the process of contesting meaning itself. I don't take 'intersubjective' to mean 'agreed' by any means, I mean it just to refer to dialogue between subjects, which throws up both agreement and disagreement all the time.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-04 09:22 pm (UTC)But they can be strong influences, if one (for instance) believes that people should be punished rather than rehabilitated, then statistics showing that rehabilitation is more effective at cutting crime might changes ones view.
What do you mean by "better" in that sentence?
no subject
Date: 2006-04-04 11:10 pm (UTC)"what do you mean by 'better'..."
now that is tricky. 'better values than others'. values which include more other viewpoints, or a broader viewpoint, than other values. I think that gets it.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-04 07:51 pm (UTC)Unless they're me! Go me go me!
I think it's the responsibilty of everyone who holds to moral absolutes to either (a) Find reasoned debates not based on gut belief to support their faith, or (b) Shut the fuck up.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-04 09:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-04 09:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-04 09:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-04 11:50 pm (UTC)However, when you discover those with an "x is right, y is wrong" mentality, I think you cut them more slack than is deserved. Yes, the world is flawed, and yes, some dogmatic people are trying to find their way. But absolutes do nothing to find answers and the process closes doors to thought instead of opening them to be able to see out into the world. If a world view is so inflexible that any sort of argument is invalid--meaning that one cannot sway them with logic, emotion or even common sense--, then why bother speaking at all. Let them think what they want and walk quietly away.
Dogmatic people, while looking for a way to make this world managable, do little towards working for "a bearable situation in an imperfect world" because moral absolutism isn't about what is bearable. It's about what is rigidly and absolutely correct, and what or whom does that help, regardless of how pure and honest the intent?
no subject
Date: 2006-04-05 04:22 pm (UTC)I'm rusty on my philosophical history but I think *Kant defined morals categorically or absoulutely as you said. I think he called morals 'categorical imperatives'. Anyway one example he gave is that it is categorically 'wrong' to lie. If an angry mob wielding axes came asking where your child was because they were going to kill them and you knew your child was hiding up stairs and you lied and said you didn't know where he was, then the lie was immoral. He did _not_ say that you should tell the truth here, but to recognise that a lie is immoral (categorically or absolutely or whatever you call it). This is where it gets grey, I'm guessing he would say, that it would be expedient to be immoral, i.e lie.
Hmm.. I don't think I'm making sense, I guess what I'm saying is that people can still categorise things (lying, stealing, killing etc) as absolutely immoral acts in themselves but people can still apply their own judgements in any given situation. I'm guessing you are saying that stealing, killing etc are not immoral or moral until they are in context, for example killing someone for no reason is immoral, but killing someone who was about to kill you or someone else would be moral?
So with the statement: "Anyone who does X, for any reason, is wrong." I think Kant would say; " X is always immoral" but the immoral act may be the moral choice to make.
Although I can't see you having a problem with this type of thinking because the individual still applies their own judgement in every situation.
* if the ghost of Emanuel Kant is surfing the internet i apologise if i have grossly miss represented, i probably have
no subject
Date: 2006-04-05 11:43 pm (UTC)The others are intentionalist and consequentialist?
Long time since I read any philosophy, so I may be wrong...
no subject
Date: 2006-04-06 04:59 pm (UTC)Deontological ethics is a technical phrase which I haven't heard of, but from the little Greek I know deon means obligation or necessity so it sounds quite like Kant :)