Morality

[andrewducker]

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 Those you can show to be right or wrong - there are always statistics to quibble over, historical documents that may or may not be valid, interpretations of experiments to debate.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.

Comments

[spaj.livejournal.com]

Um... duh?

[andrewducker]

Well, yeah. But only if you've thought about it. I've been in too many arguments (even recently) where people haven't...

[robhu.livejournal.com]

I suspect you would enjoy reading the book in this review: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,1406746,00.html

[andrewducker]

By the looks of things it goes on rather too long for me, especially as I already know (fairly well) where I stand on the subject.

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

[adders.livejournal.com]

The world does not contain any in-built morality. It contains vast amounts of mess and chaos that we impose our own patterns on.

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…

[mirukux.livejournal.com]

it's a meta-ethical position, rather than an ethical stance itself, thus negatung and self-refutation stylee argument

[adders.livejournal.com]

It what possible way is his position "meta-ethical"? I can think of several positions that could be construed as such, but not this one.

[andrewducker]

It's an epistemological question - discussions of what the word "morality" means are not in themselves moral discussions.

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).

[freemoore.livejournal.com]

Remind me why you didn't like Ken Wilber's theories again, could you? I think you'd really appreciate some of the ideas in his books... It's not just this post that makes me think that, but it reminded me.

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.

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

"There are no moral phenomena at all, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena."

[andrewducker]

Absolutely. Where'd you nick that from?

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

It's Nietzsche

[andrewducker]

Aaah, I've long avoided Nietzsche, for no terribly good reason, except that his writing style seemed overly stylised and I didn't have positive associations with most people who quoted him. Is he worth reading, and if so, where is a good place to start?

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

Worth a look because he's influential. His style is a big part of it - style as substance, or vice-versa. His associations are part semi-conscious - wars will be fought over my ideas, or similar - and part people appropriating him in ways he probably wouldn't have approved. I'd suggest starting with the Walter Kaufmann 'Portable Nietzsche' for an overview and seeing what you like - I never went beyond 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' and 'Beyond Good and Evil'.

[freemoore.livejournal.com]

If morality belongs in the intersubjective world, the world of culture, then that quote is meaningless, I think. A moral phenomenon is a cultural event which by (that) definition of culture means that it's interpreted by all sides.

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.

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

As I understand it the quote is saying that the natural world is indifferent to man, who is the one who puts interpretations on things. For example, an earthquake just happens, but it is man who subjectively interprets it as - for example - a sign that the gods are angry (a moral interpretation of the phenomena) or the consequence of plate tectonics (an amoral interpretation of the phenomena).

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.

[freemoore.livejournal.com]

I think that a total disagreement between subjects is still an intersubjective event, just an extremely limited one. In that example, neither side appears particularly willing to enter dialogue with the other; that would require that both sides developed past a moral viewpoint which is centred on their own respective societies. Both cultures are complete enough on their own terms, but there are wider contexts in which both are active. If both continue to deny even some validity to the other, they will continue to clash. These clashes are the process of intersubjectivity.

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.

[andrewducker]

I'm not sure that statistics or documents can ever be considered the deciding word on a moral judgement,

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.

some of those feelings may represent better values than others

What do you mean by "better" in that sentence?

[freemoore.livejournal.com]

They can be strong influences, sure. I intend my point to be that if one were to see those statistics, it would depend on one's own values exactly what one made of them, e.g. 'damn ivory-tower academics, result of a patriarchal system designed to keep us all down the lot of them, those numbers mean nothing'. or 'man in white coat said so, therefore it's true'.

"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.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

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.

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.

[andrewducker]

I don't think you _actually_ hold to moral absolutes. In talking to you you seem to be kinda clinging on to the idea of moral absolutes, but also recognising that they are opinions - albeit opinions that feel much more 'right' than the opposing opinions.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

But some people do believe in moral absolutes - and to disallow them that right to an absolute world view is a kind of fascism of the soul, however much you believe in moral relativism..

[andrewducker]

I'm not disallowing people to believe anything they want to. I'm just saying that I think they're wrong. Should they wish to prove me wrong I'm perfectly persuadable. But I've been involved in that argument an awful lot, and it took an awful lot to persuade me there _weren't_ moral absolutes, so they'd better be pretty damn convincing.

[awdrey-gore.livejournal.com]

Wow... I'm not so sure about the "fascism of the soul" comment above, but as someone who struggles with her own moral absolutism, I find it very easy to deal with people who are less adamant--I shut up. The thing about having iron clad moral opinions is that more often than not, those who have them proslytize to a degree that make reasonable discussion impossible. Having escaped the Southern Baptist approach to morality and the real soul damage that being trapped among the inflexibly adamant creates, I struggle not to be dogmatic in my own life.

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?

[neriedes.livejournal.com]

In my experience people have defined morality as an act or as a consequence of an act.
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

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

IIRC Kant's position is deontological ethics?

The others are intentionalist and consequentialist?

Long time since I read any philosophy, so I may be wrong...

[neriedes.livejournal.com]

yes the others are intentionalist and consequentialist.

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 :)